|
We all watch polls looking for instantaneous reactions to whatever's in the latest news cycles. People who are highly informed that are polled will reflect the latest developments, but that doesn't constitute most people.
Think about an issue you don't pay attention to, but that is in the news. When does it finally dawn on you what's going on? Usually takes days, maybe a week and eventually you are clued in. Here and there, 10 seconds of information about Britney Spears and within two weeks, you will have assembled the basic facts of what's going on even without paying attention. In politics that is how it is for a large segment of voters.
Thus, the cry in New Hampshire may not have swung things towards Hillary after all. Bill Clinton's campaigning in Nevada was not markedly different than in South Carolina, however, it didn't get widespread exposure and didn't sink in until South Carolina. Hillary won Nevada, I would argue in part because voters were not uniformly informed about the change in tactics. I'm not judging those tactics here, except to say that they backfired (fairly or not).
Remember Swift Boating? Did Kerry's numbers drop right away? No, it takes time for it to work.
Sometimes in the instant information environment we are in, we forget that most people are just now reacting to news that was available a week or two ago.
Poll lag folks.
|