I have a question about the NH Hillary "surge"...

[FourScore]

Remeber the "reluctant Republican" of 2004? After the exit polls proved to be so wrong in 2004, the excuse given was that republicans were more "reluctant" to participate in exit polls. There was no evidence for this claim offered. It was just ommnipotently declared as fact.

This year's omnipotent message goes something like this: women voters were so moved by Hillary's tears amd vulnerability that they decided, en masse, to vote for her after all.

Is there any evidence to back this claim? Just curious.

[JDPriestly]

1. The tears thing is ridiculous. Hillary is self-centered imo.

[Skip Intro]

3. Its a ridiculous idea to think that was behind her win.

Her debate performance was what did it. I said it then and I say it now.

[maddiejoan]

11. That

and her non-stop campaigning once she hit NH.

While Obama "rode the wave"

Hillary worked her tush off

[durrrty libby]

8. Don't forget your true outrage. She nods her head

[The Magistrate]

2. Women, Ma'am

Formed a larger than usual portion of the Democratic primary electorate yesterday, and more voted for Sen. Clinton than Sen. Obama by a wide margin. Why this is so is unknown, and probably not susceptible to explaination after the fact by the very nature of human behavior.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Has anyone backed up this theory with NUMBERS???

Have the exit polls been analyzed? Do the numbers back up the assertion?

[Marrah_G]

5. Yes they have and yes it does

[FourScore]

6. link?

[Marrah_G]

9. I'm trying to find you a link now- you might want to google it also

[Marrah_G]

10. Here are some of the numbers

Cut and Paste from Huffington Post

At the same time that race apparently worked against Obama at the margins in the Granite State, gender favored Clinton. Clinton lost among men by almost identical percentages, 12 points in Iowa (23-35) and 11 in New Hampshire (29-40). Among women, however, although Clinton lost by 5 points in Iowa (30-35), she won by solid 10 points in New Hampshire (46-36), an overall 15 percentage point spread.

Another point: there are substantially fewer young and student voters in New Hampshire than in Iowa -- 22 percent of Democratic Iowa caucus goers were under the age of 30, compared to 18 percent of New Hampshire primary voters. Stanford political scientist David Brady points out that the student bodies at the University of Iowa, Iowa State and the University of Northern Iowa far outnumber their New Hampshire counterparts.


More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/new-hampshire-exit-polls-2008

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. Actually, the likely explanations are a bit more complex than that.

If you haven't read it yet, you should read OpenLeft's analysis:

"What The Hell Happened Last Night?"
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3156

[Yupster]

12. I think the reasons the exit polls were off by so much was

that the exit pollsters are usually college kids, or other young people.

Therefore, the sort that they attract are skewed toward them.

In this election, the young excited Obama supporters were more likely to be polled than the 84 year old woman with a hearing aid and a walker that is supporting Hillary.

I think that theory covers the times when the exit polls have been way off.

In the most extreme example, if you have candidate A supported by very angry and bitter older men, and the exit pollsters are young college age mostly women, then don't expect to get an accurate sample of candidate A's support. The voters are going to avoid getting polled, and the pollsters are going to pick the next person to interview.