Polls and New Hampshire

Polling is becoming an amazingly accurate science. The Rasmussen exit polls in New Hampshire were within 1-2% of the actual final numbers for all the candidates… except two. Hillary and Obama. The exit polls there were off by 10%, and some polling companies had those two wrong by up to 15%. Rasmussen predicted an Obama win by 7% that ended up being a Hillary win by 3%. It’s very revealing what this major polling discrepancy says about human nature and the conflict between what we secretly want for ourselves and how we’d like others to see us.

The fact that the polls were amiss in only the match-up between the Bitchcunt Queen of Cuntery and the guy who has an interesting Kenyan family connection that includes a Stanford educated half-brother he cut out of his life and a polygamous father the mainstream media don’t want to talk about suggests that it was not the polling science at fault but the answers given by the polled voters.

Basically, people lied.

But why? I have a couple theories.

• A bunch of guilty white liberals getting hard ons from flagellating themselves before the High PC Priests lied to the pollsters about voting for Obama when they had voted for Her Holy Cuntiness. They said what they thought polite company wanted to hear (and probably what they themselves wanted to believe).

The problem with this theory is that white males voted for Obama over Hillary by almost the same wide margin that white women voted for Hillary over Obama. If it was solely the case of a bunch of closeted liberal racists getting cold feet at the last second, then we would see more white males joining the Hillary camp.

• Aging white women flocked to Her Raging Id of Misandry not because she’s white, but because she’s a woman they could relate to. And a woman that is publicly reviled by the majority of men, including a lot of these women’s husbands and male family members. Women being what they are, they didn’t want to be seen in public as crassly voting based on gender, so they voted for the Galactic OverCunt in stealth.

I like the second theory better. Middle-aged dumpy hausfraus came out in force for the Ballcutting Cuntbag of Desiccated DykeCunts because they understood that a Hillary presidency would serve their interests.

Maxim #328: Underneath the veneer of civilized discourse we act in ways that are brazenly self-interested in the short term.

Addendum #328a: Seeking short term status is a matter of self-interest.

Washed up white women were propelled toward Hillary emotionally as well as calculatingly. While a Commander in Cunt would surely be a net negative for men (and Camille Paglia agrees with me) and a net positive for women in matters of policy, it was Hillary’s focus group-tested crocodile tears that sealed the deal. Women past their sexual prime felt Hillary’s pain. That moment of faux emotion was like a lighthouse beam beckoning them to shore. In evolutionary terms, people tolerate the suffering of a woman a lot less than the suffering of a man, and the beating Hillary was taking by the press up until the primary endeared her to her natural constituency. If Hillary were fertile-age and attractive, more men would have rallied to her side as well. But because she is long past hitting the wall, men did not feel the pull of chivalry like they normally do to an attractive woman in distress.

Hillary’s choking up before the cameras, fake or real, produced a rallying effect that would never work for a man. Any male candidate who got misty-eyed when asked about the toughness of campaigning would have paid a price at the polls as men, and women!, rightly pegged him as a pantywaist unworthy of leading a nation.

Well played, Hillary, well played.

Did she bring James Carville on board?