Matthew Yglesias (January 09, 2008) - How Wrong Were The Polls?

Her false mailers make me unsympathetic.

False claims about Obama's pro-choice record:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/ hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php

Rove-style attack politics:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/ ProHillary_mail_Be_very_afraid.html

DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/ 2008/01/clinton_heighte.html

Posted by bob | January 9, 2008 12:15 AM

So did some of the support come from Edwards? How can that be when he's a sure shot for the nomination?

Okay, less facetiously, I still want an explanation for the extra Democratic ballots that everyone was reporting needed to be delivered around the state. How is that not totally at odds with the result? Massive women's turnout?

Posted by southpaw | January 9, 2008 12:17 AM

oh please. people howled conspiracy when the bush/kerry numbers were off by less. even if the polls were close on obama, that still doesn't explain how they were so wrong on hillary, particularly with the MSM pushing obama so hard. maybe it's all movement from the last minute hillary tear fest. or maybe the media once again proves it's just not very good at getting things right, has no particular claim to knowledge or authority, etc.

Posted by dj superflat | January 9, 2008 12:18 AM

Folks tend to forget how much of an election gets decided in the last 48 hours, which is after most to all of the polling gets done.

You can have a perfectly accurate poll which is upended by the late surge. Elections tend to break at the end in one direction rather than the other.

Between Hill's tears and Bill's rant, the Clintons owned TV coverage in the last 48 hours. That matters.

Whouley matters too.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 12:19 AM

Am I reading the graph wrong, or did the polls nail Edwards' number just about as well as they did Obama's? If that's so, then the massive bump Clinton must've come from what? All of the other bit-candidates?

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 9, 2008 12:20 AM

Convential Wisdom was turned on it's head tonight. Sen. Clinton won against all odds, polls, and the pundits' speculation.

She deserves her win. It was hard fought and against every possible pontification, including my own.

http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/hillary-clinton-wins-nh-against-all-odds-and-conventional-wisdom/

Posted by thepoliticalpost | January 9, 2008 12:20 AM

The polls did in Obama tonight. If there were no polls he would have had a great night with the exact same result. Now it's spun as a great comback for Hillary and, I suspect, there are a lot of really down Obama supporters.

I support all of the major Dem. candidates. I like each of them all for certain reasons. When you get too caught up in the press hype for your candidate this is the kind of thing that happens, especially in NH. Do not put too much emphasis on one contest or another. This is, or should be, a long battle, not a two state coronation. A long battle will help the Dem candidate by forcing them to get better and help the Dem party by keeping the news focused on them.

Posted by bajsa | January 9, 2008 12:22 AM

Obama's internals had him winning by 14%

No secret here: So called moderate republicans will always vote for the republican over the democrat. Obama didn't get the surge he expected because some of his "supporters" were voting for McCain.

Posted by PEI | January 9, 2008 12:24 AM

People seem to be playing down the significance that NH is Clinton town. They turned out the vote for her at the last minute.

Posted by ava | January 9, 2008 12:29 AM

PEI, I presume you understand that your non-secret is completely contradicted by the graph that forms the basis for this post.

Posted by strannix | January 9, 2008 12:32 AM

Thanks for the props, Matthew. I am watching MSNBC and reading blogs and the notion that Obama lost is overwhelming and dead wrong. Also, MSNBC characterizing this as a HISTORIC UPSET is absurd. She was the inevitable candidate 6 days ago. Also, the polling shows Obama won all his traditional areas of college educated, wealthy, etc. Hillary won her demographics.

Figure out why women voted so overwhelmingly for Hillary in the last 24 hours and you figure out how Mark Penn finally got his micro targeting to work. My theory? 1. Contrived Crying. 2. The abortion mailers 3. Turning Hillary into a victim of a Edwards/Obama double team as well as a press punching bag.

Winning in Iowa gave Obama a title fight, which is all he wanted. He needs Edwards to drop out, and he needs to show that he can battle with Hillary. The polls made it seem like he couldn't be beat in New Hampshire, and I think his campaign got ahead of itself, and better have learned a lesson about expectations.

Posted by Brian | January 9, 2008 12:35 AM

Pretty amazing victory - Hillary didn't draw large crowds, she didn't even have the poll numbers - but handily took the New Hampshire Primary. Talk about the unseen guiding hand of fate that always seems to accompany the Clintons. It’s uncanny. Well, I guess it's a real “comeback” after all, a repeat performance, on to the White House: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 9, 2008 12:37 AM

Biased samples

Predictive polling is forced to rely on biased sampling, because only a small fraction of the likely voters whose names are pulled form the hast can be contacted and/or agree to participate. If this small percentage were a random sample, it is true that all we would have to worry about would be the random variance. But it isn't a random sample, people are filtered out or in based on their attitudes towards answering polls, when they're home to answer the phone, etc.

