Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

ABC News Exit Poll Analysis


New ABC News analysis looks at the New Hampshire primary exit poll data and finds:

  • "The economy was the single biggest issue to voters in both parties, and that worked for Clinton as well. Among those who called it their top concern, she beat Obama by 9 points, 44-35 percent. Clinton also won lower income and lower-education voters..."
  • "Clinton led among those who chose a candidate early, while Obama's support was greatest -- 43 percent to Clinton's 28 percent - among people who decided which candidate to support sometime last week. Clinton became somewhat more competitive among those who decided more recently."

Read the full analysis here.

 

Comments

I don't mean this as an insult to Clinton or as a plug for another candidate, but I simply don't get why so many lower-income and lower-education voters are siding with Clinton. It just doesn't seem like a natural fit to me.

____________________

A lot of the lower income voters are retirees, who are Clinton's base. It's hard to separate out just the lowest-income/non-elderly voters.
Mostly, this race seems to boil down to late swing in the women's vote. In the CNN/WMUR poll, after Sunday, Obama led among women 38-34, which was consistent with his Iowa margin. The exit polls had Hillary winning women 46-34. She cried, they comforted her. This is how we choose Presidents, folks.

____________________

Joel:

Question about the wilder effect and possible application to NH exit polls. First, is there any evidence that it applies to black voters (that black voters are more likely to say they will vote for a black candidate than to do so), and second, did Obama underperform his polling among Black voters?

____________________

Dwight McCabe:

The most convincing guess I've heard so far about the disparity between all the polls and the actual result is from the blog MyDD - that many independent voters were going to vote for Obama but decided at the last minute that he was so far ahead they would vote for McCain instead. I haven't looked at the results for independent voters compared to the polling but it makes the most sense to me. All the other guesses should have been caught by the polls unless something from the last day (Hillary's tears??) really did change voters minds.

____________________

Cynic:

Joel,

Your question seems to be based on the mistaken presumption that there are significant numbers of minority voters in New Hampshire. There just aren't enough to make a statistically significant portion of, honestly, any of the polls.

57% of Democratic voters in New Hampshire were women, and they propelled one of their own to victory. Perhaps 3% were minorities (although the sample isn't large enough to say that with any confidence). Obama, in other words, made this a close race in a state with fewer younger voters and fewer minority voters than the nation as a whole. Hillary's campaign is alive this morning, and for that she has reason to be grateful. And that's going to be the dominant narrative at least until Nevada comes in. But the truth is that there's very little reason to think that her demographic advantages in New Hampshire are going to translate to success elsewhere.

____________________

Chantal:

Gregory T,

Economically, Bill was good to them, and policy wise, Hillary looks like she's following in her husband's footsteps.

Barry,

It's not the tears but the general distrust of her emotion by the media. Like anything else in politics, its not the event itself but the coverage, and in this case, the coverage went a little too far in telling people that it she was crying for attention. When is it okay to say something like that?

Still, I haven't been a woman in ten years, so I wouldn't know what women are feeling these days. Maybe I sparked a trend in wanting to strip myself of the feminine.

____________________

Cynic:

Dwight,

I haven't seen any evidence that the pre-election polls overstated Obama's support among independents, or the numbers in which they'd turn out, in a way that significantly impacted their projections.

On the other hand, several polls projected Obama to have a narrow edge among women, as he did in Iowa, and Hillary destroyed him there. It's probably simplistic to chalk that up to the tears alone - perhaps more accurate to say that women, particularly of the older generation, watched Hillary get batted about by the pundits and the media and rallied to her defense. Or, more precisely, that those who had been wavering in their support or considering Obama decided to stay with Hillary.

____________________

Ronald Wieck:

In over four decades as a politics junkie, I have never seen anything comparable to yesterday's Democratic primary. A candidate takes a commanding lead in ALL recent surveys, appears to be widening that lead on the eve of the voting, and then simply loses the next day?! What the...?

Is anyone prepared to state with confidence that he understands what happened? I'm staunchly opposed to conspiracy theories, but I confess that I don't have a clue about what I just witnessed.

____________________

Alex:

Ronald:

The only things that I think could have done it were a combination of things including: Hillary's push to show her true humanity, Bill's constant attacks (many blatantly untrue) on Barack's record over Monday and Tuesday, and the urban Clinton campaign organization. I was a volunteer on the ground for Obama in a more northern rural area, where our two campaigns seemed about equally match in organization, but I hear that in the cities the Clinton organization was much more effective and well-established.

____________________

Ronald Wieck:

I want to avoid giving the impression that I'm arguing with you because I don't understand what happened. I can't stress that strongly enough. Do you seriously think that a brief episode of moist-eyed frustration with voters who would dare to deny her what is rightfully hers could totally reverse a strong trend that was reflected in ALL the surveys? What was supposed to be so appealing about her little pout?

____________________

jhm:

Politico had a nugget about young voters not turning out in numbers much different than in past primaries (aqs opposed to IA). Was this predicted or assumed in likely voter estimates?

____________________

The facts are rather clear. Obama had a bounce that was temporary. Every four years we watch the bounce happen after Iowa or after the conventions.

This year it was assumed that NH came too early for the bounce to fade.

But the facts are if all the pollster release their data, you will see Obama stopped gaining points and was on the decline on the 7th and Hillary was on the rebound.

Why people didn't report that is probably because the media spin bullied them into Obama's camp.

Look at Rasmussen his poll showed Obama losing a point and Hillary gaining 3. Look at other polls. If you assume 1/5 and 1/6 were way over 40, then if the last day avged in doesn't get the avg way over 40, the bounce is fading.

The story is two-fold:
1. pollsters not reporting the last day trends because of media bias and scared to look bad.

2. not polling on the 8th when it was clear this was a moving train.

____________________

Joel:

Cynic
Right you are. If the story repeats in South Carolina or Nevada, though, I will be curious to know if there is evidence about the Wilder effect among minority voters themselves.

____________________

Andrew:

Polls suck.

____________________

JohnG:

The movement among women came too late (Monday) for the polls to pick up. Now, neither Hillary nor Obama has momentum . . . could we end up with a brokered convention?

____________________

Ben:

Why when women vote for a female candidate they are voting for the gender, but when men vote for a male candidate they are selecting a candidate they believe in?
An inexperienced politician, promising change is running for the highest office in the land...it's Presdient Bush's 2000 campaign all over again.

____________________

Gloria:

Gregory, many low- and middle-income Americans were VERY positively impacted by President Clinton's economic policy, and naturally associate Hillary with President Clinton.

____________________

Daniel:

Ben:

Because so many women, including Hillary herself, see the race that way. They publically state that this is a "historic ocassion" to elect a woman president etc. Let me ask you this question: Why is it that whenever a male questions Hillary's fitness for office or political policies, it's just a subtrafuge for being against a woman? Gender bias cuts both ways.

Hillary is a smart player and knows that there are more women than men that vote and is using her gender to pander to that group. Simply put, it's not men that keep bringing up the fact that Hillary is a woman; it's Hillary herself. The gender bias starts right there.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR