The polls blow it
How could Hillary Clinton so throughly confound the polls by edging Barack Obama in New Hampshire?
Remember, nearly every poll had her losing, some by double digits and by all indications, even she believed them.
Some possible answers:
New Hampshire voters seemed to be torn on their choice from day one, and some may have changed thier minds at the last minute.
The Republican Lazarus in this election, John McCain, drew some of the independents that may otherwise have supported Obama.
Clinton's message resonated more strongly with female voters in Hampshire than it did in Iowa, where Obama captured more female votes.
However, I'm not buying the "Teary Moment Theory." It was overblown and overexposed.
I do buy the theory that black candidates tend to underperform in elections versus their showings in polls.
It seems some white voters who say they will support an African American candidate to pollsters say something different when they actually cast their ballots.
It happened to Harvey Gantt in North Carolina.
The Pew Research Center observed in a February 2007 artiicle on Obama and polls:
"Problems with pre-election polls in several high-profile biracial elections in the 1980s and early 1990s raised the question of whether covert racism remained an impediment to black candidates. White candidates in most of these races generally did better on Election Day than they were doing in the polls, while their black opponents tended to end up with about the same level of support as the polls indicated they had.
"This phenomenon was first noticed in the 1982 race for governor of California, where Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black Democrat, narrowly lost to Republican George Deukmejian, despite polls showing him with a lead ranging from 9 to 22 points. The next year, African American Democrat Harold Washington barely won his race for mayor of Chicago against Republican Bernard Epton. Pre-election polls taken within the last two weeks of the campaign showed Washington with a 14-point lead.
"Three highly visible races in 1989 and 1990 also followed this pattern, though in two instances at least one late poll signaled a close race. Virginia Democrat and African American Douglas Wilder edged white Republican Marshall Coleman by less than one percentage point to become the nation's first elected black governor. But two of three polls conducted just days before the election showed Wilder leading by double-digits; a third poll had him 4 points ahead.
"Even an exit poll conducted on Election Day showed Wilder winning by 10 points, while accurately tallying the vote in the other two statewide races. Unlike most exit polls that use an anonymous written ballot to collect voters' responses, this one had interviewers asking voters face-to-face how they voted, a situation that might increase the pressure to provide a socially desirable response."
In his 1990 loss against Jesse Helms for U.S. Senate, two of three polls in North Carolina had Gantt in the lead.
Comments (12)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Allen, I find it hard to explain how or why this happened. I heard the theories during the news coverage last night.
When I watched the debate last night, I thought Hillary would be viewed very negatively, but I also felt that Obama did not appear to be a great debater. He is outstanding on the stump, but his debating skills are limited.
In retrospect, I wonder if the way Hillary carried herself on Saturday night, because of cultural differences, was actually viewed in a positive manner by the people of New Hampshire; and I also wonder whether Obama's performance hurt him.
I also wonder whether the Clintonites talking about the experience factor resonated with voters.
Posted on January 9, 2008 11:13 AM
Those could be factors, Joe, although his debating skills were the same in New Hampshire as they were in Iowa.
Posted on January 9, 2008 11:51 AM
Allen:
What's really surprising is that the exit polls also appeared to give Obama the edge.
More theories are available at http://thepage.time.com/theories-to-explain-clintons-nh-polling-behind-obama/ and http://www.slate.com/id/2181118 .
Posted on January 9, 2008 12:13 PM
I like "the Lazio effect", Dave. There are so many theories, and they will be so difficult to measure retrospectively, that I suppose it will be hard to know for sure.
Posted on January 9, 2008 1:19 PM
I am glad this happen. No not because Hilliary won, she and John McCain are the last two people I would want as president! Mostly because I get tried of hearing about polls. I was raised to tell the truth, and I feel I do a great job of it. However when it comes to golf, fishing and answering poll questions, I have been know to fib some.
Posted on January 9, 2008 3:33 PM
But definitely not on blogs, I hope.
Posted on January 9, 2008 3:35 PM
The black phantom vote phonemonon is real, but it's a subcategory of the liberal phantom vote phenomenon. Almost always, voters are afraid to publicly identify themselves with the more conservative candidate (because the mainstream media has brainwashed people into thinking of conservatives as evil, heartless folk). (As a Big Media mogul, Allen can explain how and why this is done.)
Exit polls also elected Bowles and Kerry, if you recall. People are so cowed by the left wing mind control experts that they'll say anything to avoid being publicly shamed. And with those suspicious-looking moveon.org operatives skulking around the poll sites, it's probably the safest thing.
Personally, I'd vote for Obama over Clinton any day, and he's the Democratic candidate least likely to make me puke since Paul Tsongas. But there's no doubt he was the media darling--the candidate you were supposed to vote for if you were a truly enlightened kind of person. But in secret, people aren't as enlightened as they pretend to be.
Another explanation--and this theory gains support with McCain's parallel win--is that New Hampshire voters are simply unfit for democracy.
Posted on January 10, 2008 12:21 AM
Polls are pretty much useless. When the results reflect the poll results, we say, "Well, they worked." When they don't we say, "Gee, what happened?"
Pay attention to the final vote tally, it's all that matters.
Posted on January 10, 2008 12:05 PM
Never thought I'd agree with jaycee.
Polls are interesting only if they focus on ideas or issues, not on the candidate name. Even then, they only provide a momentary snapshot of how that particular group (whom we can, though, effectively categorize in various ways) feels about what is most on their minds or their gut feelings...they cannot be reliable predictors, as contingencies arise and change people's preferences depending on how adeptly a politician can reframe an issue or rebrand their image and get it across.
Posted on January 10, 2008 12:23 PM
Obama is dead . Hillarys crying episode was almost as good as her husbands acting. It runs in the family apparently.
The great hope for change that we all must now have is for Erik Huey to get elected to the Guilford County school board.
http://www.hueyforguilfordschoolboard.org/
Go there and read NEWS!
Posted on January 10, 2008 10:52 PM
Interesting situation last night in Michigan...when given the choice of voting for Hillary or "anybody else" only 55% voted for Hillary.
Posted on January 16, 2008 10:45 AM
I'm looking forward to how things shake out in South Carolina. That state ought to tell us a lot among the Democrats and the GOP.
Posted on January 16, 2008 12:11 PM