Why Were The NH Polls Wrong?
January 9th, 2008 at 08:42pm Matt Margolis
Polls pretty much predicted the results of last nights GOP primary, but polls were showing another blowout victory for Obama. So, what happened?
A local radio host predicted after Iowa that Obama wouldn’t do as well in New Hampshire. Why? Because New Hampshire had a primary, not a caucus… and in a caucus, the selection process is not secret ballot… Democrats, ever so mindful of race, really, really want to support a black candidate — even though their view of our country tells them that Obama can’t possibly be elected — still, it makes them feel good about themselves to say they are backing the minority candidate, be it during a caucus, or while being polled on the phone… But when push comes to shove, or when it comes to pulling that lever in the privacy of their own voting booth, they are more inclined to vote for the candidate that they think really has a chance to win.
Was that a factor? Or was Hillary’s teary-eyed display actually helpful to getting women to push her back on top?
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Richardson is out
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Kossacks think that Diebold stole the election for Hillary.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
17 Comments
1. Ricorun | January 9th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I doubt it is any one thing. Both of the factors Matt suggests, and perhaps more, were probably in play. For example, the perception that the MSM was ganging up on her might have been a factor as well. It’s hard to tell at this point.
At any rate, while I admit that I personally would not have shed any tears if the NH voters pounded a big huge nail in Hillary’s political coffin, on a more objective level the fact that they didn’t is probably good for the whole process. In fact, the results in NH served to keep most of the balls (figuratively speaking of course) on both sides in play. So in the end I’m very glad things worked out the way they did. IMO, it’s too early to make a definitive decision.
2. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Clinton bussed in thousands of voters from all over the east coast. Thats why.
And it was 100% legal. So long as they don’t also vote someplace else. But, how would we even find that out?
3. phnx | January 9th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Luntz explained how her teary eyed talk helped Hillary. He said that when the first 20 seconds of the video was tested with single women or those over 50, their opinion of Hillary turned favorable. However their opinion turned negative when the later section of the video was shown when she turned negative on Obama.
His point was that the news media focused on the first 20 seconds and never showed the attack on Obama. So intentional or not, the news media put her over the top. Without that video clip, or if the clip had been shown in its entirety she would have lost.
Media Bias against Obama? We will never know.
4. Huck Fillary | January 10th, 2008 at 4:26 am
I hear there was a disparity between the results from paper ballots and those from voting machines. So the fix must be in–the GOP rigged the machines so Ms. Clinton would win, because they feel they have a better chance against her than against Obama, who was a coke-snortin’ pot smoker.
///removes tin-foil hat///
5. John Ryan | January 10th, 2008 at 8:25 am
The scene in the diner humanized her.
Women like her !!
Mark doesn’t !
6. Rana Quijotesca | January 10th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Kahn,
Do you have any proof for your comments, or are you just pulling that out of nowhere?
7. InDaVa | January 10th, 2008 at 10:31 am
“And it was 100% legal.”
So what are you whining about?
8. neocon | January 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Rana,
Do you know who Frank Luntz is? If you followed something other than left wing drivel, you might have heard of him.
That’s who Kahn was referencing.
9. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I wasn’t whining. I was explaining. This is the kind of “positive” “change” you are supporting.
Going to lose? No problem, subvert the system. You must be so proud. You must be so freakin’ proud!
Are you um, OK with it then? OK with disenranchising GENUINE New Hampshire voters by bussing in out of state supporters? Out of state supporters who may well vote AGAIN in their actual places of residence? This is your idea of democracy? You actually defend this?
Thanks AGAIN for strengthening our resolve.
10. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Oh, and you make our case for protection against voter fraud.
A national ID card with a hole punch for each election would solve this. Voted in New Hampshire? OK, you can’t also vote in New York. Right now, there is no way to stop this.
How would you like it if Republicans from all over the east coast showed up in New Hampshire and voted as “independents” for tha craziest Democrat on the ballot? Difficult to identify who that would be, I know. But that would be just as legal.
Then they could all go home and vote again. Because no-one would know.
That OK with you InDaVa?
11. excessf | January 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
If you didn’t notice, almost every one of the comments on that dailykos link are making fun of the idea that diebold stole the election for Hillary. And anyway that’s just from someone’s blog on dailykos, which anyone can make. It’s a huge stretch to say dailykos users think the election was stolen. Do you even read these links before you post them?
12. excessf | January 10th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
In fact here’s a diary on dailykos with four times as many comments telling people “enough with this diebold stuff.”
http://dhinmi.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264/85/434176
13. phnx | January 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“In fact here’s a diary on dailykos with four times as many comments telling people “enough with this diebold stuff.”
Yeah right, until Hillary loses in November at which time the dem conspiracy theorists will surface again.
14. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
This isn’t an election machine issue. This is a campaign machine issue. Trucking voters into New Hampshire to sign up to vote on election day is 100% legal. Anyone with low enough scruples can do it.
15. InDaVa | January 11th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Stop putting words in my mouth Kahn. Absolutly not, I am not OK with it. I do not defend. It should be illegal, but it’s not. It’s only a matter of time before a Republican does it. At that time you will simply point out that the Dems did it, so its OK.
If it makes you feel better, I will not vote for Hillary or any other Dem at this time. I like Guiliani and Thompson thus far. I vote for who I believe will be the best POTUS. For me, it isn’t simply what letter is next to their name.
16. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Electronic voting machines are a great boon to efficiency so long as they also have a paper trail to avoid the tampering that is inevitably possible given the realities of handling data, e.g., zeroes and ones. I can scarcely imagine anyone thinking of that as controversial.
It this holds up the Grand Old Party doesn’t have the brightest of futures. Note what seems the rather dispirited implication of the last sentence quoting unnamed “Republican strategists”.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/01/11/democrats-say-young-are-flocking-to-party-.html?s_cid=rss:democrats-say-young-are-flocking-to-party-.html
17. Why Were The NH Polls Wro&hellip | January 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
[...] Why Were The NH Polls Wrong? So, what happened? A local radio host predicted after Iowa that Obama wouldn’t do as well in New Hampshire. Why? [...]