Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why Were the NH Polls So Wrong? What Will Happen Next?

Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 7:37 AM on January 9, 2008.


If a late display of emotion and the media pile-on it triggered helped Clinton over the finish line in New Hampshire, it isn't a repeatable formula.
snevadaculinaryunionlarge
Obama sad

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Delegate count now Obama: 25, Clinton: 24, Edwards: 18.

Next up: Nevada. Obama gets the state SEIU endorsement (which looks like it was a bit of a chaotic affair); the union has 17,500 members. He also picked up the endorsement of the 60,000 member culinary workers. Since the Nevada Democratic party is anticipating that 40,000 people will take part in the caucus (though Harry Reid says it could be as high as 100,000), it certainly bodes well for Obama in the state.

As Mike Lux notes, the momentum is still with Obama but Edwards becomes a kingmaker:

Edwards is dead as a Presidential prospect for 2008, but if this becomes a long, drawn out, fairly evenly-divided fight, and Edwards stays in and keeps drawing around 20% everywhere he goes, he could be the guy who decides the nominee. I could easily see this playing out where Obama wins a bunch of states and Clinton wins a bunch, and they both end up with about 40% of the delegates, and Edwards keeps playing to the end of the primary process and then delivers his 20% to one of them. Could make things interesting right up to convention day.

The reports of life in the Clinton campaign may be premature. If in fact a late display of emotion and the media pile-on it triggered helped Clinton over the finish line in New Hampshire, it isn't a repeatable formula. She needs to retool her messaging. And in the name of all that is holy, get those sleezebag surrogates off the televison set. Just when you think you may feel some sympathy for her again, one after another slimes across your set looking like they've either just come from selling smack on 6th and Bonnie Brae (Jay Carson) or they want to know how they can get you in a Le Sabre today (Terry McAuliffe).

I know Mark Penn has a penchant for manufacturing polling to meet what he already believes, but they got their asses handed to them that way in Iowa. Run a Q Score on these guys before you cut them loose again. It has to be sub-arctic.

Sullivan speculates that the reason the polling was so off yesterday is because of the "Bradley Effect," where white voters say one thing to pollsters and then do another in the voting booth. He posits that since the Iowa caucus votes were cast in public and the New Hampshire ballots were private, it may have had something to do with the ability to accurately poll the race. But Pollster had a standard estimate for Obama of 36.7% going into last night, and he wound up with 37%. So the Obama polling was accurate...it was everything else that was off.

****

Why were all the New Hampshire polls so utterly wrong? How did Clinton overcome such a huge deficit in the polls in one day?

Chris Bowers peculates:

This almost never happens. Here are some possible reasons:

* A last minute swing toward Clinton, as mentioned above.
* Clinton had a superior, momentum-proof, absentee voting program.
* Bad poll weighting. I wonder if pollsters were weighing down samples of women and Democrats in their surveys, both of which saw increased from 2004.
* Return of the lying white voter?

It is probably a combination of reasons.

In Iowa, exit polling said that women comprised 57% of Democratic voters, and went 30% for Clinton, 35% Obama, 23% Edwards. In New Hampshire they were likewise 57% of the vote, but it fell 47% for Clinton, 34% for Obama, 14% for Edwards.

Voters who said they made up their mind either today or in the past 3 days -- 38%.

There could be many explanations for this, but Obama held his women voters -- Clinton took them from Edwards. Did his pivot against her during the last debate and his comments yesterday contribute to what happened?

Discuss.

Update: Some blame Chris Matthews for Hillary's victory

Rachel Maddow just told Chris Matthews that TPM is blaming him as the personification of all the sexist crap Hillary Clinton has to take from the media (works for us), and the reason women came back to Hillary tonight after going for Obama in Iowa (exit polls say 47% for Clinton, 34% Obama).

Tweety was gobsmacked.

I think Atrios gets the final word:

Chris Matthews: LEAVE JOHN MCCAIN ALOOOOOONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Digg!

Tagged as: democrats, clinton, obama, edwards, matthews, new hampshire

Jane Hamsher is the founder of FireDogLake. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
As long as you're listing possibilities...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 9, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fraudulent voting systems controlled by Republican interests swinging the election to the candidate they feel most likely to beat.

Why isn't anyone talking about this?

"Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire"

"Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Could it be another example of ''Diebold" like interference???
Posted by: neilemac on Jan 9, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the fact that Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, etc being denied participation on a 'national broadcaster's 'primary' debate like ABC has done, how can we expect an informed decision from the people.

