1) The pundits were wrong. Zogby had it down to a 2-point race the day before the primary. There was a 15-point shift in the two days prior to the primary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/polling-the-new-hampshire_b_80657.htmlRasmussen and another pollster or two have come out with preliminary info that is similar, and I suspect that we'll see more of that in the next few days. It only looked like a big win for Obama because the polls were using three- and five-day rolling averages. Even with the averages, Suffolk had it at only five points. Not exactly a landslide. MSNBC said that one poll had shown it as a one-point race, but I haven't located that one.
As we've already discussed a bit, I think they just ran out of time. Their polls couldn't reflect the change that was occurring because they were three day or five day averages, and the change largely occurred in a day or day and a half.
2) I haven't heard any pundits indicate that the exit polls were off. The first exit polls I saw showed it as a 38/38 tie, and as more exit polls came in, it shifted slightly to 39/37 Clinton. I don't really see any reason to think that they were fabricated.
3) It's very possible that turnout was underestimated. I'm not sure that proves anything, though, other than that the polling might not have accounted for it and was, thus, inaccurate.
4) There were a lot of undecideds, and they were being largely ignored by the media and by most of us on DU. In addition, the margin of error in the polls was being largely ignored, as well. A 6-point lead doesn't really mean much if there's a 6-point MOE.
5) We covered late polling. ;)
6) Very possible. Turnout is very important.
7) True.
8) In addition, more Independents went to Hillary than many expected. Obama won Independents 41-31. Hillary won Democrats 45-34. Independents might have also thought Obama was going to win without their votes, so they felt free to vote for McCain in larger numbers.
9) Not sure I'd agree with that, considering the huge turnout and large Dem vs. Rep advantage.
10) Covered that
11) No one really knows, but it's certainly possible.
Personally, here's what I think are the most likely scenarios:
I think that the polls underestimated turnout. They almost certainly underestimated the gender gap (57% of Dem voters were women). They probably overestimated the Independent vote for Obama, combined with a better showing by McCain, which also would have drawn Independent support from Obama.
I also think that the Obama "surge" post-Iowa was probably overstated. He gained momentum, no doubt, but I think everyone overestimated it. The recovery by Hillary in the final couple days was largely hidden by the rolling averages that most of the polling companies used.
Lastly, I'd like to apologize for being kind of sarcastic in some of my prior responses. I've been responding in a few "it must be fraud" threads, and I think that carried over into this thread. Your summary is a good one - just don't let the pundits convince you of anything that may not really be there! :)
Edit: fixed link