Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NH Results Thread

Topics: 2008 , Exit Polls , New Hampshire , The 2008 Race

6:08 p.m. Eastern time - The Atlantic's Marc Abminder is first out of the box with hints from the New Hampshire exit poll:

EXIT POLLS: GOP: 3 in 10 independents are GOP voters...many late deciders... McCain more electable than Romney...33% say economy is biggest issue followed by Iraq (22%) .... Democrats: 46% made up minds without last week.. 4 in 10 are independents.... HRC's favorability: 73%; Obama's: 84%; ... 36% say economy is top issue....

MSNBC is also reporting that nearly half of the Democrats voting in New Hampshire are independents (43%) and that 38% of the Republicans are independent. Those numbers within range but on the high side of what pre-election polls were reporting this week for both parties, although the Democratic-Republican split is more favorable to the Democrats than the CNN/WMUR/UNH and Fox News polls reported. See the post I updated just a few minutes ago for more details.

I am headed home...but the comments section is open, please post your questions. Apologies if you get the dreaded "too many comments" error -- you did nothing wrong. We will squash that bug soon.

7:25 - Via Ben Smith a this report from ABC News posted at 6:00:

ABC News' Gary Langer Reports: Based on preliminary exit poll results from the New Hampshire primaries, Independents are turning out in substantial but customary numbers.

Preliminary exit poll results indicate that just over four in 10 voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary are independents, compared with 48 percent in 2004 and a record 50 percent in 1992.

To be clear, the numbers from 2004 and 1992 that Langer cites are of party identification. The numbers cited by MSNBC above may be as well. The numbers I reported earlier from pre-election surveys are mostly party registration. And there is a difference, but I have no idea what that difference might imply.

7:50 - Exit poll tabulations will be posted on MSNBC at these links (Democrats, Republicans) when the polls close at 8 p.m. Eastern time. CNN will presumably post tabulations as well. See my post from earlier this morning for more information on what to make of these numbers when they appear.

8:04 - CNN has tabulations up for Democrats and Republicans.

8:11 - Mark Lindeman is posting extrapolations of the current candidate estimates used the weight the tabulations posted on CNN and MSNBC in the comments section below. Look there for further updates.

8:28 - The tabulations on the Democratic side indicate that Obama's advantage was narrower among those who decided in the last few days than among those who decided over the last month (i.e. no big break to Obama in the closing days): Obama's margin over Clinton (using the current estimates, which will likely change over the next few hours) among those who decided their vote today (40% to 37%), the last three days (41% to 35%), last week (47% to 25%), last month (48% to 32%). Among those who decided "before that," Clinton leads 47% to 32%. And more than a third of voters (37%) say they made up their minds today or in the last three days.

10:33 - NBC projects Clinton the winner, prompting the following exchange between the MSBNC anchors:

Chris Matthews: [Clinton] has beaten the odds, she has beaten the pollsters, the pundits. Everyone one of us included who has been trying to follow this campaign and understand it. I think something happened. It must have happened fairly recently, or else the pollsters should find another means of employment.

Keith Olbermann: Well the entire industry was apparently mistaken, it had nothing to do...

Matthews: But every poll. At least with the other side [the Republicans] there was some disagreement, in the Democratic primary, these polls were relentlessly pro-Obama.

12:35 - As I started to write up these final paragraphs, Chris Matthew popped up to say the following on MSNBC: "I'd like to see an inquest of all these polls and the methodology because we always have learned, eventually, what went wrong with polling."

Well, what follows is considerably less than an inquest, but I have been comparing the exit poll tabulations with the last set of cross-tabulations from CNN/WMUR/UNH. Looking at just one poll may turn out to be misleading, so hopefully we can do similar comparisons on a larger group of polls, but based on this initial look, here is what I see:

If there was a problem with this one poll it was not about the composition of the electorate. Were there too few women? Too many independents? Too many young voters? On these three variables, if it erred, the UNH poll erred slightly in Clinton's favor. It had slightly more women, more older voters and more registered independents in the Democratic electorate than the exit poll. The UNH poll did sample slightly more voters with college degrees (61%) than the exit poll (53%), but that difference does not explain Obama's lead. Weight back 61% college educated to 53%, and Obama's lead on the poll shrinks only a little (from 9 to 6 points).

On the other hand, the discrepancy between the last UNH poll and the result seems concentrated in a few key subgroups. I will post the exact numbers tomorrow once the we get a final exit poll tabulations, but virtually all of the difference seems to come from women and college educated voters. For the moment, when comparing the UNH poll to the exit poll, I see a net 17 point gain for Clinton among women compared to a 5 point gain among men, and a 13 point net gain among college educated voters compared to a one point net loss among those with no college degree.

My new colleague* Ron Brownstein has chronicled the critical importance of college educated women as swing voters in the Democratic nomination race. More than any other group, they moved to Clinton in the fall after her strong performances in early debates. Yes she appeared to be doing far less well among these voters in Iowa. If the polls missed a last minute shift to Clinton in New Hampshire, considering the heavily gender focused coverage of the last 48 hours of the campaign, the most logical place to look is among college educated women.

Combine that with the exit poll results showing 37% of the Democrats "finally deciding" for whom they would vote in the last three days of the campaign, and we have a pretty good first clue of what happened with the polls in New Hampshire this week.

*There is a hint there for regular readers -- more on that tomorrow (er..later today).

12:50 - ABC polling director Gary Langer has some very worthy first impressions:

There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.

But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened - about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen - a convenient foil for pollsters who'd rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling. [....]

The data may tell us; it may not. What's beyond question is that it is incumbent on us - and particularly on the producers of the New Hampshire pre-election polls - to look at the data, and to look closely, and to do it without prejudging.

Definitely worth reading in full.

 

Comments
jhm:

post NH question: Is there really such a dearth of polling data in the latter states?

Also, could you add the dates of the primaries next to their poll graphs.

____________________

look good for my predictions me thinks....

____________________

yuen:

drudge has earkt exit poll results at 840pm:

Clinton 36 Obama 36

McCain 38 Romney 29

____________________

yuen:

sorry it should be 7.40pm

(I am in asia and my watch says 8.40AM hence the confusion)

____________________

yuen:

8.97% IN: OBAMA 36; CLINTON 38; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4; KUCINICH 2...
8.97% IN: MCCAIN 37; ROMNEY 28; HUCKABEE 12; PAUL 8; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1...

drudge update at 7.50pm

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

Yeun: What Drudge is reporting is the actual vote count. Polls closed at 7:00 p.m. in parts of New Hampshire.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Dems two different estimates, but both have Obama +1.5 or so. 38.3 / 36.9 / 15.7 for Edwards.

Reps McCain 35.8 / Romney 29.9 / Huck 12 / Paul 10 / Giul 8

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Those are estimates based on all the tabulations (presumably composite estimates, as per Mark's primer this morning). I have a little program that inhales the data and parses it -- I hope accurately. Sanity checks come next, although it looks like what I'm looking at!

Monster numbers for Clinton among women. 45/36, versus 44/29 Obama for men. And 57% of voters women. Assuming they got that right. It was a problem in 2004.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

I'm not sure it's possible to get the Dem numbers to pass a sanity check. The global warming tab seems like it has to give Obama at least a 4-point lead, unless there was a lot of non-response.

Of course, we have limited idea what these numbers mean anyway.

____________________

yuen:

thanks Mark: I stand corrected

so why have the Undecided turned out overwhelmingly for Hillary? one thing is clear: the anti-Hillary independents have all gone to vote for McCain, thinking that Hillary is already finished

by Kaus's incumbent rule, last minute Undecided vote against the incumbent; it looks at if Obama is the incumbent in NH, and the Undecided felt uncomfortable with the unknown and went for the known instead

____________________

ARCADIA:

The night is still young, Mark, but here's some anecdotal evidence, about how women reacted during the last two days!!

After Hillary's "shrill response" and the media descriptions, I remember viewing the clip and identifying with her. How many times has a woman been in that hideous position of speaking strongly and being dismissed by the men. From Edwards attacking to Richard's joke?

As for the crying, well how many of us have not teared up at work after a stressful day, when everything was going wrong. Yet, it was a huge deal.

Finally, all this Hillary bashing, with some serious sexist undertones on the web.