What voting mechanism was set up for the vote in NH? I get an uneasy feeling that something as diabolical as 'Diebold's influence and preference has delivered the so-called ballot count.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THEY WERE WRONG FOR MANY REASONS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 9, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People have no obligation to divulge their voting intentions to anyone. Voting is private. That's why EXIT polls are very close to 100% accurate. The deed's been done. Demanding that they get it right won't help. All polling and political commentary should stop on election day until all the polls close. It's campaigning no matter what we call it. It's the reason why many people don't bother to vote. They feel that they already know who won. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Egg on a lot of faces?
Posted by: Sissy on Jan 9, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I started watching MSNBC before the polls were closed and what a hoot that turned out to be. Every one of the pundits, i.e., Tom Browkow, Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, etc., were "wondering if the final vote for Obama would be in double digits over Hillary?" There wasn't one single word of caution from any quarter. The field reporters were talking about "huge shakeup" in the campaign.

I think in the future if there was absolutely no reporting until the polls closed that it might be a little better, don't you think? I know it has improved some since the "big three" networks stopped predicting before polls even closed, but good grief, this was unbelievable this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go AGAIN!
Posted by: TarryFaster on Jan 9, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We keep ignoring THIS MAJOR PROBLEM with our voting processes: Click here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go AGAIN! Posted by: westiedogs2
» RE: Here we go AGAIN! Posted by: Lauren
Well, At Least We Know Hillary Will Play As Dirty As Bush
Posted by: rgoalierob on Jan 9, 2008 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you subtract the gains Hillary made by machine counted votes and add the losses of Obama to machine counted votes, you come up with a double digit (or very near double digit) Obama win.
The system is fundamentally broken.
P.S. I'd also like to know if Hillary or her brokers have ties with Diebold.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

next president
Posted by: Dianka on Jan 9, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My view: Bush has so badly damaged the Republicans that their best hope is for a Democrat who will solidly support the Republican agenda. Putting another Repub in office would be too blatant of a theft of the presidency at this point, and there is at least the possibility that this could cause some public disturbances and lost productivity. H. Clinton's record has clearly and consistently established that she will support a solidly right-wing corporate agenda, and it is in the best interests of corporations at this point to put H. Clinton into the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because the Iowa Caucuses are not representative
Posted by: Midwest transplant on Jan 9, 2008 6:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Born in Iowa-actually once attended an Iowa Caucus, I can tell you that the media distortion of these proceedings has warped the public perceptions of the race. I will bet that a primary vote in Iowa would have produced significantly different results. The caucuses tend to favor what has become known as "base' voters, that is ideologues or activists.

But, I don't see the IA caucuses going away soon. Much like the Nebraska Unicameral, in my other midwest former home, "they are ours and they make us unique and give a a small touch of power once in a while.' Who wants to give that up? I am not at all surprised by New Hampshire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crying shame
Posted by: Kuressaare on Jan 9, 2008 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not being there or knowing all the "players", my old view from experience, is JFK and the"Catholic" issue in 1962. He got in, but no thanks to the typical bigots, and I hope THIS time someone will tell people who are black and still downtrodden that they have the power on their side to end all this guff,
finally. Just get out and VOTE. I see them called a deeply religious community, yes and no, but you canNOT leave this to God, it's well-meaning people of all races and THE BLACK PEOPLE WITH THEM, SEE THE NUMBERS. I feel so sorry for Obama, that photo,elOquent, and at the same time really murderous. That woman had no trouble backing bushe's utter mad wants and decimating the U.S. constitution more than Hitler did the Weimar one. She approved all that crap nullifying habaeus corpus and a lot more than that. TORTURE. What country is that? PLEASE NOTE. THE PREVIOUS GOVERNOR GENERAL OF CANADA WAS A HAKKA BORN CHINESE LADY OF BRILLIANT INTELLIGENCE, AND THE GOVERNER GENERAL IS THE QUEEN (OR KING) OF CANADA IN EVERY WAY EXCEPT IN NAME, (FOR HOW LONG). THE NEW GOVERNOR GENERAL IS THE MOST BRILLIANT AND CHARMING AND LOVELIEST HAITIAN BORN LADY. WE ARE ALL RIGHT NEXT TO YOU, JUST NORTH OF THE BORDER, AND THAT IS HOW WE DO THINGS. THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IS THE HEAD OF STATE, NOT THE PRIME MINISTER, HE CAN BE VOTED OUT TOMORROW (I WISH), NOR IS THE GOVERNOR GENERAL ON THE LEVEL WITH A U.S. SECETARY OF STATE, SORRY, IF YOU THINK THAT ONE IS BECOMING A "TOKEN" BLACK OFFERING IN THAT SET UP. AS THEY SAY IN IRELAND, GOD GIVE YOU SENSE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]