Blame Biden

As I noted this morning the New Hampshire polls didn't actually get the level of support for Barack Obama wrong. Instead, they undercounted Hillary Clinton's supporters. How'd that happen? Jay Carney has friends of friends who have the answer:

He didn't find any evidence that white respondents who were telling pollsters they planned to vote for Obama did not. What he found, instead, is that a certain percentage of Democratic voters in the last days of polling presumed Biden (especially) and (to a lesser degree) Dodd hadn't dropped out. By and large, come election day, those Biden and Dodd supporters ended up casting ballots for Hillary. Also, of the 5 percent or so who were still undecideds in the last polls, almost all broke for Hillary. And a tiny percentage of Edwards supporters switched to Hillary.

When you think about it, this makes perfect sense. Obama got 38 percent of the vote in Iowa. Not only is Iowa only one small state, but 38 percent of the vote is way less than half. Nevertheless, based on that plurality he was about to march to the nomination. As a result, while Obama continued to hold his own in terms of his baseline level of support, all the uncommitted people -- supporters of minor candidates, undecideds, some soft Edwards people -- voted for Clinton to keep the race going. In Iowa, a similar dynamic probably helped Obama. People knew that a Clinton win might end the competition, so Obama can, so to speak, the benefit of the doubt. Unlike most political bloggers, most voters haven't been following this thing since the first quarter of 2007. A lot of them want to see how the competition plays out.

Comments

People don't vote that strategically. The biggest factor was just the usual problems with weekend polling.

Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2008 4:36 PM

Most voters haven't been following this thing since the first quarter of 2007. A lot of them want to see how the competition plays out.

That's crazy. You don't vote for your second-choice candidate just so some folks in Nevada or South Carolina can make the decision for you two weeks from now.

Posted by right | January 9, 2008 4:38 PM

Yeah, I'm unmoved by this analysis, Matt. I don't think Obama's got a 38% ceiling on his support, and I don't think people who live in New Hampshire would vote for Hillary just so people who live in other states could decide the race at a later moment. The whole idea leaves me cold.

Posted by southpaw | January 9, 2008 4:38 PM

I also think that plenty of Edwards voters that would otherwise vote for Hillary switched as it seemed she needed to help. Edwards supporters who like Obama second felt no such need.

In fact, how the race played in the media and how the voters responded seems to be the main factor in most of the reasons behind the polls being wrong, whether it is the Twitty Effect or something more mundane.

Posted by Mark | January 9, 2008 4:47 PM

Ditto. Dumb theory, Matt.

Posted by tinisoli | January 9, 2008 4:48 PM

That's crazy. You don't vote for your second-choice candidate just so some folks in Nevada or South Carolina can make the decision for you two weeks from now.

Biden and Dodd dropped out. People had no choice but to vote for their second-choice candidates. But they had to decide very quickly, so they broke for Clinton, the less-decisive choice.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 9, 2008 4:56 PM

Biden and Dodd dropped out. People had no choice but to vote for their second-choice candidates. But they had to decide very quickly, so they broke for Clinton, the less-decisive choice.

I like Ezra's theory better, they went for what they perceived as the less risky choice.

Posted by AJ | January 9, 2008 5:01 PM

I don't get it. Biden and Dodd were still on the ballot. If people didn't know on the last day of polling that they'd dropped out, why would they have learned it by election day? Why wouldn't such people have just voted for Biden and Dodd anyway?

Posted by John | January 9, 2008 5:01 PM

It was the women with needs and the lies that the media and her campaign portrayed about her 35 years of experience (which includes her time in Yale Law school). Why hasn’t anyone challenged this any way? Only one writer had the guts to challenge her claims. I guess everyone is afraid to get shunned by the big bad Clinton machine.

Let’s be honest here. Don't tell me the drug dealer stuff didn’t have an effect either. You know the scary roll of the dice black man. You know the terrorist will get you if you vote for him. JRE did drugs and wasn't called a drug dealer, Bill Clinton did drugs and wasn't called one either. Is it a coincidence that the only AA candidate was called a drug dealer by soneone in her campaign?

Or how about the fact that the Obama’s candidacy was called a fairy tale and not JRE. Why is that? Come on...

Posted by Ann | January 9, 2008 5:09 PM

Yes. This theory is much more dumb than saying that people vote simply to spite the media. I think we should talk more about Hillary crying.

Posted by bubba | January 9, 2008 5:16 PM

Eh, this whole meme about voting strategically to prolong the contest reads like wicked projection to me.

