Can someone please explain why the pollsters got it wrong? New Hampshire was a limited area with a clear choice so should have been easy to sample. The margin of error was enormous.

P.G.Humphreys, Gosport, UK

It shouldn't have fooled anyone.
What you have to remember is the fact that Iowa isn't an election, it's a caucus. It's set up in such a way that it's impossible for more than a few political junkies to take part. As an indication of public opinion, it's useless.
New Hampshire also has a difference from other state primaries. In most states, only registered Democrats and registered Republicans can vote in their party's primary. New Hampshire is one of the few states where Independants can vote for party nominees. They did, for Obama. If they didn't give him a victory, he has very little chance in a real contest.

Jeffrey Smith, Toledo, Ohio/USA

The media seem to have a need to annoint a candidate long before 95% or so of us have had a chance to vote. This rush to judgement forgets how atypical the states of Iowa and NH are: very white and rural. What works there may or may not work in California and other states with home prices falling, and with Michigan and other states with high unemployment.
I think US voters want change, especially from Bush's foreign policies in Iraq. But voters are also worried about someone who needs "on the job training". I am very happy that voters are energized, the caucuses in Iowa and the primary in NH have set records for turnout. This will be a very important election.

Lorraine Kelly, Cambridge, Mass, USA

I have to say that this great for Democracy in America when women and young adult make their voices heard. Still, Americans turnout are the lowest in any of the democratic country.

Basically, the American voter turn has been stagnate since the Kennedy and Nixon election rising or falling around 55-60 percent. In 2004, there was a slight increase in voter turnout but the young voters were represented poorly - a choicing of their own - I am shamed to be a political science student studing how citizens my age are uninterested in the most important thing in America - our representative government.

But if the primaries and caucuses turnout continue to be what they have been in Iowa and New Hampshire - we may have a great year for American civil participation and finally a president that would be elected by the largest turnout in about a century. Thet may also have more legitimacy as well if a large section of electorate turnout in the presidential election.

Naleen, Northern California,

I'm not sure I believe the hype around Obama. Journalists are humans, and humans like to be part of a herd responding to the "feel good" factor (the technical term would be "momentum"). But they haven't been objective. Stay long enough in a Spice Girls concert and you will become a fan, but it doesn't mean you don't need exorcism, and it doesn't mean their music is any good. The arguments for Obama, especially the ones made by Andrew Sullivan in The Sunday Times are basically superficial: Obama is a fresh face, new look for USA, etc. He attracts the Anyone-But-Hillary Democrats, who are now coming out of the woodwork and sucking the life out of the campaign of John Edwards, who is going to be the ultimate queen/king-maker. Watch out for who (Clinton/Obama) can win Edwards' endorsement come Super Tuesday, (in exchange for the VP?)

Elaine, Egham,

Trying to predict the votes is as stupid today and is was 4 years ago. Follow the money. Whoever has the most money wins. Obama may get a win or two but Clinton gets the nomination. Call me in November to congratulate my perspicacity.

conchscooter, key west, usa/Florida

One only has to remember Neil Kinnock's rejection by the UK electorate to see that even in a society that likes winners the combination of Obama'a premature triumphalism and the novel spectre Clinton's humility was likely to cause an upset.

Fred Keeling, Almunecar, Spain

Only yesterday I read one of your stories saying that America was more likely to vote for a black person rather than a woman explaining that there was a strong streak of misogyny in the American psyche!
What happened? Seems it is pointless to make predictions until the last ball has been bowled!

LAKSHMAN PARDHANANI, Goa, India

I am a resident of New Hampshire and a registered democrat with some inside knowledge of the campaign process here as a close relative of mine has been an ardent democratic campaign worker for years. I think New Hampshire in particular is as good an early litmus test for the national election as you will find in that 40 percent of the populace is independent and allowed to vote in either primary for their favorite candidate. The state is fairly evenly divided into urban, suburban and quite rural sectors. Strong early suport for H. Clinton here focused on her association with the successful Clinton political machine of the 90's in contrast to the Bush admin. failures. Obama has been skillfully riding a wave of anti-government sentiment pinning the recent spate of U.S. domestic and foreign policy failures on everyone in Washington. I believe that the voters of NH have asked the party to step back and examine what Obama will do before appointing him to lead the charge to clean up Was. DC

Gregory, Londonderry, United States

The American media love a close horse race ;and large
portions of the American electorate,like the independents who
are anti-establishment,and Republicans supporting Obama
to spoil Hillary Clinton's chances,are politically fickle.
This is a combustible combination for contemporary politics.
Hillary Clinton is supposed to be a polarizing figure.This press portrait will continue.,until someone has the good sense to ask
about any contemporary political figure of either party who has not been ,or is not.. Ill -informed and contemptuous bloggers
add another element of insanity to the mix.,as do all of the
incessant untrustable polls.
So,I do not expect any nomination to be sewn up until the
conventions start,and the horse trading has to be
finalized.
We however know enough to reasonably estimate that one of
2 candidates,Hillary Clinton or Barack O'Bama,will be the next
Democratic nominee.They are both products of the elite
establishment ,embodying change in their own way.

Neville Layne., jackson heights, new york.

One interesting observation was made by a pollster last night from the exit data. Quite a few supporters of the Edwards campaign abandoned him and voted for Hillary Clinton once the public perceived it as a two horse race. It certainly explains how she overtook Obama. Still it must be shocking to Obama and the pudits. Everybody thought those voters would go to Obama rather than Clinton.

Daedalus, Boston, Ma., USA

Since the New Hampshire poll predictions were so obviously wrong, one can only conclude that people lie to pollsters -- or else they change their mind within minutes or hours.

The Clintons' arrogance of being "inevitable" is a hugh turn-off. It is also a turn-off to know that it is not Hillary only that people are voting for, but a husband-and-wife team with Bill's fingers firmly on the puppet strings. For the first time, I've understood why people hate the Clintons -- it is because of their bullying arrogance.

The real winner in these primaries seems to be the American electoral system. It really DOES give the people a voice and a chance to express themselves. I have never seen democracy so powerfully in action. It restores my faith in the United States after the tragedy and disgrace of the Bush encumbency.

What we need now is an Obama presidency to heal and unify this great nation. All power to the American people!

John, Cape Town, South Africa

The caucus and primary systems in the first two small states can seem a bit odd, but they certainly can result in exciting races! Interesting and dramatic results on both sides.

Jill, Pittsburgh, PA, USA