We Need Exit Polls

As a follow-up to my previous post, I want to address the wrong analysis that most of the pundits are making. Keith Olberman and many others are stating erroneously that the polls were wrong because the actual results in NH were on target with the exception of Hillary. They attribute this discrepency to the fact that there were many undecided voters who voted for Hillary because of her emotional response on Monday. The fact that she was the only one who got any bump and the others did not lose a percentage points is strange. Since each candidate that gains percentage points should come from the points from other candidates, the results should have reflected a reduction in percentages from the other candidates. Voter percentage should be a zero sum game. Given that the other candidates did not lose any percentage points in the actual results, they kept their solid voters. Please explain how this could happen mathematically.

If everyone other than Hillary did not lose any points, where did her increase come from? It had to be from the undecided votes right? Wrong. Mathematically all the undecided votes would mostly have had to go to Hillary. Do you think that is possible? The fact that all the other candidates suffered no percentage loss leads to the opposite conclusion that the polls were wrong because of the undecided vote and the larger turnout.

All of this is theoretical unless we get the exit polls. There must be a reason that the networks have not disclosed the details.