Sooo... what happened in the 2008 Democratic NH primary?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:10:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Sooo... what happened in the 2008 Democratic NH primary?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Sooo... what happened in the 2008 Democratic NH primary?  (Read 2600 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 15, 2008, 07:00:03 AM »

I never really got a definitive explanation for this:

January 1st Poll Average: Clinton +17
January 2nd Poll Average: Clinton +16
January 3rd Poll Average: Clinton +7
Iowa Caucus Result: Obama +5 on Clinton
January 4th Poll Average: Obama +0.25
January 5th Poll Average: Obama +2
January 6th Poll Average: Obama +8
January 7th Poll Average: Obama +9

Final Primary Result: Clinton +3


The most frequent explanations given are the Bradley Effect and Clinton's last-minute tear-jerking incident, but I still find it a little hard to believe that they can account for such a massive disparity between every poll released in the last couple of days and the actual result.

What is your view?
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2008, 07:16:51 AM »

Supporters of other candidates felt that a long race could possibly benefit them, mainly Edwards and Richardson.  They feared that if Obama won New Hampshire it would be over (similar to Richardson's supporters giving Obama Iowa).  Edwards and Richardson both fell a few points short of what they were polling, and Hillary was the one that these points went to.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2008, 07:29:36 AM »

Supporters of other candidates felt that a long race could possibly benefit them, mainly Edwards and Richardson.  They feared that if Obama won New Hampshire it would be over (similar to Richardson's supporters giving Obama Iowa).  Edwards and Richardson both fell a few points short of what they were polling, and Hillary was the one that these points went to.

The median average of polls for the 6th and 7th of January was as follows:  Obama 38%; Clinton 29%; Edwards 19%; Richardson 6%; Others 3%.

The actual result was as follows: Obama 36%; Clinton 39%; Edwards 17%; Richardson 5%; Others 3%.

The difference in polling and results for Clinton's and Obama's competitors is clearly not enough to account for such a difference overall.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2008, 07:33:14 AM »

Supporters of other candidates felt that a long race could possibly benefit them, mainly Edwards and Richardson.  They feared that if Obama won New Hampshire it would be over (similar to Richardson's supporters giving Obama Iowa).  Edwards and Richardson both fell a few points short of what they were polling, and Hillary was the one that these points went to.

The median average of polls for the 6th and 7th of January was as follows:  Obama 38%; Clinton 29%; Edwards 19%; Richardson 6%; Others 3%.

The actual result was as follows: Obama 36%; Clinton 39%; Edwards 17%; Richardson 5%; Others 3%.

The difference in polling and results for Clinton's and Obama's competitors is clearly not enough to account for such a difference overall.
Well, the reason I got a different spread was because I discounted some of the polls.  For example, the Zogby (always an awful poll) which had Obama up 13% and the Uni polls that came out.  Rasmussen for example had the polling at 37-30-19-8, when the actual result was 36-39-17-5

Which comes out to:
Obama -1
Clinton +9
Edwards -2
Richardson -3

To mean, that means undecideds broke late to Clinton hard, as did supporters of other candidates.  As you can see, Obama got what he polled.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2008, 07:40:16 AM »

They also chronically overestimated the youth vote and underestimated the impact of blue collar voters in the cities and along the MA border.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2008, 07:46:29 AM »

Well, the reason I got a different spread was because I discounted some of the polls.  For example, the Zogby (always an awful poll) which had Obama up 13% and the Uni polls that came out.  Rasmussen for example had the polling at 37-30-19-8, when the actual result was 36-39-17-5

Which comes out to:
Obama -1
Clinton +9
Edwards -2
Richardson -3

To mean, that means undecideds broke late to Clinton hard, as did supporters of other candidates.  As you can see, Obama got what he polled.

For this type of analysis a median average is preferable to a mean average.  It excludes outliers by definition.

The undecideds breaking overwhelmingly for Clinton is a credible theory, but the median average of that group in the last two days was 5%.  Even if all of them and a contingent of the other candidates' supporters swung to Clinton, we've still only accounted for 8% to add onto Clinton's polling, when in fact she performed better by 12%.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2008, 07:49:10 AM »

They also chronically overestimated the youth vote and underestimated the impact of blue collar voters in the cities and along the MA border.

