Anybody have links to raw exit poll data in Iowa and New Hampshire?

[mistertrickster]

Would like to see if it matched the final outcomes . . .

[CoffeeCat]

1. I might be wrong on this...

...but, in Iowa--they did "entrance polls" to gage who people were supporting going in.

I don't think they did "exit polls". However, I could be wrong on that.

These polls don't seem to jive with the final Iowa result, since it's a caucus
in which a candidate needs 15 percent of the room to be "viable". A candidate
would not be counted in a precinct, if he/she wasn't "viable."

For example, in my precinct, Richardson has 21 people standing for him. That's
21 people out of 240. He wasn't viable, so his supporters went to other candidates.

So, going in--people might have supported Richardson. However, going out they
supported someone else.

Is that totally unclear yet? :) In other words...I don't think Iowa exit or
entrance polls could measure much of anything in relation to final outcome.

I do know that all of the major, national polls had Hillary, Obama and Edwards
running within a few points of each other--the day of the caucus.

[mistertrickster]

2. Assuming that the machines weren't rigged for anybody in NH,

having the raw exit poll data would be a measure to see how close it was to the final outcome.

The official version of why the tracking polls didn't measure the DEM outcome was that people changed their minds.

I disagree. My theory is that 1. the pollsters weren't interviewing people who were actually going to vote and 2. Clinton had a better machine in NH--more big organizations getting out her vote, more absentee ballots in the hands of her supporters.

The pundits seem to over-emphasize media moments and discount the ground game (like who has busses going to the old folks' home).

[CoffeeCat]

3. It's all in the ground game...

...and also in the psychology of the voters.

The people of NH rejected the Obama momentum of Iowa. They wanted to decide for themselves.

The media and their Obama fest---was probably a turn off to them, and some of what happened in the
campaign made it seem like people were not only writing off Hillary--but unfairly piling on her.

The debates didn't help.

In the end, she was able to humanize herself and empathize with her.

Hillary did a good job of talking with the people in NH. She didn't do this in Iowa and that's
why she lost. Obama got down on the ground in Iowa, and in NH, he seemed to rely on big speeches.

I think this strategy lost him some points, because it allowed Hillary's "He's all speeches and
no substance" attacks to gel in the minds of the NH voters.

Obama has a lot of work to do. If anyone can do it, he can.