Posted by Senescent | January 9, 2008 5:17 PM

Biden and Dodd both have been in the Senate longer than Obama, Clinton and Edwards combined. What appeal they had was largely based on their long records and experience. Does it not make sense that their supporters might have broken more towards Clinton, who was making much of being the most experienced of the big three?

Posted by umbrelladoc | January 9, 2008 5:20 PM

"Biden and Dodd dropped out. People had no choice but to vote for their second-choice candidates. But they had to decide very quickly, so they broke for Clinton, the less-decisive choice."

If they broke for Clinton, which isn't a bad theory, it's because they thought she was the second-best candidate on the ballot. Not out of some idiotic idea that the nominating process needed to be extended. That fits right along side Republican paranoia that Democrats will use open primaries to vote for the worst possible GOP candidate. Are there handfulls of people who might do that? Sure. But that is just not the way the overwhelming majority of folks think about voting.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 9, 2008 5:27 PM

By and large, come election day, those Biden and Dodd supporters ended up casting ballots for Hillary.

I don't have a problem with the premise - I can see where Biden and Dodd supporters might value Washington experience and switch disproportionately to Hillary over Barack.

However! As of New Years, pre-Iowa, those two were netting 2-3% in polls. Hard to believe they surged after Iowa. So even if all their support broke for Hillary, that only boosts her by 3%.

Also, of the 5 percent or so who were still undecideds in the last polls, almost all broke for Hillary.

Well, it makes the math work, but an explanation would be nice. The CW is that late undecideds break against the incumbent, which in this case ought to be the better known candidate, Hillary.

Posted by Tom Maguire | January 9, 2008 5:28 PM

Again, could someone please explain the claim that people somehow would realize only in the voting booth that they couldn't vote for Biden and Dodd? They could vote for Biden and Dodd! Biden and Dodd were on the ballot! If they didn't know Biden and Dodd had dropped out going in, they could've just voted for them. Or am I missing something?

Posted by John | January 9, 2008 5:34 PM

When you think about it, this makes perfect sense. Obama got 38 percent of the vote in Iowa. Not only is Iowa only one small state, but 38 percent of the vote is way less than half. Nevertheless, based on that plurality he was about to march to the nomination.

I dunno if this has been mentioned before, but Obama did not get 38% of the vote. He got 38% of the delegates. Big difference. I was working in Iowa and because caucus delegate allotment math is crazy, in some precincts he had huge support but received a less than an equal number of delegates in that precinct because every viable candidate gets at least 1 delegate.

Quick example: 100 people turn out to a precinct with 5 delegates to allot. After realignment, Hillary and Edwards each have 15 supports and Obama has 70. He would get 3 delegates and Hillary / Edwards each get one.

Not saying it was this glaring everywhere, but he had huge turnout in a lot of precincts. The Iowa Dem party keeps stats on how many supporters each candidate has (more akin to an actual vote count), but they don't release those numbers. Would be interesting if they did.

Posted by Daniel Adams | January 9, 2008 5:43 PM

Do you really have to keep coming up with reasons the polls weren't really wrong?

You've got zero evidence that this latest theory is true. It makes even less sense than the dozen other ideas currently making the rounds, but what the heck, you think it sounds good.

We just don't know the views of voters as well as we thought we did. The polls got it wrong. It's that simple.

Posted by Jinchi | January 9, 2008 5:58 PM

Someone needs to note that Obama did great in two states in which you wouldn't exactly describe as favorable ground for him.

My view of the situation is that the coalition Obama has the potential to build is one which is based on an alliance of higher educated/creative class type of people along with poorer African Americans.

African Americans are non-existent in Iowa and NH, and creative class people should be proportionally less in a rural, farm/manufacturing place like Iowa. I dunno about NH.

Under this light, his overall performance is impressive.

An interesting question is what role Edwards plays. I think that while he's got a big chunk of support among bloggers/activists, the people voting for him are white blue-collar workers - who also are a significant source of Hillary's strength. I think that the 17% he got yesterday was a bit less than I would expect him to get and ever so little might have helped Hillary.

And obviously this question has broader implications regarding Edwards plays further down the road. He could be a spoiler for Hillary, not Obama. But I am not sure.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 9, 2008 6:17 PM

I live in New Hampshire. I was undecided between Hilary and Edwards until:

1. Obama won Iowa
2. The coronation began
3. The MSM commenced dancing on Hilary's grave

I voted for Hilary because my preferences were:

1. Assholes like Tweety and company be proven wrong for the 8 millionth time.
2. The race would continue

I'll support whoever we nominate but I do think it's in the party's best interest for the race to go on for a while.

