Posted on 01/09/2008 10:20:01 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Blame bad timing and bad media practices for the surprise in the New Hampshire primary on the Democratic side, two political watchers say.
Hillary Clinton's popularity resurged quickly after her defeat in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucus, so it was difficult to measure in the four days running up to Tuesday, said Dick Bennett, president of American Research Group, based in Manchester, New Hampshire.
ARG's final results prior to the primary put Barack Obama ahead by 9 percentage points. Similar results were predicted by pollsters Reuters/C-Span/Zogby, Rasmussen, CNN/WMUR/UNH, Marist and CBS News.
Bennett says Clinton, who won the primary with 39 percent of the vote compared to 37 percent for Obama (with 96 percent of precincts counted), got a surge of support as a result of her witty response to a question about her "likability" compared to Obama from co-moderator Scott Spradling of WMUR-TV during a televised ABC News/Facebook Democratic candidates debate on Saturday. Her "teary" response to a campaign stress question during a Monday stop in Portsmouth, NH, also didn't hurt.
Timing problem
Bennett had 30 staffers making phone calls the day before the primary. ARG was one of the few polling groups to see Clinton trending up among voters in the days between Iowa and New Hampsure, but "we didn't know the extent of it."
"The 'emotional moment' thing was played extensively, and it was played negatively. And they played it a lot. And everybody saw it and it rallied women, and she went back to where she was in the middle of December. She wasn't breaking any new ground. They left her because of Iowa. It was a timing thing," Bennett said.
The "emotional moment" story had an impact and was reported the night before the primary, he said. "We were in the field for [only] three hours after the story broke. That's not a polling problem, that's a timing problem," he said.
Bigger polling problems
The larger problem with many of today's political pollsters is that surveys are conducted in affiliation with media organizations, said Shawn Parry-Giles, a political communications professor at the University of Maryland who camped out in New Hampshire prior to the primary to make observations.
"Media aren't going to be self-reflexive about their poll," Parry-Giles said. "The journalists themselves just bought into the fact that [Obama] was so far ahead and it was inevitable. I was stunned by the coverage."
The media should stop treating polls as if they are factual information, she said.
"This is about what the voters say and do, and media has to be very careful about how they frame the polls," Parry-Giles told LiveScience.
One poll by CNN/WMUR/UNH on the anticipated results in New Hampshire had a relatively small sample size (which cripples a survey's accuracy) and a fairly large margin of error, but it was reported as accurate and went unquestioned, she said.
Other factors
An additional factor: New Hampshire voters pride themselves on being contrary.
"As you go from event to event, voters talked about 'how we're going to set our own trend. The country is going to follow New Hampshire, not Iowa,'" Parry-Giles said.
In general, voters trust polls too much, Bennett said.
"We've fallen into the trap that a poll, which relies on linear math, can explain a very complex system," he said. "And it can't, but we're lucky that we can get close enough."
Iron my Shirt.
maybe they only polled voters from NH
but allowed voters from anywhere...
A NH resident I work with said when he went to vote, the line for new registrations went way out the door.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071127/D8T5T4L00.html
New Hampshire allows same-day registration at the polls, has no minimum residency period and defines a voter’s home as the place where he or she sleeps most nights or intends to return after a temporary absence. The state, not the parties, runs the primary, and changes to residency laws have been hotly contested.
This year, New Hampshire Democrats pushed through a change that some Republicans contend would enable campaigns to bus in people who could cast a ballot and then vote again in their real home states.
“You can vote in New Hampshire without being a resident,” said Republican state Sen. Bob Clegg. “You can vote in the primary because you someday may want to live here.”
Democratic state Sen. Peter Burling calls such arguments “part of the campaign of fear to restrict people’s right to vote.”
David Scanlan, New Hampshire’s deputy secretary of state, acknowledged the law is ambiguous about prohibiting people from voting in more than one state. But he insisted there are no widespread problems.
“Everybody has the right to vote somewhere,” he said. “The question is where that place is.”
Scam city!
Good. Makes things a bit more interesting on election days.
Remember when exit polls predicted a Kerry landslide in 2004? I took it with a grain of salt and took a nap. When I got up, Bush had won. :-)
... or maybe pollsters lie.
Hillary said she represents the “invisible people”.She forgot to mention two of the Clintons most dependable constituencies; the dead voters and the virtual voters.
I hope we don't end up with HRC in the White House due to the complete stupidity of things like the "Iron my Shirt" signs. Women do not find that funny and the guys who do such things are playing for the other team. I despise Hillary but can see how these signs gained her some undecideds.
“part of the campaign of fear to restrict people’s right to vote.”
or as they say in Chicago
“vote early and often”
I just noted the Iron my Shirt thing for the simple reason we are seeing ‘experts’ attribute Clinton winning to other, minor incidents that might - or might not - have upset female voters.
Polls are cooked numbers.
There are many problems inherent with any poll. The reason polls are so often wrong is because polls are so often bad.
A good poll has to ask the right questions, in the right manner, at the right time, to the right people and the results have to be interpreted correctly. Not a simple thing to do.
In a word, polls suck.
jw
People do not understand the reasons that the media use polls. The don’t use polls to report what the public is thinking, that would not suit their agenda.
The media use polls for two reasons:
1) To manufacture a news event and help fill the newsprint/air time.
2) To manipulate public opinion. People naturally want to be in synch with the crowd, if they are told that Americans want x, they will want x as well. Not too many contrarians out there.
Spin from the masters themselves, pollsters. The cry or Iron my shirt doesn’t explain a 16 point swing in one day.
First I’ve heard of this. What is the “Iron my Shirt thing” and why would it help HRC win?
So women are stupid? A tear and an Oprah moment and you get their vote?
I never knew that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.