About Those Democratic Polls: Potential sources of error

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The Pollster
About Those Democratic Polls
By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta

Yesterday's Democratic result is sure to fuel debate among poll-watchers about the accuracy of polls in contests with African American candidates. In several well-known, but long-ago examples, pre-election polls underestimated support for the white candidates in such campaigns. But in the 2006 elections, a strong showing by polls in elections with black candidates seemed to finally put that notion to rest, and there was no apparent problem with reliable pre-election polls in Iowa.

A more likely culprit than the role of race in the New Hampshire election was the "likely voter" modeling, with pollsters perhaps over-counting the boost of enthusiasm among Obama supporters following his victory in Iowa. Another possibility is that independents opted at the last minute to participate in the Republican primary, depriving Obama of crucial voters.

A further potential source of error stems from New Hampshire ballot rules. In previous contests, the state rotated candidate names from precinct to precinct, but this year the names were in alphabetical order, with Clinton near the top and Obama lower down. Stanford Professor Jon Krosnick, a survey specialist and expert witness in a lawsuit about ballot order in New Hampshire, has estimated a three percentage point or greater bounce for a big name candidate appearing high on the ballot. Therefore, if pre-election polls randomized candidate names, as most do, they would have underestimated Clinton's support by at least three points.

Regardless, there were no immediate clear answers, and lots of data analysis ahead.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/about_those_democratic_polls.html

[pnwmom]

1. Wow. I wonder how the rules got changed to eliminate the rotation?

Was it a party decision or a state decision?

It doesn't seem justifiable, since it has been known for decades that ballot position affects vote outcome.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. An interesting question. nt

[sandnsea]

4. Party machinery

That's what it's there for. Kind of does away with the idea that the Dem Party doesn't understand the games the Repubs play. Maybe they all don't, but the Clintons sure do.

[killbotfactory]

5. The Clintons are buddies with the Sec of State

http://asp.usatoday.com/community/utils/idmap/28574727.story

I wonder if they called in some favors.

[sandnsea]

6. You read the ballot shortages were just rumors, right?

After it was reported all day as a great sign for Democrats and Obama, in the evening I started reading the SoS saying that it was all a rumor and didn't happen at all. Well hmmm. I've always said this is how elections are really 'stolen', with suppression, not tampering.

[Selatius]

7. Gee, if FDR ran, he'd get the short end of the stick here with ballot placement

Whoever junked that rule should be replaced with someone who will reinstitute the rule. It was there precisely to mitigate bias for top-listed candidates.

[pnwmom]

8. Link please.

[avrdream]

3. Is this article just the WaPo trying to cover up their pre-NH enthusiasm for Obama?

Nice analysis but it sure makes me wonder.

Maybe the best outcome of today's result is that the media will play a bit more fair. Probably not, but it would be nice, eh?

[pnwmom]

9. Turns out that ballot order is regulated by state law, and Rethugs are in control.

It's not some scheme to help out Clinton.

http://blue-granite.blogspot.com/2006/09/republicans-whine-about-fair-balloting.html

SNIKP

"So let's recap:

New Hampshire has had a balloting system that was obviously and provably unfair, and this system has continued at the will of the Republican-controlled state legislature.

The state Supreme Court ruled this system unconstitutional.

Democrats said, roughly, "great, let's get to work figuring out a fair system." They have compromised and worked with the secretary of state to allow the primaries to go on and aren't challenging his alphabetization idea.

The secretary of state said it couldn't be done. Then the same guy who'd acknowledged "that the candidates at the top of the ballot can gain as much as a 6-to-10-point edge in certain races"
decided that the confusion that might possibly result from a short column sandwiched by longer columns was a serious problem. Then when he lost on that, he came up with a totally bizarre and counter-intuitive way of changing alphabetical order.

SNIP