The major pollsters have learned empirically how to tweak their results so that this biased sample, after they add their secret sauce corrections, performs similarly to the actual electorate. But the real electorate in the case of intraparty races, and races involving more than two main competitors, one Republican and one Democrat, is too variable from race to race for them to be able to concoct the right secret sauce corrections to make the biased sample reflect the actual electorate in these contests. Empirically, the polls always do much worse on primaries and races with more than two major contenders, than they do on Dem to Rep, one-on-one, matchups. These particular results are not unexpected or unrepresentative.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | January 9, 2008 12:42 AM

Matt is wrong. Undecideds broke equally for Clinton and and Obama. The polls underestimated the extremely high level of Democratic voter turnout from Clinton's urban base.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 9, 2008 12:44 AM

Obama outperformed the final DMR poll by winning an additional 6% of the vote. If Obama's internals had him winning by 14 over Clinton it meant they were expecting him to outperform the final AGR poll by 6% of the vote. That 6% was there in Iowa it wasn't in NH.

Posted by PEI | January 9, 2008 12:47 AM

You need another bar on the graph. Undecided. When it came time to actually choose, they chose Hillary Clinton. Matt, this is really not rocket science. All you have to do is check it out. Going into the today the undecided vote was still around 17%.

Posted by ken | January 9, 2008 12:47 AM

@sherifffruitfly

One of the more convincing arguments I've seen for Hillary's support is in the undecided category not explicitly cited in the polls. If you estimate off the graph Matt shows, you'll see that only about 85% of the vote is accounted for in the initial O/C/E numbers. Allowing about 7% for Richardson and the rest, that still leaves about 8% of the undecideds, which is roughly the difference in Hillary's numbers, suggesting that a whopping number of the people who made up their minds late did so for Hillary. Why they did that, well, we'll be seeing a whole lot of conjecture on that in the coming days, but that's the where of it.

Posted by Mercutio42 | January 9, 2008 12:47 AM

One thing I've noticed as well is that Obama and Clinton are tied for delegates at this point. She may have won more votes (which matters narrative-wise) but not more delegates. If this thing does go out into the long-stretch, that's important.

Agreed that Edwards should drop out and endorse Obama if he really wants Clinton to lose. After getting clobbered tonight (by 20% pts, 50,000 votes, and 5 delegates) I don't see his justification for continuing on.

Posted by Jared | January 9, 2008 12:48 AM

Now MSNBC is talking about Race being a factor.

Posted by Brian | January 9, 2008 12:48 AM

I think that many independents, mistakenly assuming that Obama's victory was assured (polls gave him a more comfortable margin than McCain) voted for McCain instead assuming that Obama would win but the republican race would be close.

The polls didn't capture the psychology of independents thinking that one race would be lopsided while the other would be close, and chosing to vote in the perceived close race.

Posted by Tim | January 9, 2008 12:50 AM

"Now MSNBC is talking about Race being a factor."

More specifically, Chuck Todd is saying he finds the Bradley effect plausible.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 12:51 AM

You need another bar on the graph. Undecided. When it came time to actually choose, they chose Hillary Clinton. Matt, this is really not rocket science. All you have to do is check it out. Going into the today the undecided vote was still around 17%.

Exactly. That's what Matt is missing. There are always undecideds in the poll, but not in the actual election, so if you exactly hit your poll average in the election, it means that

when
X = voters who supported you in the polls but bailed at the ballot box
and
Y = undecided voters who broke your way,

then X = Y. Since everybody always gets some of the undecideds, when your poll result = your electino result it means you lost supporters.

Posted by Trickster | January 9, 2008 12:52 AM

Matt,

It's not the pre-election surveys that are the key to see what happened here it's the exit polls.

Clinton's key demographic of the over 40's is more numerous in actual voters than Obama's under 40 and dominantly under 30 core. It's entirely a generational thing, and the Matt/Young Ezra Klein demo just doesn't have the numbers yet to overcome your parents.

Go look at the CNN exit poll for NH, and compare it to the entrance poll for IA. They tell the exact same story.

The two dominant lessons here are that registered democrats, who btw also dominantly voted for Clinton, are hungry for the return of the wonk, and that the Media driven Clinton bashing rather than serving as red meat for "conservatives" is a much much more potent source of energy for Clinton's own base.

I think there are lot of people who were of voting age and older in 90s that are still very very upset with what was done to Hillary and Bill during that presidency by the media. And it's exactly that crowd that is who are older than Obama's "new voter" demographic, that are voting for her, while those who by their youth and non-involvement missed the 90s outrages are voting for him instead. The majority of under 25's, his strongest demographic, essential have no memory of the endless overly negative 90s Clinton Press attack machine. But the older you get the more outraged it makes you, especially to see it happening again in the face of the monster that same media has empowered over the last 7 years.