I am not a Hillary supporter, but I felt very sympathetic toward her.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

The exit poll update now has Clinton with about a 1.6-point edge.

____________________

Prantha:

Any web site that has constantly updating numbers (for the Dems?)

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

One thing to speculate about: if the initial numbers posted at 8 incorporated a "prior" that gave Obama a substantial lead, as in most pre-election polls, then the exit poll data may have been more favorable to Clinton. However, we won't know this tonight (unless someone tells us), since the tabulations are getting weighted to vote counts.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Prantha, http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=NH works OK if you hit refresh. (There must be an autorefresh out there somewhere, but whatever.) Most NH towns report in one fell swoop as they complete their hand counts.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

BTW just misquoted myself, surely not for the last time this evening. About half of NH jurisdictions use hand counts, depending on how you reckon "jurisdictions."

____________________

Prantha:

Mark L:

Thanks. That will work for me.

(I'm @ work, sneaking a peak from time to time.)

____________________

www.nytimes.com has a running tally on the main page. You just have to hit refresh.

____________________

Thom:

I'm just calculating based on Male Vote plus Female Vote, and I get:

Clinton 39.7%
Obama 37.4%

Clinton +2.3....also, with only 42% of the precincts reporting, I'd guess they are weighting by their best estimate of the final vote, not the raw vote.

____________________

anon:

best site for results that I've found that auto-refreshes and gives easy access to town-by-town results is:

http://www.politico.com/nhprimaries/nhmap-popup.html

____________________

Prantha:

Dartmouth (Hanover) has not yet reported, has it?

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Thom, FWIW, you'll get somewhat different margins from table to table; I have a bit of code that lets me do all the tables at once. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'll get better results! --Yes, I'm sure they are weighting to their best final estimate -- it would make no sense to weight to the current total. (Also I will double-check whether you have a later update than mine.)

anon, I think you have the winner -- especially for anyone who knows his or her way around NH!

Prantha, no Hanover yet (at least per CNN).

____________________

Prantha:

There's another college town (in the South, methinks). Anon, if you know, has that town posted its results?

____________________

Prantha:

UNH, in Durham
Dartmouth, Hanover

They're not yet in...

____________________

DavidE:

The University of New Hampshire is in Durham, which isn't in yet. Neither are Hanover and Lebanon.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Durham is UNH (near Portsmouth). Also has not reported.

On the politico map, try following the east border straight down (ish), and continue going straight when it veers further east. A few blocks down is Durham (slightly east).

Hanover is on the west, one of currently two adjacent pale/unreporting blocks midstate.

Wheeeee!

But these are not big enough to close the gap on their own, I don't think -- unless someone has a turnout report on the ground?

____________________

Prantha:

At this point, Mark, I kind of agree. Methinks Hillary got more numbers than Obama - and will take New Hampshire at some point later this evening.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Durham is UNH (near Portsmouth). Also has not reported.

On the politico map, try following the east border straight down (ish), and continue going straight when it veers further east. A few blocks down is Durham (slightly east).

Hanover is on the west, one of currently two adjacent pale/unreporting blocks midstate.

Wheeeee!

But these are not big enough to close the gap on their own, I don't think -- unless someone has a turnout report on the ground?

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

darnit all, Mark B., how many ways can this site massacre my brilliance?

ehem. Anyway, it's all good, once I learn all the weird workarounds and coping mechanisms.

Prantha, we think alike.

____________________

PaulB:

It's not too early to organize a star chamber for the polling fraternity. Can anyone remember an election where the pollsters were so wrong? And to be honest, every last political observer including the Clinton camp.

____________________

anon:

just some basic numbers on Dartmouth and UNH:
(all figures appx)

Dartmouth: 6000 students (both under- and grad)
Hanover (the town): pop 11000 (2000 census)

UNH: 13500 students
Durham: 13000 pop (2000 census)

____________________

Mike:

I'm not sure, but I don't think the schools are in session yet.

____________________

Thom:

Add all three college towns together, that's about 8800 votes in 2004. If Obama wins them all by a margin of 33 percentage points over Clinton, that's a +2900 for Obama...not enough. Even if turnout increases by 50% in those college towns (+4350 Obama)that still not enough...and on that note, I see NBC just called NH for Hillary. See you all here for months to come, as this goes down to the wire.