So there you go. One data point in support of MY's analysis. Matthew is right. Very few voters are as intensely invested in the race as the political junkies who come to sites like this and people DO vote strategically, occasionally in numbers large enough to affect the outcome of a race.

Posted by Fat Tony | January 9, 2008 6:28 PM

Also, there are more men who won't vote for Hillary than white racists who won't vote for Obama. ALOT more. If Obama was a republican, this race argument might hold water, but he isn't. He is a liberal in the liberal party.

Posted by Brian | January 9, 2008 6:31 PM

Listening on NPR on the way home today, they seem to think it was because Hillary cried and thus swung a lot of votes her way.

Given her ice queen reputation, there might be a point to it. I thought it was an A+ job of emoting myself.

Posted by russell120 | January 9, 2008 7:09 PM

...all the uncommitted people -- supporters of minor candidates, undecideds, some soft Edwards people -- voted for Clinton to keep the race going.

I think the most likely explanation vis a vis Edwards voters, at least, is that a portion didn't want to waste their votes on a losing candidacy, and, as Edwards voters. they tend to be more concerned with economic "deliverables" than they are with foreign policy or sundry political reforms. Hillary talks a lot more about deliverables than Obama.

Posted by Jasper | January 9, 2008 7:13 PM

A lot of women in New Hampshire had PMS and were afraid of the scary black drug dealing muslim.

Posted by blah | January 9, 2008 8:08 PM

There are reports now about Richardson dropping out. I'm not sure why he would do that with the race about to head west for the first time, to a state with a decent-sized Latino population, but one can speculate about what happens to his support. My guess is that as a former Clinton administration figure, most of it would go to Hillary.

Posted by ChuckE | January 9, 2008 8:14 PM

her 35 years of experience (which includes her time in Yale Law school)

No, it doesn't. She graduated from law school in the spring of '73 (35 years ago), went to work as a staff attorney for the Childrens' Defense Fund, and the next year went to work for the House Watergate Committee.

Posted by rea | January 9, 2008 8:23 PM

The New Hampshire Polls Weren't Wrong, the Media Was

The New Hampshire polls weren't wrong. It was just that the Mainstream Media (MSM) didn't know how to read them.

Let's analyze rather than blindly follow the MSM make believe fallacies.

The results of the election were:

Clinton 39%
Obama 37%
Edwards 17%
Richardson 5%
Kucinich 1%
(unassigned 1%)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH

The Real Clear Politics (RCP) pre-election polling averages had for 01/05 to 01/07 was:

Obama: 38.3
Clinton: 30.0
Edwards: 18.3
Richardson 5.7
(unassigned 7.7)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

First, in the polling average there is only one figure (Clinton's) out of four that is outside the expected margin of error. Obama, Edwards and Richardson were within a reasonable margin of error. So how is that "completely" messing up? It's not.

Next, how do the numbers in the poll add up? 38.3+30.0+18.3+5.7= 92.3 leaving 7.7 unassigned going to either "undecided" or Kucinich or other candidates like write-ins.

Compared to the poll, the results showed that Kucinich got 1% leaving 6.7% unaccounted for. Those 6.7 added to the poll's 30.0 for Hillary gives 36.7% for Clinton. Then add the 1.3 from Obama and 1.3 from Edwards and the 0.7 from Richardson's (all three were within the margin of error but they went to Clinton) for 3.3 and then subtract the 1% not assigned and you have 39% which is the actual result.

So, the polls weren't wrong at all for Obama and Edwards, it was only that of the 7.7% of the "undecided" and "other" most of it went to Clinton and none to Obama, Edwards, or Richardson.. That is not a big mix up in the polls.That is a jump to a conclusion by the MSM reporters who don't know how to read polls.

If the media had analyzed the polls correctly instead of focusing on the number that Obama appeared to be ahead, they would have focused on the 7.7% of unassigned voters. Has that large number of 7.7% been correctly reported there would have been speculation about which candidate would get it. Even if people speculated that it would all go to Obama, or be evenly distributed, the only surprise compared to the polling is that this number went all to Clinton.

But under no circumstances if the polling was read correctly, should the media have reported that this 7.7% was a lock for any of the candidates and it should have been reported that the 7.7% was the wild card that meant the election could go any direction.

But because the MSM wanted a story, it created its own narrative of a big swing to Obama in the polls and totally ignored the 7.7% that was unaccounted for. By ignoring that 7.7% the media created the story instead of reporting it.

Now, the media and pundits of the MSM are once again creating a story, this time that the polls were wrong, when in fact it was not the polls that were wrong but only their mistaken interpretation of the polls.

