Experts: Bias didn't skew NH polls against Clinton

[ecstatic]

WASHINGTON – Polling that ended too early and other technical shortcomings — rather than undetected racial bias — are the likeliest reasons so many surveys incorrectly suggested Barack Obama would defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 New Hampshire presidential primary, a report concluded Monday.

Clinton defeated Obama 39 percent to 36 percent in the Jan. 8, 2008, contest, even though many pre-primary polls showed Obama with solid leads. Clinton's victory gave her a badly needed burst of momentum just five days after Obama won a surprising victory in the Iowa caucuses, the year's first presidential contest.

...

The report, written by a panel of 11 pollsters and academics appointed by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, said polling may have ended too early to reflect last-minute shifts in voters' attitudes. In the best-known incident, Clinton's eyes welled up a day before the voting as she vowed to fight on no matter what happened.

"Because most of the New Hampshire polls ended data collection prior to this event, these polls would have missed any related last-minute shift to Clinton," the study said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090330/ap_on_el_pr/wrong_presidential_polling

Odd timing. Wow, people have spent the past year wondering about that? LOL

[MADem]

1. Slow news day, maybe....

Here's the thing--those folks in NH like to jerk pollsters around, and I can't say I blame them.

Who ya votin' for? None of yer damned business!

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Can't blame 'em? That type of mindset makes election fraud that much easier.

Seriously, the pollsters are a necessary evil because they provide an idea of what to expect heading into an election.

The more people lie to pollsters, the more they make polling that much more useless and if that's the case, it makes stealing an election that much more easier. If polls are discredited -- all of them -- no one will know what to expect once an election rolls around and that is just asking for people to steal.

I'm guessing had the polls not shown McCain so far behind Obama, especially in every swing state, they could've stolen the whole thing.

[MADem]

3. No, they aren't a "necessary evil." They haven't been right lately, have they?

And elections happened before they existed.

If you don't want election fraud, you need secure, paper ballots and a verifiable, public way of counting them. Plain and simple. You don't need pollsters to guess what people "might" do, because people can, and do, lie. Hectoring and finger-wagging won't change that.

McCain lost because McCain ran a shitty campaign, and people even on the right were sick of the GOP running things and fucking 'em up. If someone manipulated polls to show McCain closing, it probably would have gotten out the vote even more for Obama.


Pollsters are useful for people like George Bush, who can run the "They're gonna take yer GUNS" ads in hunting states, or people like Barack Obama, who can run "They're gonna take your social security" in geezer states. THAT's what they're good for--targeted ads, candidate trends.

The Democratic process would be better served by public financing, truncated elections, and a secure and simple system for casting votes that can work even if the POWER goes out.

IMO.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. They haven't?

That's funny, because I thought they were pretty close in November's election. In fact, an average of the polls on RealClearPolitics suggested Obama would win every state he did.

That's not close?

[MADem]

5. Fachrissake, that election wasn't even close.

Everyone knew who was going to win it. It wasn't even a contest. You didn't need some snazzy pollster to tell you.

I'm not going to give the covert-right RCP "credit" for stating the obvious. It's like giving them a prize for "predicting" the sun would rise in the east tomorrow.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. So your point is this...

Polls are wrong if the election is extremely close, where it's decided by 1 or 2 points and when it's a blowout, the polls don't matter, anyway?

Well how did we know it was going to be a blowout? Surely because the polls indicated it, right? Well what if there were no polls at all, would we have felt as comfortable heading into election night as many of us did? Probably not.

With that said, RCP also predicted the electoral college nearly as accurately in 2004.

[MADem]

7. No. That's not my point at all.

My point was that you can not scold people with any effectiveness into participating in polls, which is what I gathered from your comments that you seem to want to do. The people of NH fuck with pollsters, they always have, and they always will. It's that "Live Free or Die" thing working. That's the point I made, and you didn't care for it.

We didn't need GALLUP to tell us the obvious--the Obama-McCain contest was going to be a blowout because the best polls were seen in the RALLIES--ten people show up to see McCain, fifty thousand show up to see Obama. Do the math.

[karynnj]

10. I don't know if this is true - and I know you might

Some people said that HRC had most of the more experienced native NH people working her campaign - something that could have made her get out the vote activities better than Obama's. This is what I was told by one person - not from NH (or even MA). I doubt it could explain the full difference, but that and possibly some people swinging back to the more well known person, who had been 20 points ahead just weeks before.

[MADem]

12. Well, I went over the border and lent a hand....

She had a good organization in the state, and she worked real hard.

[karynnj]

14. Thanks

The fact that sh worked so hard there - before Iowa as well as after, might itself have led to the last minute turn in her favor.

[Occam Bandage]

8. I thought we all decided that was the cause by Jan. 11.

And yet we needed a report to make sure it wasn't racism? Well, at least it gave some folks jobs.

[depakid]

9. Not racial bias, maybe- but sampling bias nonetheless

The report said a failure by some pollsters to reach enough New Hampshire voters who supported Clinton could also have contributed. Clinton's supporters were often less educated and lower income than Obama's, people who tend to be harder for pollsters to reach.

and possibly some small http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote">donkey vote:

In addition, the authors said Clinton may have been helped by being listed near the top of the New Hampshire ballot, while Obama's name was near the bottom.

[catnhatnh]

11. I'm from NH and sure as hell wondered...

This state has a large right wing that HATES Hillary Clinton. I voted Edwards in the primary but was shocked when Mrs. Clinton took it...

[MADem]

13. The wingnuts, though, had a fight of their own going on. Mittsy the Shittsy spent a bundle

in the state, but those righties had a long love affair with McCain.

They had reason to pick their own guy, rather than stir up trouble on the other side, like they would do when the GOP candidate is already decided. Ron Paul and Huckabee were still in the running, too, at that stage. But Romney was spending hand over fist...and STILL he didn't win! Bwahahahahahaha!!!!