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Yes, Mike, I think UNH and Dartmouth are both out. Certainly decreases the odds that they would deliver a net +6K to Obama.

OK, just two exit poll observations (hey!) to round out the evening. No claim to originality.

On the Democratic side, I can't say I expected that folks who wanted to withdraw from Iraq "as soon as possible" would break Clinton +7 or so (41/34, with unknown rounding error), while others broke for Obama. (Of course that is likely confounded with gender -- the huge gender gap favoring Clinton -- and btw maybe ARCADIA was spot on. I wasn't monitoring gender splits pre-election.)

On the Republican side, I'm struck by how much better McCain did versus Romney among voters who said they were "angry" at the Bush administration. (Of course that was also Ron Paul's base.) The maverick magic lives, I guess.

____________________

Patrick:

I just listened to Tom Brokaw say, in reference to the Dem polls, "Suffolk was the only one who got it right, because they had a one point race." Umm, Tom go back into retirement. (1) You were looking at yesterday's numbers, not their final numbers today, and (2) Did you notice they also had Romney winning by 4 on the GOP side?

Look, the Suffolk folks may be terrific and some of the polls with Obama up by a bunch may be suspect. But polls are only predictive if the situation is stable. Potential answers are that something was universally wrong in the modeling or perhaps something happened in the last 24 hours that couldn't be caught by the last night's tracking. (New Hampshire voters are unique and it was unseasonably warm today.) We're so used to stability that we forget that things can change in a day.

____________________

kathy:

IF MCCAIN WINS... THE WAR, WILL NEVER END,AND THERE WILL BE AMNESTY..HE WAS IN A WAR CAMP WAY TO LONG... IT WILL THE THE END..AND WITH THE TYPE OF TEMPER HE HAS, IT WILL BE HELL ON EARTH....CAN WE SAY WAR MONGER,AND DELUSIONAL ON THE MATTER OF WHAT THE ILLEGALS DO TO OUR ECONOMY? I FEEL SICK.. :(

____________________

Moral Hazard:

"Can anyone remember an election where the pollsters were so wrong?"

Just about any election in a Southern state where there's both a black and a white candidate on the ballot. It seem quite plausible to me that there is the same effect here, that being that people tell pollsters that they support the black candidate because they think they're supposed to, then go into the voting booth and choose the white candidate.

It would also explain why the Iowa caucus polls were more accurate, since there is not privacy in a caucus.

____________________

Bill Drexel:

Please google "voting irregularity in NH" do your own research!

____________________

Andrew:

It's been confirmed again and again that polls cannot get close to predicting accurate primary results.

____________________

yuen:

I would like to make a few points about how lucky McCain was:

1. Obama, like Huckebee, has done McCain a big favour by nearly derailing Hillary - the anti-Hillary independents wrote her off and went to vote for McCain

2. The war in Iraq happened to improve to make his pro war stand less a problem

3. The immigration issue quietened down, while he in the mean time worked out some kind of passable answer about his problematic stand that would survive most scrutiny;

4. with the economy tanking, people would be in a flight to safety, which benefits McCain (and also Hillary)

5. The other Republican candidates all performed poorly; the party establishment, whatever its reservations about him, would eventually see him as sufficiently distant from the Bush years yet safely Republican

____________________

yuen:

another point I wish to make: NH seems to be determined to differ from Iowa - why should those fellows be the kingmaker? Remember George Bush (both father and son), Walter Mondale. etc?

I believe 2004 was unusual: both states wanted qualified war presidents and Kerry fitted the bill; instead of Iowa giving a candidate a bounce into NH, it would be kiss of death

____________________

Gary Kilbride:

Admittedly I haven't been paying much attention to politics due to a family medical concern. But after watching the coverage tonight I'm beyond baffled how this can be described as an alltime upset. I certainly tuned in tonight thinking Hillary had a chance. Kucinich or Paul, fine. But are people actually amazed Hillary Clinton won, a national frontrunner for years?

