NH - Why were the polls wrong?

The polls predicted: Clinton 30%, Obama 38%, Edwards 18%.

Actual results: Clinton 39%, Obama 36%, Edwards 17%.

So, the difference, to be precise, is that the polls understated Hillary’s numbers, and hit the others pretty well. I’m not sure what that means, but, in general, to try to explain something, it’s usually best to define it accurately. :)

When we ask why the polls were wrong, it’s important to note that we’re only talking about a few percentage points, for any one explanation. It could very well be a combination of factors, all operating in shades of gray, across relatively few voters.

So here they are, the explanations du jour.


It’s My Party and I’ll Cry If You Want Me To
On the day before the primary, Hillary was shown, wall-to-wall on cable news, in a setting that made her seem more human than before. For a woman dubbed “The Glacier,” it seems to have helped. My previous analysis would seem to be 180 degrees wrong. I do not think it was staged; I think HRC really did crack a bit, and it humanized her. Late-deciding women went for her; the exit polling seems to support this.


The Wilder/Bradley Effect
Always hard to gauge, but I wouldn’t discount it. Note that in Iowa, the caucus-goers were in public, and could possibly have been subject to the “Reverse Bradley Effect.”1 In this respect, could famously “hard-to-poll” Iowa caucuses have been easier to poll than New Hampshire. Oh wait … Dems are famously pure and unprejudiced. Only Rethuglicans are racist; I guess we have to scratch the Bradley Effect.


Ordinary Polling Error
Any poll has a margin of error of 3 or 4 points. I know that the New Hampshire polling was an average of seven polls. Okay, that reduces the margin of error, but doesn’t make it go away. Actually, as I think about statistics, adding more and more and more numbers to a sample might not improve it very much at all. That’s why pollsters interview 600 voters, not 6,000.

Independents Mis-called
McCain did well, possibly drawing from Obama. Some have suggested that Obama’s predicted strong lead might have caused some on-the-fence Indies to vote for McCain, rather than Obama.

There it is. Any other explanations?

  1. ”Reverse Bradley Effect” - serious political wonk jargon overload in that term. [↩]

Comments

  1. canuckistani wrote:

    I’m inclined to downplay the Bradley effect, not because Democrats can’t be racist, but just a gut feeling that anyone who would refuse to vote for a black man probably wouldn’t vote for a woman either. If Edwards had come out of nowhere to win here, I’d reconsider that.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 11:45 am

  2. Stephen wrote:

    Canuckistani,

    The Bradley effect, if it exists, is softer than that. I doubt anyone, who explicit dislikes black, would intentionally lie to a pollster, and then scurry off the booth to vote for George Wallace.

    Many folks will say they are undecided, or whatever. It’s a “soft” thing.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 11:53 am

  3. John the Marine wrote:

    You know if Democratic Women voted for HRC because she cried they are pathetic and justify ever sexist stereotype out there. Unlike you I believe it was staged, the part that I’m having a hard time dealing with is that it worked. I’m being a little bit hard on the ladies with the above statement. However, all kidding aside it does make me wonder about feminine judgement if they are so easily fooled. I mean really, we are not talking about the nomination for home queen here, but the President of the United States.

    The thing that was funny was that my wife was more pissed off than me. Her words were that women have reflected upon themselves, and her, badly, for being so easily duped.

    So, to the Democratic Women of NH, “Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich and stay out of politics above the PTA level.” Ouch! I scraped my knuckles on the floor, it isn’t easy being a Neanderthal.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 1:22 pm

  4. Stephen wrote:

    JTM,

    I will sic the GEICO caveman on you for that last sentence!

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 1:56 pm

  5. Davebo wrote:

    Perhaps a lot of voters didn’t realize that Dodd and others had dropped out so when they got in the booth they pulled the lever for Clinton as a second choice.

    At least I’ve seen that idea floated lately.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 7:29 pm

  6. Jillian wrote:

    John, I’m on board with your wife; both mad and embarrassed with the female vote in NH.

    I see Hillary not precisely faking, neither unexpectedly cracking, but perhaps she put herself in a feminine and sympathetic, cozy cafe environment, and let those soft dynamics take course until she had the perfect opportunity to allow herself to grow emotional, in order to meet that exact political end goal of greater likability.

    It isn’t at all a crime for a politician to calculate that way, and it seems a little unfair to accuse her of fake crying, however it is sickening and unsettling that NH women were so swayed by that single, short moment.

    That being said… Even a Neanderthal should know to choose his words for the sandwich maker carefully, or he might find himself chewing on something unsavory. :)

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 8:08 pm

  7. John the Marine wrote:

    Even a Neanderthal should know to choose his words for the sandwich maker carefully, or he might find himself chewing on something unsavory.

    Jillian, truer words have never been spoken. The sad part is I do all the cooking in our house, even the sandwich making. Ah, but it is nice to get in touch with my inner Caveman every now and then.

    Posted 09 Jan 2008 at 9:57 pm

« New Hampshire Dem Primary Results Commentary
The Power Broker is dead; Long live the Power Broker »