This is also a credible theory, but I'm extremely surprised that eleven different polling agencies who released polls in the last two days could have made such a misjudgement.  Especially since NH has been a polling hotspot for decades.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2008, 08:14:08 AM »
« Edited: June 15, 2008, 08:22:41 AM by Fmr Gov. Polnut »

I think someone either the media or polling led the other astray.

The big idea was that this big college vote was going to help Obama. I think the polling firms believed it, and oversampled the college-aged vote. When the college vote didn't turnout as expected - then add the undecided push to Hillary from Sat. on. It kinda makes sense. I think the Obama was softer than thought.

So I think Obama lost some of his people in the post Sat undecided push, add that to mix, so it really starts to add up.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2008, 10:12:46 AM »

I never really got a definitive explanation for this:

January 1st Poll Average: Clinton +17
January 2nd Poll Average: Clinton +16
January 3rd Poll Average: Clinton +7
Iowa Caucus Result: Obama +5 on Clinton
January 4th Poll Average: Obama +0.25
January 5th Poll Average: Obama +2
January 6th Poll Average: Obama +8
January 7th Poll Average: Obama +9

Final Primary Result: Clinton +3


The most frequent explanations given are the Bradley Effect and Clinton's last-minute tear-jerking incident, but I still find it a little hard to believe that they can account for such a massive disparity between every poll released in the last couple of days and the actual result.

What is your view?
Joe, after reading this over again, I'm thinking there is obviously something wrong a poll swing of 10 points in one day (January 2-3) w/o any voting, and a 26 pt swing in a week regardless
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2008, 10:29:33 AM »

Joe, after reading this over again, I'm thinking there is obviously something wrong a poll swing of 10 points in one day (January 2-3) w/o any voting, and a 26 pt swing in a week regardless

The daily 'averages' I cited for the 1st and 2nd of January were in fact made from just one poll each day - sorry if that seems a little misleading.  Anyhow, those polls were both by Suffolk University, which as well having the faults you'd expect for a university pollster, also got their final result wrong.

As for the 26-point swing in a week (which I highly doubt was realistically that large, but still), don't underestimate the impact the Iowa caucus had.  It was the first real game changer, and surely you must remember that the media first began to speak of Obama's inevitability after that point.  New Hampshire was hugely affected.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2008, 11:55:33 AM »

With the exception of ARG and Zogby, the polls actually had Obama's percent of the vote about right. Therefore, it is my conclusion that undecideds swung very heavily towards Clinton at the last minute, and some women supporters switched and came out to vote at the last minute due to the crying incident.

Polling a state takes a couple of days. It's not that the polling was necessarily bad, it's just not physically capable of detecting big swings the day before an election.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2008, 12:49:46 PM »

Definitely an interesting question as to how many pollsters could've gotten the race so wrong, especially considering polling in New Hampshire should (you'd think) be a science by now with how much experience the pollsters have. It wasn't just one bad poll, literally everyone got it wrong.

I think you'd have to look at the internals of the polls and compare them to the demographic data on election day. Oversampling of the college vote and undersampling of the blue collar vote is a good theory, but some numbers to back it up would be nice.

The "Bradley effect" argument doesn't cut it in retrospect since it didn't turn up anywhere else. In fact, if anything Obama tended to, overall, do a little better on election day than in the pre election polls in the primaries (my guess is because the youth vote tended to probably be less likely to be considered likely voters than they actually were, that incorrect assumption being based on past history). That's part of why the New Hampshire result is even more inexplicable now than it was at the time.

I think the undecideds did break for Clinton, and probably some of the independents who could vote in either primary voted more for McCain than expected since, after the results of Iowa, he "needed" their vote more than Obama did (assuming that an independent voter preferred a McCain-Obama general election matchup). Problem with that theory is that the Republican polls in New Hampshire were basically dead on.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2008, 02:16:01 PM »

i remember that day well.  it was the day i finally got my cast off my arm/hand.

one thing that is not often mentioned...it was a very warm day here in new england.  so the oldsters probably voted in higher numbers than they would have it would have been the typical january day in nh.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2008, 03:08:59 PM »

Fraud... j/k.