Long live the wonk! Long live the age of Media discontent!

Posted by smacfarl | January 9, 2008 12:53 AM

As one data point in support of my theory, the Political Lunch video podcast interviewed a guy who said he had planned to do just that (before results were known).

Posted by Tim | January 9, 2008 12:54 AM

"I don't see (Edwards') justification for continuing on."

Bill Clinton lost IA and NH in 1992, y'know.

-----

For all the Obamabots who demand Edwards drop out to save us from Clinton, you should understand that we have a majority nomination process.

Clinton can't win the nomination by getting 40% in every race, whether she's running against one or two or seventeen other candidates.

If she can get up to 51% and stay there, she wins no matter how many other candidates are in the race. If she can't, she loses no matter how many other candidates are in the race.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 12:55 AM

Can we stop the talk about Race being a factor? It is totally unhelpful to the discussion.

Posted by Brian | January 9, 2008 12:57 AM

It is not the fucking Bradley effect. Obama received about the same percentage of vote that the polls said he would. The story is that the Obama surge did not materialize whether because the were voting for McCain or because Clinton did better in the surge demographic (young and independents)

Pundits are dumb.

Posted by jack | January 9, 2008 12:59 AM

Of no significance whatsoever: The Guardian has a pretty unflattering picture of Clinton on their front page.

Posted by esa | January 9, 2008 1:03 AM

If the "undecideds" mostly - or half anyway - went for Clinton, then the question is: why?

I think Petey and Brian have it right. The last minute Clinton attacks and the last minute press coverage of "The Crying Game" and Bill Clinton did it.

Which has to make you sad for the electorate in this country that votes for whoever was in the news most in the last 24 hours.

It's like the TV Guide "Most Beautiful Women on TV" polls - whoever was in a "Movie of the Week" LAST WEEK wins.

It's pathetic. This is how a superpower chooses its leaders.

Bring back the Roman circuses - they made more sense.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 1:03 AM

I, hereby decree, that Obama, in the best interest of America, should drop out of the race so the Democrats do not nominate Clinton.

Being a member of Gen X and all around stand up guy, Obama should know you can't claim n-gun when Edwards already yelled shotgun while kissing a baby and touching a donkey. Obama must drop out because if he goes against the iron law of firsties he can no longer claim the change mantle, is no longer a stand up guy and will lose his soul and beginning listening to corporate pop.

I urge all Obama supporters to contact their candidate and demand he end his campaign. In doing so you are not only helping America but also ensuring Obama keeps his soul. Win-Win

Posted by Firsties | January 9, 2008 1:08 AM

"I think there are lot of people who were of voting age and older in 90s that are still very very upset with what was done to Hillary and Bill during that presidency by the media."

And stoking that resentment worked quite nicely in the 48 hours before NH.

But I think it remains a very open question whether or not that resentment is the basis for a successful nomination campaign that is going to last a minimum of a month.

My take is that re-fighting L'affair Lewinsky works well for Clinton in the short-term, and badly in the long-term.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 1:09 AM

Question: Before Iowa, Obama was behind steadily in the double digits. In 5 days we saw the gap flip. Does that seem odd to anyone else? Can you look at this as Obama closing the double digits to 3%?

Posted by Stellaa | January 9, 2008 1:10 AM

It wasn't the tears (maybe the media coverage of the mean media coverage of the tears), it was the Bill factor.

He came after Obama and people listen to Bill.

Bill, after all, is a popular guy.

Posted by hlah | January 9, 2008 1:15 AM

Yes Stella - Obama won NH just like Edwards won Iowa - by gaining in the polls right up to the point the voting started and he came in second. Unfortunately for Obama, he was suppose to win by 10 points whereas Edwards had not been in front in Iowa since 2006 so his win lacks a little luster.

Posted by claim victory and move on | January 9, 2008 1:15 AM

As a MA native this was about Romney. Indies reacted to the polls, saw O was ahead and figured why not bury Romney, the douchebag. McCain exceeded the margin, and O didn't. O really needed indies because 57% of the Dem party is older women. Yet, despite all that, in a straight raw h2h Obama still beat McCain. The good news out of this is Romney is on the ropes, the bad news is that Hillary is not, and they have gotten smarter, and will manufacture a mandate and call this the end of Obama's campaign--rightly or wrongly. People will be embarrassed for "hoping" and by the time they wake up, it will be too late, Hill will be sitting at 2,015. It is so depressing.