Alternatively some pundits like Tim Russert are creating a story that the polls weren't wrong and instead the Clinton "victory" was stunning. This is just as mistaken and results in saying such absurdities as this.

NBC’s Tim Russert, subdued for most of the night, resumed some of his post-Iowa-caucus exuberance shortly after Clinton’s victory speech. “One of the greatest upsets in American political history. Underscored,” he said on MSNBC. “This is the political equivalent of Ali-Frazier.”

No, Mr. Russert, this was not at all an upset, much less "one of the greatest upsets in American political history."

The polls said the race was close because there was an average 8.3& difference with 7.7% unaccounted for. Clearly if the 7.7% went to Clinton then the result statistically too close to call. That is what happened so it was not an upset. Again, only by buying the crazy idea that the 7.7% should be ignored can someone like Russert believe that there was an upset.

Lastly, let's look at the MSM fairytale that Clinton won New Hampshire.

In fact, New Hampshire was a tie. The MSM theme that Clinton "was behind" was an illusory fraud, so the new theme that she is now a "comeback girl" is also a fraud.

Clinton was virtually tied in Iowa being in second place and only one delegate (out of 4,049) behind Obama (16 to 15), and Edwards was in third place in Iowa wtih 14 delegates (not counting superdelegates for any of them). So with 15 delegates meaning she was 1 delegate behind Obama's 16, Clinton was 0.0625% behind Obama in Iowa. Not the "huge" win or the huge lead that the MSM and the Obama campaign made it out to be. Obama's campaign should never have allowed themselves to be sucked into that fairytale whirlwind.

In primaries, the difference in the number of votes doesn't count if the % is less than the percentile needed to get a delegate. Thus in New Hampshire, where the vote difference was not enough to award and extra delegate, the result between Clinton and Obama was a tie with 9 delegates each. The so-called 2% "stunning victory" was an illusion since Clinton really needed about a 4.25% lead just to get one more delegate than Obama for a real win. Since New Hampshire was a dead heat tie for delegates coming off a virtual tie in Iowa, there was no great fall behind and no great upset win. Both sides of the Iowa-New Hampshire story are made up by the MSM and pundits like Russert to create sizzle out of whole cloth.

Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel | January 9, 2008 8:55 PM

Correction, "Clinton was 0.0625% behind Obama in Iowa" should be "Clinton was 6.25% behind Obama in Iowa,"

Posted by Gregory Wonderwheel | January 9, 2008 9:02 PM

Thanks Gregory. Matt, maybe you could let Gregory guestblog.. through November?

Posted by Duane | January 9, 2008 9:11 PM

"Biden and Dodd dropped out. People had no choice but to vote for their second-choice candidates. But they had to decide very quickly, so they broke for Clinton, the less-decisive choice."

I don't know. It seems to me that people who were rooting for Biden and Dodd had to have been mostly core democrats looking for an experience candidate. It seems more plausible that they picked Clinton because she was the next best option according to that calculus. I can't say it's impossible that people voted to keep the race interesting, but I'd want to see that confirmed, and confirmed a lot, by some kind of polling or interviewing or something. If all we have are the polling numbers,It isn't wise to try to play the guessing game of assessing what the internal dynamics were, when we have no clear picture of those dynamics.

Posted by gerontion | January 9, 2008 9:30 PM

Gregory don't you realize that your argument moves the NH polls from the "merely wrong" category to the "catastrophically wrong" category?

To have virtually all the undecideds swing for Hillary means they were completely misidentified. Polls which make that kind of error are useless.

Posted by Jinchi | January 9, 2008 9:31 PM

I can't think of many campaigns prior to 2004 where a multi-candidate choice was "decided" by Iowa and New Hampshire. To take this view and put it into a prism where it is used as the basis to devine voter intent and motivation is not only very lazily fighting the last campaign but shows evidence of some serious MSM bubble at work. The fact that the theory is makes sense to and is advanced by other "journalists" shows just how bad the problem of campaign coverage is.

God forbid that those people just happened to actaully consider the candidates and the issues and actually wanted Hillary Clinton

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | January 9, 2008 9:36 PM

"voted for Clinton to keep the race going"

Why do so many journalists and bloggers assume so much with so little factual and actual knowledge?

Doesn't it ever occurr to people that voters may just in fact be voting for who they like the most?

When I vote on Feb 5, it will be for the person who I support. And not for any other reason.

Posted by Volum | January 9, 2008 9:48 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Marist_New_Hampshire.htm

Based on the above and other things I've read, I think it was almost all women changing their mind at the last minute. Probably from seeing boorish male TV personalities go after her with their daggers, and focussing on BS like one little momentary waver in her voice and trying to make a mountain out of less than a molehill.