Seriously, this was very difficult to poll because it was an extremely fluid situation. You had the Iowa caucus, then you had the highly focused New Hampshire debate, then you had the voice-cracking incident on Monday night. Finally, you had a flurry of traditional political activity... rallies, door-knocking and dials. Remember the first couple days after Iowa, there was no bounce in the polls (which Mark Penn ignimoniously attempted to spin) in New Hampshire, and then the bounce came out at the end of the week. The polls were a day or so behind.

The debate on Saturday night was the turning point. In retrospect, Rasmussen and Suffolk polls showed that Obama's lead stopped growing or shrank in samples taken after Saturday. In that debate, Hillary established herself as a forceful, assertive personality, a 'fighter' for change. She built upon personal character traits that draw people to her the most. This path was completely inaccessible to her while she was the frontrunner.

The voice-cracking incident, apart from the incident itself... was treated favorably in the media. The media could have (as they did 90% of the time) interpreted her actions cynically, but the impression of reporters at the scene was that it was genuine, and that is how they reported it. This was critical because it gave her a positive news cycle going into the election.

Finally, what really carried Hillary was her combined 14,000-vote margin in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties. The final Suffolk poll, for example, showed her with a lead only in Rockingham. Obama did not campaign in either county on the final day, while Hillary had a very well attended Manchester rally. In a state as small as New Hampshire, this can make a difference. This lends credence to Polnut and waltermitty's theories.

At the end of the day, I think voters just did not want to see Hillary go down.

Both her and Obama are at their best when they are underdogs. She is the victimized woman fighting heroically against the odds. He is the skinny kid with a funny-sounding name trying to build a movement against the old machines. When they are frontrunners, the narratives fall apart, and they don't seem to know what to do.

I think this may also be a key for Obama in the General Election. How he makes himself attractive, or even acceptable, as the frontrunner, something he was not ever good at in the primaries with the possible exception of the lead-ups to Wisconsin and Indiana.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2008, 04:16:14 PM »

In all seriousness, NH residents love top lie to pollsters.  It becomes a game.

NH has had a lot of polling for decades and is almost impossible to poll; I can remember this going back to 1984.
Logged
prometheus
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.61, S: 0.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2008, 08:47:08 PM »
« Edited: June 21, 2008, 08:49:54 PM by prometheus »

Ah yes, I remember sitting there, watching the results come in and turning to my friends after about an hour and saying "You know, I don't think Hillary's lead is going away."  And so the primary went on for another five months.

Basically one reason, mentioned earlier in the thread, is that a lot of NH voters were on the fence about voting for Obama or McCain (hard to believe now), and independents are allowed to show up at the polls and choose which primary to participate in.  Polls show Obama easily winning and McCain barely ahead of Romney = these voters vote for McCain.  Romney actually won registered Republicans.

There was also record turnout for the primary, especially for the Democrats and (I believe) in Hillsborough County in particular (I know that my town, in Hillsborough, ran out of Democratic ballots).  High turnout probably helped Hillary (again, I know my town was overwhelmingly for her and I think she also cleaned up in Manchester).

Another reason which I've heard is something called the "Spiral of Silence" which essentially says that once it looked like Obama had it locked up, there was pressure to vote for him and so a lot of Hillary supporters felt kind of intimidated when talking to pollsters.  They then said that they were undecided or not planning to vote.

The debate may also have shifted a few votes- "likable enough" for example- and possibly the tears.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2008, 10:44:38 PM »

Basically one reason, mentioned earlier in the thread, is that a lot of NH voters were on the fence about voting for Obama or McCain (hard to believe now), and independents are allowed to show up at the polls and choose which primary to participate in.  Polls show Obama easily winning and McCain barely ahead of Romney = these voters vote for McCain.  Romney actually won registered Republicans.

I think that's exactly it. The independents liked both Obama and McCain and wanted them both to win their respective primaries. Polls showing that Obama was going to win easily, but McCain was struggling and would probably either just lose or just win suggested that they didn't need to help Obama win but did need to help McCain win. They turned out strongly for McCain, to Obama's detriment.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.