Go back to posts from January 5th on this site. Poll after poll gave Hillary the lead in NH. I guess I'm just not impressed by recency, whether it's politics or sports or anything else. USC wins huge in a bowl. So does LSU. So shocking. They were the preseason #1 and #2. Everything tends to drift back to the beginning. If all you know is recency, then you only know what everyone else knows, meaning you basically know nothing. I'll take long term strength and projected advantage over recency every time. Depending on a bounce is like depending on the incumbent rule.

Besides, and again I'm basing this on old knowledge due to my family situation, but isn't NH notoriously flawed in polling, even the late averaging? I can think of many examples. McCain trouncing Bush in '00. The gov race in '04. The '06 House race which the Democrat won when it wasn't even on the map.

NH is always one of the states I'm dubious of the polling, similar to Alaska and Georgia, or New Jersey early in the cycle.

Plus, it's always been my impression that primary polling, for whatever reason, is less certain than general election polling. More variables.

Now I'm listening to all the rationalization garbage that the race changed in the last 24 or 48 hours. We'll never know but I'm confident that is glorified nonsense. If they voted on Sunday I'd love to wager the result would have been virtually identical.

____________________

ari:

It doesn't seem like the polls were in fact wrong at all.

Here are the Obama, Edwards, and Richardson numbers from the "Current Standard Estimate" next to what actually happened.

Pollster.com prediction / Reality
Obama: 36.7% / 37%
Edwards: 18.4% / 17%
Richardson: 5.6% / 5%

That looks pretty dead on to me! Every major candidate was within about 1.5% of what actually happened. The only Pollster really got wrong was Biden, who got 0% as opposed to 2.5%. So what?

We all just forgot that there were 7% of people who were still not accounted for going into NH. Add the 2% of Biden supporters, and there's your Clinton win. Clinton simply won almost all of the people who were undecided.

____________________

"Clinton simply won almost all of the people who were undecided."

That's a pretty radical conclusion in itself, unless it's soldily backed by exit polls.

____________________

Prantha:

Yuen:

I hope you are right that:
"Obama, like Huckebee, has done McCain a big favour by nearly derailing Hillary - the anti-Hillary independents wrote her off (I assume you mean because polls said Obama had it locked up) and went to vote for McCain."

I like your reason, rather than the one I heard by someone named "Chuck" on either CNN or MSNBC, that it was possibly racially based. He said that people feel freer to be racist pigs when they can do it privately behind a curtain, than they do in open caucuses. (I am paraphrasing quite a bit here.)

____________________

ari:

Harald K - I don't actually believe that Clinton won every single undecided vote. But it seems to me that this notion that the polls were so dramatically off is wrong given that for all the candidates but Clinton, they were within 1.5% of the actual results.

Pollster.com's predictions

30.4 Clinton
36.7 Obama
18.4 Edwards
5.6 Richardson
+2.5 Biden
-----
93.6 total = 6.4% undecided

Reality:
39 Clinton
37 Obama
17 Edwards
5 Richardson
-----
98% total

6.4 (undecided) + 2.5 (Biden projected) = 8.9%
39 (Clinton results) - 30.4 (Clinton projected) = 8.6%

That's pretty darn close!

Now, okay, let's say Clinton only got half of the biden+undecided vote. That still gives her a 4.5% bounce above her estimate. At that point, we're really not talking about polls being all that different from what actually happens.

____________________

yuen:

I think many voters made up their mind last minute; those inclined to be pro-Hillary decided she needed their help and voted for her, while the anti-Hillary voters thought their votes are better used elsewhere instead giveing them to one of her opponents, which explains why the opinion poll numbers for the other Democratic candidates are pretty accurate, while Hillary's, and to a lessex extent McCains, are higher than predicated

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Gary, I'm sorry about the family trouble -- best wishes! In this context I think it's hyperbolic to say that counting on the bounce is like counting on the incumbent rule, because we actually "saw" the bounce (in the polls). But I agree it's not shocking that Clinton -- not only an early leader, but one of the best-known politicians in the country -- could "bounce back" (if that is the right way to characterize it), although I sure didn't expect her to win. And it also isn't shocking for NH polls to fail, especially in this time frame. I would have to know a lot more about the polls before venturing much more.

