Polling the New Hampshire Primaries: What Happened?

There was no shortage of polls going into the New Hampshire primary in 2008 and it looks like we all missed the mark on the Democratic side. This will require a lot of scrutiny in the coming days and weeks, but here are some initial thoughts on what has been happening:

1. According to the exit polls, 18% of the voters said that they made up their minds on primary day. That is just an unprecedented number. I have polled many races, especially close ones, where 4% to 8% have said they finally decided on their vote the day of the election and that can wreak havoc on those of us who are in the business of capturing pre-election movements and trends. But nearly one in five this time?

2. It looks like the always feisty voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire have rejected pre-election coronations. In the case of Iowa, Democratic voters said that Mrs. Clinton is not inevitable, while in New Hampshire they were not ready to endorse the Obama train without checking the engine.

3. The compressed schedule of the two events may have had an impact. Normally the winning candidate gets an initial big bounce out of Iowa, and then plateaus. Then the next primary race begins. With less than five full days, Obama got his bounce in New Hampshire, then the settling down period began on the last day -- under the radar screen.

4. My polling showed Clinton doing well on the late Sunday night and all day Monday -- she was in a 2-point race in that portion of the polling. But since our methods call for a three-day rolling average, we had to legitimately factor the huge Obama numbers on Friday and Saturday -- thus his 12 point average lead. Unfortunately, one day or a day-and-a-half does not make a trend and we ran out of time.

5. Going into the New Hampshire primary, we certainly did see Clinton holding on to a significant lead among women and older voters. But we were focusing on Obama's massive lead among younger and independent voters. We seem to have missed the huge turnout of older women that apparently put Clinton over the top.

6. We expected that Obama would receive the lion's share of independents and drain the Republican primary of these voters. It now appears that, perhaps with a sense that Obama had a lock on the Democratic side, independents felt free to vote on the Republican side and reward their hero, John McCain.

We will pour through the data and try to come up with something more definitive, but those are my early observations. There is much speculation that Senator Clinton's crying incident may have offered voters -- especially women -- a peek at the human side of someone who is often seen as scripted. I think she also scored points during the ABC debate Saturday night when she declared, amid a discussion about the country's desire for a change in direction, that electing a woman would represent a big change in itself. Her numbers did go up in that last 24-hour period.

On the other side, most of us did a whole lot better coming close to the numbers on the Republican side of the aisle. But this is one of those cases that remind us that pre-election polls are guides to voter attitudes and shifts. All things considered in this and other cases, we pollsters still do a creditable job.

Comments

[SydGris]

I sadly share the suspicion of Diebold hackable voting machines. I'm frustrated no major media outlets are even discussing it. Have no journalists done their home work on this issue? Even seen Hacking Democracy? 40% of New Hampshire's precincts are hand-counted, which equals about 25% of the votes. All the rest are counted on hackable Diebold op-scan systems, with completely hackable memory cards, all programmed and managed by LHS Associates. As Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org who seems to share my concern, says, LHS is the "chain of custody" in New Hampshire elections.

[rjcrane]

What hasn't been explained yet to me is why the candidates' own polling in both camps showed Obama with a double digit lead on election day and why the exit polling results given to Chris Matthews at 5:00 pm showed Obama with a 5 point lead. Why and when did this lead switch or was it wrong from the beginning because of poor exit polling? I think the biggest factor in Obama's loss was that too many people took his victory as a given and either didn't vote or voted in the GOP primary where they at least felt they might make a difference either to help Ron Paul or McCain.

I also feel a lot of woman who might even have not liked Hillary voted for her anyway just because they felt the media and other candidates were beating up on her too much. In fact this explanation if true becomes the worst possible reason for anyone to vote for someone to elect the next President of the U.S. In other words, more women voted for Hillary not because they felt she would make the best choice but because they felt sorry for her.

RJ Crane
topplebush.com

[Zhiroc]

I think I'll post a number of my points here, rather than keep replying, which is harder to see.

1) The exit poll results match the vote results within 1%. This does not support the notion of machine fraud, unless you also postulate that the exit polls were altered.

2) Obama received, within the margin of error, the level of support that the tracking polls predicted (35-41% in the ones that Olbermann cited last night on Countdown). This tends to refute the argument for a Bradley effect (that people lied about who they voted for)

Thus, my conclusion is that for whatever reason (the debate, Monday's emotional display, Monday's Iran incident, race, the phase of the moon, etc...) the undecideds broke about completely for Clinton and/or the voting demographics did not match the data model.

