Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

New Hampshire Endgame

Topics: 2008 , New Hampshire , The 2008 Race

1NHEndgame17.png

The New Hampshire endgame polling presents an interesting contrast. The Republican race shows virtually no hint of an "Iowa Bounce." The Democratic race, on the other hand, is showing a huge bounce for Obama and a drop for Clinton. Edwards is largely unaffected.

The charts also show the better performance of the sensitive red-line estimator when things are as dynamic as they have been since Thursday. The Red estimator catches the upturn in Obama support pretty well, while the blue estimator is trying hard to keep up but its "slow to change" nature means it totally misses the timing of the upswing.

If anyone were actually asking if there has been an Obama bounce, surely they are no longer asking.

The Republican side is a bit more sedate, probably because the leader there, John McCain, was hardly a top finisher in Iowa. The upward trend for McCain, and the downward one for Romney, predated the Iowa caucuses. At most the trends we saw earlier have largely continued. Huckabee appears to be the candidate without a bounce, in fact.

These are dynamics we've seen before when Iowa has had an impact. The short interval between Iowa has been much debated. One side says it doesn't allow enough time for an Iowa bounce to be fully felt. I'm of the opposite opinion. The short interval maximizes the effect of Iowa by not allowing time for losers in Iowa to retool their approach and for "added scrutiny" of the Iowa winner to slow their climb. The issue for Clinton and Romney is how to halt what is beginning to look like disastrous slides. With more time between events they would be better able to recover. If New Hampshire is a second loss for both, then both campaigns have to find ways to recover by South Carolina.

Cross-posted at Political Arithmetik.

 

Comments
Alvaro Degives-Mas:

About the closer:

If New Hampshire is a second loss for both, then both campaigns have to find ways to recover by South Carolina.

In the case of Romney, I guess that makes sense even though Nevada celebrates caucuses that same January 19, and notwithstanding the Michigan primaries on the 15th; I suppose the proximities of a few days is the key to your take. But in the case of Clinton, I'm not sure how or why you'd overlook Michigan (Jan 15) and Nevada (Jan 19) as South Carolina's Democratic primaries are held no earlier than Jan 26. Did you think of Romney and added Clinton in an afterthought (overlooking the later SC Dem primaries) or do you really think Clinton needs two weeks more? I doubt the latter is true; after all, we've seen Obama rise in about a similar span prior to Iowa. Right?

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

I agree: I think it's about the worst possible timing for Clinton. Not only does she have little time to do anything, but because the magnitude of the bounce is still unfolding, she will have a hard time with expectations management -- especially after the stunt Mark Penn pulled.

____________________

Alvaro,

I discounted Clinton in Michigan because she is the only major candidate on the ballot there. Obama, Edwards and Richardson chose not to participate when Michigan moved its primary up in violation of DNC rules. A nice story on this from the Detroit Free Press is

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS06/801070333

As for Nevada, it may turn out to be more important than I'm currently expecting. Early in the process it looked to loom large. But it has gotten much less attention in the last several months. I expect the press to focus more on South Carolina as the true showdown-- of course I could be entirely wrong about that.

But Michigan is a non-contest.

\chf

____________________

Alvaro Degives-Mas:

Disclosure: I'm in Reno. Still, 3 things that may make NV interesting, come the 19th:

  1. It's on a Saturday, which may be in Obama's advantage, re: turnout.
  2. Clinton still has a margin here similar to what she had 2 weeks ago, before NH (then again, if the trend of sudden reversals confirms in NH, she'd be happy to make it to Feb 5 at all.)
  3. Provided he doesn't implode in NH, Ron Paul could have his last hurrah here, as an interesting spoiling factor among GOP candidates.
We'll see... It's an amazing year, though, considering the swings.

____________________

Prantha:

Charles and Alvaro (and mark):

I've not seen any NEW polls after December 6, 2007; have you? In this political season, those poll results are relatively ancient.

There's a 60,000 person strong, and politically powerful culinary union in NV that will announce their endorsement AFTER the results of NH are known. I think it depends on to whom that endorsement is given. If Hillary gets it, she still has a good chance of winning in NV and stopping the Obama train . . . or slowing the trajectory a bit.

____________________

Prantha,

I think we have all the NV polls, so the most recent is indeed early December.

1) That is fossilized by now.

2) This lack of polling is one reason I think NV is not going to be a focal point. Again, I'm happy to think I may be proven wrong, and I'd love to see an extra competitive caucus in the mix. NV has few polls sponsored by in-state media, but the small number of polls is still an indicator of lack of focus.

I agree that the conventional wisdom is that the culinary workers union will play a big role-- but if it is big enough, the suspense goes away and therefore much of the impact.

Ahh well. Let's wait and see.

Charles

____________________

Steve Miller:

My favorite line on your entire website:
If anyone were actually asking if there has been an Obama bounce, surely they are no longer asking.

____________________



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