The 17% of Dems who said they decided "today" broke Clinton 40/37, and last three days broke Obama 40/36. Those numbers can be interpreted as Gary's reversion to form, depending on the "form": they show a competitive race, neither Clinton dominance nor a tsunami). Facially they don't support ari's idea that "undecideds" broke almost entirely to Clinton, but these numbers can't be used to identify undecideds! (They can't even be used to tell when people decided: people just don't operate in that way.) Given the dynamics, it's perfectly plausible that a bunch of NH Dems previously supported Clinton, wavered, and then came back. Some of these would not even have said that they decided late.

A further caution about ari's argument, however: Chris Bowers did a really interesting analysis of 'breaking undecideds' in presidential races that was a total mess. It just doesn't work to compare pre-election polls to results and draw firm conclusions about "undecideds." It's a suggestive thought experiment, but only that. Especially in a semi-open primary (as yuen points out), there is nothing that we can hold fixed in order to "allocate undecideds." We should try to think of "undecision" as one choice among several in the survey context, not "undecideds" or "Obama [Clinton] supporters") as well-defined groups.

Moral Hazard and Prantha, one always has to wonder about that. I would want to know more details about the pre-election polls before opining further. But right now, I really doubt that a race effect explains much of the discrepancy. I imagine many people saying, "Gee, Obama is exciting -- but is he really ready to be president? Clinton definitely is." Presumably race has to influence some of those judgments somehow, but I can easily imagine the same result with, oh, Howard Dean 2.0.

____________________

EthanJ:

1. Any consideration of "Wilder effect" race-based poll errors should allow an equal likelihood of gender-based poll errors.

2. Iowa was public. Women faced subtle group pressures from husbands and neighbors NOT to caucus for Hillary. Equally, there was a strong social pressure on the "non-viable candidate" caucus supporters to switch en masse to Obama rather than Clinton or Edwards.

3. More women will continue to have "epiphanies" (as one NPR interviewee described it this morning) about voting for a woman for president, regardless of policy or ideology. The same will be true for African Americans and Obama....

4. ...but there are more women in the Democratic base than African Americans. And, in the general election, there are FAR more women outside the party than African Americans. "Electability" calculations may need to get substantially re-written over the next two months.

____________________

I've been on the ground in NH volunteering for Hillary the last 5 days and - while i have no inside info whatsoever - my experience matches what EthanJ says in his third point...

Everywhere I went I saw women who were really enthusiastic about Hillary; women coming to polling places saying they came to vote for her like it was part of their personal mission; esp. women over, say, 35; lots of blue collar women but also ladies who lunch; a lot of women who said they decided after they watched Hillary in the last debate, met her personally out campaigning or saw her at a large event / rally.

I went to a Gather.com bloggers debate watch party Sat. in Manchester and had the following experience, which anecdotally is in line with EthanJ's 2nd point - the room was packed, including a LOT of college and 20-something kids. They were very vocally and visually pro-Obama, also pro-Edwards... when Hillary finally laid into Obama there was a positive response, but when Edwards fired back at her the room exploded with an aggressive kind of enthusiasm ...

I looked around the room and immediately made eye contact with a woman who shook her head, rolled her eyes and pointed to her Hillary button; then I saw another, and so on..in other words, there appeared to be a lot of "silent" support for Clinton in that room. The perception could easily have been that nobody there supported her.

In addition, I watched the local Fox affiliate yesterday for a few minutes around 6pm-ish; they were doing quick cute/mocking interviews with people standing at intersections holding signs for different candidates. The Kucinich vols and the Ron Paul vols were shown as "nutty," the Obama vols were "cool" (blasting James Brown music), McCain, Romney etc. sort of regular. But for the Hillary bit they didn't film any supporters - instead they set up in front of the window display of an adult book store. The two guys in front of the camera - some obese goombah from Boston and another guy - pointed to a mannequin dressed in a stripper outfit, and the goombah says "that's what Hillary needs to do - she needs to come out in that! Then we'll see what she's really got!" And the other guy chortles, and then they go back to the studio, where they chortle, and that's that. I was stunned.