[wrabbitt]

i don't need polls to tell me who to vote for, HRC is a Washington insider,always has been, always will be. the only change she will lead us into is in name only,she will be a "W" in sheeps clothing we can't elect someone because of her sex, or lack of, my vote is against Hillary, so poll that!

[runnyknose]

The polls were correct!!!

After analyzing the NH polling details at

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

I am convinced that Diebold got hacked again.

The Republicans don't want to face Obama in November so they did the same thing they did in 2004 - fudge the actual results to get Clinton nominated.

[FrankN]

Saw you on Jon Stewart's Daily Show. As he said it would have been better interview if you'd put up more of a defense, by citing this article for one thing.

[Wilburrr]

I don't see the polls as being wrong. Zogby and others showed the race had closed to within 2 points the day before the primary. The polls had a 5% margin for error and there was a 4% shift by the end of the voting. What was "wrong" with that? Data is never wrong; it is our interpretation of data may be confused.

[buddyd]

The only the polls missed was the 40% undecided. The were so wrap up in defeating Hillary. It gave me great pleasuse in watching the media squrim. Chris Matthews and Tim Russert both looked like they were having a serious BOWEL Movement when the results started going Hillary's way..Even the Huffington Post was enjoying Hillarys (DEFEAT)Shame on all of you. As and African American Male I have been, and always will be a Clinton supporter.­.HA! HA! HA!

[rhettab]

will anyone dig into the deibold machines vs. paper ballots. have heard that the paper ballots were in line with the polls and the machines were not hmmmm.....­do the clintons have clout in NH?

[live by the golden rule]

Dear John Zogby-

You say:
I think she also scored points during the ABC debate Saturday night when she declared, amid a discussion about the country's desire for a change in direction, that electing a woman would represent a big change in itself.

How about asking in your future polls whether people like candidates who can give detailed fact-filled, thoughtful responses to issues.
Such detailed answers unfortunately completely bore the reporters who cover the campaigns, so we never read the substance of these fact-filled responses in news coverage. However, voters do get to see detailed answers, from those candidates who can give them, at Town Meetings, and, fortunately, we all got to see it in the Saturday debate, where the format allowed more than short sound bites.
Under this particular debate's rules, where detailed analysis was allowed without buzzers, Senator Clinton's intelligence and hard work came through. So perhaps that's when she scored points, especially among hard thoughtful working women.

[DANIELLECLARKE]

Hillarys out of state supporters get the news on how to make her a winner in NH

WHO CAN REGISTER http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm

New Hampshire residents who will be 18 years of age or
older on election day, and a United States Citizen,
may register with the town or city clerk where they
live up to 10 days before any election. You may also
register on election day at the polling place. The
town clerk's office can inform voters of what proof of
qualification they should bring to register.

There is no minimum period of time you are required to
have lived in the state before being allowed to
register. You may register as soon as you move into
your new community.

HOW TO REGISTER
1) Apply to your town or city clerk's office. You
will be required to fill out a standard voter
registration form and will be required to show proof
of age, citizenship and domicile.
2) It may be easier for you to register with your
community's Supervisors of the Checklist. By law they
are required to meet on the Saturday 10 days prior to
each election. Check the local newspaper(s) or call
your clerk's office for the date and time of such
meeting.
3) Qualified individuals may also register to vote at
the polling place on election day at all elections.
You will be asked to show proof of age, citizenship,
and domicile.

[ameliae]

Dear John Zogby,

A person PORES through data. I'm trying to picture a human being POURING through the written word. Nice trick if you can manage it.

[janmB]

WOMEN came out and voted for Hillary in greater numbers than the polls showed because they are too embarrassed or ashamed to admit they are supporting another woman. Hillary is as qualified to lead as any other contender and more so then some but that has nothing to do with it.
Some women I know are PROUD of the fact when the declare they won't be supporting Hillary as if that makes them one above all the rest. If this is physchologically difficult to understand then remember women are still insecure and feel the need to be accepted by men.

[MetricSystem]

The real poll is on voting day when people, you know, actually cast their vote.

[cartach]

This is exactly the comeback you'd expect from someone who's just been BS'd or conned and despite the evidence won't bear any of the blame. Their defence is that they did everything that a normal person would do under the circumstances,they did nothing wrong,so they're not really responsible for the flawed results. Far better off to just admit you don't know what the hell happened or why it happened. Of course if he did that then even less people would pay attention to polls than do now, and less would be paying him to do them.