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

[Heyman]

Zogby was right on Al Gore winning the 2000 election.
Sometimes polls can be manipulated.

[lizardbox]

I'm not sure how much this has been talked about. But, it is worth noting that Obama did not lose a whole lot of support among women voters, but rather Clinton picked up on the demo. Obama went from 35% in Iowa to 34% in NH. Clinton went from 30% to 47%. Why did this happen?

- The Edwards Effect: Edwards had much more support in Iowa than he did in New Hampshire. Naturally, he lost support among women voters.
Edwards went from 23% support in Iowa to 15% in New Hampshire.

- Clinton Cries Effect: I'm not for it. I'm not against it. I don't know if was real. I don't know if wasn't real. All I know is that it did have an effect, on Clinton and Edwards for that matter. Edwards did point out that there's no crying in politics.

- Polls Polls Polls: Obama's "huge" lead in the polls gave some independents some breathing room while making a decision on whether they should vote for him or McCain. Had the polls showed Obama and Clinton in a dead heat leading up to the primary, more independents would have swung their vote Obama's way.

- The Women of New Hampshire: In my mind, NH is a bit more liberal than Iowa (to say the least), so the prospect of a woman president is a lot more exciting that it was in Iowa. I think this trend will be confirmed in South Carolina as Clinton lead over Obama in the female demo will not be in the single digits.

The polls weren't wrong per say, the media's focus on them was.

[mcearlgrey]

My fellow Democrats think that just because a Democrat wins the vote isn't fixed.

Barack beats Hillary 77-43 in precincts that count votes by hand.

Diebold machines favor Hillary.

[QueensNYC821]

Remember the other day Hillary asked "Where's the Bounce?" and you all laughed and mocked her saying "It's right here," "look at the polls" etc, etc...

So quick to judge everything she says.

Clinton/Obama '08

[richsmith]

I submitted this under the Maddow post elsewhere on this blog. Rachel rules.

Watching the CNN results come in while sitting in the gym, I noticed a few things. From 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM, the Kucinich and Richardson numbers stopped growing and the Edwards numbers grew just at a steady 17% of the total. All the Democratic votes added to about 60,000 while the Republican votes were about half of that. NH is a very conservative state, and to have 2/3 of the votes going into the Dem selection in itself seemed to say something. The Republicans don’t have to be organized and coordinated to be a shrewd group. If I were a Repub and trying to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, I would have been voting for Clinton once I knew the McCain was safe. The NH voters (and North Eastern voters for that matter) are a lot better informed and a lot smarter than the average Joe or Jill out there in the US voting population. If I were a conservative in NH I would also be registered as an Independent and thus have a potential spoiler influence in primaries as well. I believe, and I bet that most in NH believe, that McCain is probably the most electable Repub out there (even if he does come across as a bit crazy) and that his best chances are against Clinton. I believe that among all the Dems still in the running, Clinton will be the most likely one for McCain to beat. That was what the numbers were telling me.

Also, assuming the psychological and behavioral profile I just inferred, I can imagine a good number of the Granite State folks taking pleasure in lying to the pollsters both going into and coming out of the primary.

Machiavelli also rules!

[CarolinaDem]

If there wasn't a similar error on the Republican side, how can the technicalities of polling explain it?

[brently]

The last time polls were so inaccurate was in Ohio 2004, and we all know that election was on the up-and-up, right?
This smacks of elitist vote fixing. Now, if Hillary wins the dem nomination, I'm voting for someone else.

[Chavez08]

This pathetic system is sooooo fixed!

The establishment had picked the candidate 2 years ago,..they­'re just playing out this cheesie routine for our entertainment.

40% of the Dem vote is via "Super Delegate"
NH exit polling reflected opposite of outcome.

I wouldn't be surprised if the WWE writers are moonlighting for the DLC.

Ron Pauls' votes weren't even counted so the GOP has they're game rigged too, apparently.

[January]

Could not care less. When I am called by a pollster my response for a long time now has been, "I do not participate in telephone polls."

One pollster followed that up with "Well, then your opinion will not count." My reply, "Yours doesn't count either. Try reading entrails."

[coffeeinamrica]

It's simple, Zogby - Your methods were flawed and your group drank the kool-aid while adding a little of your own flavor.

People do not, did not change their vote because Hillary choked-up (what nonsense to perpetuate, along with the premise she is some kind of robot).

People do not, did not change their vote to 'poke an eye' in the media troll. (though it wouldn't be a bad idea!)

[strandwolf]

Ban voter polls.

[clumberfeet]

What happened to the polls?

Callers tried to shaft me with a 1.5% refinance loan, I didn't buy it.
Callers tried to shaft me with a free vacation, I didn't buy it.
Callers tried to shaft me with a bonanza from a Nigerian cash transfer, I didn't buy it.
Callers tried to shaft me with the claim I was an instant winner, I didn't buy it.
Callers with a candidate to sell needed my personal information and a contribution,
I didn't buy it.

Anybody want to buy a POTS phone?

[baznyc]

Faulty polls aren't what scares me... it's all a media thing. Unless I'm going sailing, I could care less about the *wind* direction.

What scares me, is how divided the Democrats are becoming. The anti-Hillary hate from the left, is as loud as from the right.
While I'm an Edwards supporter, any Democrat, including Hillary, will be fresh air, after these past 7 years (27 if ya include what Reagan did).
Please keep yer eye on the ball, people.
Idealism is great in primaries, but when it comes to the General Election, be smart.
We get a Democrat elected, then we work from the inside, to change the Party.
If not, like in 2000, we get grief.
So, if ya want Rudy, or McCain, keep dividing.

[Robert11010]

Let's face it, folks - elections in the United States are now meaningless. A small powerful group of people are calling the shots, picking the winners, manipulating the electronic totals, and have already decided who the nomination winners will be. Everything else is just so much background noise. Depressing, but true. Now - what are we going to do about it?

[speakeasy]

18% of people made thier choice that day. Obama, by almost every poll had a 9% lead. For Clinton to have won 12% of that 18% had to go to Clinton, when Obama had all of the momemtun and was leading across the board??? Talk about statistical improbabilities. Me thinks me smells a rat.... or a software "glitch".

I for one, am tired of constantly seeing exit polls wrong (Ohio) and other polls wrong. Over the years they have proven to be fairly accurate, especially exit polls (look at past stats) and we sheeple just sit back and take whatever spin they;ve thrown at us over the last couple elections. My patience, it does runneth thin...