Posted by Tim | January 9, 2008 10:19 PM

Look at these posts for a political science perspective

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/01/dont_blame_secretly_prejudiced.html

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/01/what_was_going.html

Posted by anon | January 9, 2008 10:36 PM

After reading all this analysis all day, once again it's Bob freakin' Somerby who points out, with the voice of wisdom, that multi-party NH primaries are always hard to predict. Bush and McCain polled even and McCain won NH by 18 freakin' points in 2000.

Posted by dbt | January 9, 2008 11:04 PM

Jinchi" "To have virtually all the undecideds swing for Hillary means they were completely misidentified. Polls which make that kind of error are useless."

I think Tim above has it right. It was a last minute break by mostly older white women voters toward Clinton and away from Obama and Edwards - both undecided and previously committed.

Zogby has a post on HuffPo that basically agrees with the analysis I made last night - that it was undecideds and older white women that made the difference. Plus he adds in that last minute data showed the disparity between Clinton and Obama narrowing within the last day or so and this data was not reflected in the three-day moving average media polls:

"1. According to the exit polls, 18% of the voters said that they made up their minds on primary day. That is just an unprecedented number. I have polled many races, especially close ones, where 4% to 8% have said they finally decided on their vote the day of the election and that can wreak havoc on those of us who are in the business of capturing pre-election movements and trends. But nearly one in five this time?

2. It looks like the always feisty voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire have rejected pre-election coronations. In the case of Iowa, Democratic voters said that Mrs. Clinton is not inevitable, while in New Hampshire they were not ready to endorse the Obama train without checking the engine.

3. The compressed schedule of the two events may have had an impact. Normally the winning candidate gets an initial big bounce out of Iowa, and then plateaus. Then the next primary race begins. With less than five full days, Obama got his bounce in New Hampshire, then the settling down period began on the last day -- under the radar screen.

4. My polling showed Clinton doing well on the late Sunday night and all day Monday -- she was in a 2-point race in that portion of the polling. But since our methods call for a three-day rolling average, we had to legitimately factor the huge Obama numbers on Friday and Saturday -- thus his 12 point average lead. Unfortunately, one day or a day-and-a-half does not make a trend and we ran out of time.

5. Going into the New Hampshire primary, we certainly did see Clinton holding on to a significant lead among women and older voters. But we were focusing on Obama's massive lead among younger and independent voters. We seem to have missed the huge turnout of older women that apparently put Clinton over the top.

6. We expected that Obama would receive the lion's share of independents and drain the Republican primary of these voters. It now appears that, perhaps with a sense that Obama had a lock on the Democratic side, independents felt free to vote on the Republican side and reward their hero, John McCain."

So in other words, it was a "perfect storm" of factors that dramatically shifted the odds towards Clinton at the last minute.

Which, incidentally, means it's not much use for predicting upcoming primaries in my view - unless the same factors are brought into play.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 11:35 PM

Anybody know how many women either run or work for any of these polling organizations?

Posted by Lisa | January 10, 2008 1:25 AM

The problem with the Blame Biden theory

In the exit poll, they asked, "who would be the best commander in chief", which is an excellent proxy question for Presidential votes. 9% of the NH electorate answered Biden. Who did those 9% vote for?

31% Obama
24% Edwards
15% Clinton

In short, the Biden folks were an anti-Clinton constituency.

Posted by Petey | January 10, 2008 6:56 AM

My big question about the pre-vote polls is what turnout model they were using, and whether that turnout model in fact was accurate. In Iowa, there was an extremely high number of independants and first time voters that voted in the democratic primary, and they are Obama's biggest areas of strength.

In contrast, I remember reading that those groups' turnout was only average in New Hampshire. If pollers were factoring in a larger than usual turnout among those groups that didn't come to pass, that could be part of the explanation for Obama doing less well than predicted.

Posted by Doug T | January 10, 2008 8:25 AM

What I hate about all this "analysis" is that it insists in taking the victory out of Clinton's hands. You know when McCain wins we get homilies to his stubborness or his straight talk a tude (which is complete BS BTW)
With Democratic candidate wins it's this group that this group this.

Last night I was looking at the TPM video summary of the key moments in New Hampshire and what hit me was how damn solid Clinton was. She made the case and she looked good doing it. She must have moved some voters. Can we at least agree on that? She moved some people based on her political talent? Why attribute it all to passive voices.

There is also the possibility that Obama annoyed some voters.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 10, 2008 10:01 AM