Generally no one says anything about sexism in the mainstream media (except to dismiss its existence) but I heard a lot of women talk about having what EthanJ refers to as "epiphanies" because of previous crap like this, the relentless negativity of the Chris Matthews crowd, the nasty personal attacks and so on.

Also, of all the potential contributing factors listed by yuen and others, i think one big one may be missing: that some NH voters had had enough of the Obama message and moved on.

I heard a lot of people say all that esoteric talk of "hope" wore on their nerves; I heard people say things like "enough is enough" and "we need to get back to reality"; they also resented being told that because they valued experience they were on the wrong side of change (Obama set up a "change versus experience" forced choice that a certain number of people rejected). Obama supporters, in their enthusiasm, created a bit of a polarized environment - good guys vs. bad, Obama idealists vs. Clinton sell-outs - that turned off some people i talked to.

That's my 100% unscientific two cents worth. Sorry about the length of the post.

____________________

In the CNN/WMUR poll, taken Saturday and Sunday, which would include debate watchers, Obama led among women, 38-34, consistent with his Iowa margin. He led among men 42-25. In the exit poll crosstabs, he won men, 40-29, certainly with MoE, but lost women 46-34. That's where this election changed and talking about pressure from their husbands in Iowa makes little sense, because they didn't have pressure when taking polls. I strongly suspect that the crosstabs in the other polls will reflect similar numbers. Something happened between Sunday and Tuesday to change their minds. Whatever they said about when they decided, a lot of people appear to have changed. One or two polls could get the weekend "snapshot" wrong, my guess (and we're all just guessing) is that all of these polls didn't get it wrong. We know that Clinton's internal polls had her losing by more than 5 points. Monday Hillary cried, Tuesday women made her feel better. Yes, this is how we pick our President.

____________________

Patrick Oliver:

I sincerely hope that Hillary's well deserved comeback in New Hampshire leads more voters in other states to stop listening to the pundits and pollsters (who have proven to be wrong so many times in the past and actually look at the candidate's records to see what they've done and what they believe in. Whether you like or support Hillary or Barrack (I personally like both of them, but I don't think Obama has much of a record; I mean what amazing changes" has he accomplished in the Senate or in Illinois), it was totally unfair for the media to almost basically end her entire 35 year political career by constantly telling us that she was going to lose NH (and that would in essence end her campaign) when literally only 12% of Iowa Democrats had voted at that point! When are we ever going to fix this rotten, unfair system we have in this country where the voters in a few small states (Iowa and NH) get all the exposure to the candidate and can basically decide who our national candidates are going to be? It disenfranchises the other 99% of us. Maybe if people like Oprah would use their star power to fight for political reform rather than give stump speeches for their personal friends, things could start to change. Politicians themselves can't do it, or they'd be accused of doing it for selfish reasons. Ugh.

____________________

Barry: "Monday Hillary cried, Tuesday women made her feel better. Yes, this is how we pick our President" is purposely reductive and insulting. If you'd like to think women choose their candidate purely through emotional response, well, I hope you're enjoying the 19th century. Just remember it won't last forever.

Among the things that happened those last few days - intensive retail campaigning by Clinton and surrogates, backlash-inducing chatter (like your own), McCain wearing well, Obama wearing thin, local media coverage, informal networking, and other factors already discussed here. Maybe there was a big problem with Obama's field / GOTV operation - that's something I'm interested in. I expected to see tons of Obama volunteers on the ground Tuesday - I saw far more Clinton, McCain and Romney people.

____________________

Democritus:

Why is Kucinich not listed in the NH polls on this site? Systematic censorship? I know he pulled at least 1500 votes. It's not Obama, but it doesn't mater. Less than 1% of the population has voted and people are being excluded!!! Our democracy is at stake. All participating voices need to be included in all debates and polls until each party convention nominates its candidate!

____________________

I'm a New Hampshire voter. I have a simple explanation. All the polls were wrong for the same reason. The sample was skewed.


Clinton supporters stopped answering calls from numbers they didn't recognize on their caller ID. They were tired of the barage of phone calls from the Edwards and Obama campaigns. It was incredibly annoying and intrusive.

Supporters of Obama, on the other hand, were eager to talk to anyone. Much more than the average Clinton supporter, they felt like they were part of a "movement".

____________________



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