Posted by JC | January 9, 2008 1:22 AM

The poll that was farthest from reality, Zogby (13 point lead for Obama) only polled registered Republican and Democratic voters. But NH's primary is semi-open, all voters can vote and switch sides if they wish. I always vote Dem but I've never been a registered Dem.

Posted by anon | January 9, 2008 1:23 AM

Matt,

For comparison and to either confirm or rule out my theory, how was turnout on the Republican side? More than expected? If so, that would be consistent with my theory (Independents thought the democratic side would be a blowout, so they voted in the republican race instead, thinking it would be closer).

Posted by Tim | January 9, 2008 1:24 AM

Perhaps Clinton's surge was due to female voters deserting Edwards over his badly choosen opinion of her Tears Moment.

Posted by bd | January 9, 2008 1:28 AM

Well there is also the theory Clinton herself hinted at in Iowa, when she said the caucus system was unfair to women. I think she believes there are a lot of women who support her, but whose husbands don't, and that these women are uncomfortable about standing up publicly for their choice against their significant others in an open setting like a caucus room.

When women are polled in New Hampshire, their significant others are often within hearing distance - so maybe they lie or dissemble to the pollster. But then once inside the privacy of the voting booth they vote for their secret fave Hillary.

In any case, it looks like we have a fairly significant gender gap going on.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 9, 2008 1:34 AM

The polls did in Obama tonight. If there were no polls he would have had a great night with the exact same result. Now it's spun as a great comback for Hillary and, I suspect, there are a lot of really down Obama supporters.

Yep. That and the 'unified narrative' line. Look at December's polling, and you basically see Obama coming up through the 20s. The expectations game of the post-Iowa polling totally changes the perception.

If Iowa and NH happen on the same day, I'd imagine a pretty similar result, but with a very different takeaway. Perhaps you have indies seeing the polls, thinking 'blowout', and voting for McCain instead, but I don't see any big shift in the basic trend lines for the Dem candidates.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 9, 2008 1:36 AM

bd

Do you mean the 1% Edwards underperformed somehow correlates to the 8% Clinton overperformed.

Posted by crack | January 9, 2008 1:44 AM

According to the MSNBC's people, that late undecided vote broke from Obama by 1 point, 37-36.

Posted by MNPundit | January 9, 2008 1:45 AM

I absolutely LOVE what happened tonight ! Hopefully now nobody will take the polls too seriously, especially the ones for which the spreads are within the margins of error.

Posted by anon | January 9, 2008 1:45 AM

There's a rule scientists use that says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Forget the Wilder effect, or the Bradley effect. Forget trying to explain the results by Hillary Clinton's tears or Chris Matthews arrogant comments.

The polls were just wrong.

They predicted an 8-12 point win by Obama. They don't get credit for "nailing Obama's number" (in fact the pollster image you linked to shows that the variation in Obama's numbers from poll was larger than Hillary's so pick your poll).

Polls are measures of relative support. To nail one candidate's numbers and miss his opponent's result by 10 points is just to fail completely.

Posted by Jinchi | January 9, 2008 1:48 AM

Oh my god, the stupid pundits on TV are talking about that stupid "Bradley Effect"! This has nothing to do with race. I suspect Hillary supporters were driven to the polls because of Obama's lead in the polls.

Posted by hillary supporter | January 9, 2008 1:50 AM

I am an upper middle class white guy who has serious suspicions about how the polls could have been so wrong. If I am harboring conspiracy theories, how is this going to play in Harlem, on the South Side of Chicago, in much of South Carolina, an in every "ethnic" neighborhood throughout the country?

Read African-American weeklies in days head, if you think I am blowing smoke.

Posted by JGH | January 9, 2008 1:53 AM

I think this was absolutely a backlash at the media’s gleefully dancing on Hillary’s grave, together with a real queasiness about the way Obama was being touted as a sort of pop-messiah (the rock star thing, the Oprah thing, the no tie thing, and the Obama is “The One™” thing). He also seemed (mostly through his boosters) to be a less than gracious winner (the “kick her to the curb” booing, the trash talking, the weirdly orgamisic articles which may have seemed like gloating). I think the combination of anger at the way she was being treated in the media combined with unease about Obama as a political figure made voters not want to kick Hillary while she was down. I don’t think this was a political thing at all. I think that whatever happened tonight happened on a largely nonpolitical, deeply emotional level.

As it happens, John Edwards is very much my preferred candidate and tonight was a serious (maybe fatal) political defeat for him. And I am by no means a Hillary fan. But the attacks on her by the media and even some fellow Democrats were so primitive, so visceral and so outrageous that it was difficult not to feel for her and her family. Which, in a way, transformed tonight from a political choice to a very personal one about feeling someone’s pain and choosing to support her rather than give her tormentors the satisfaction of seeing her humiliated.

There was something very touching, even uplifting about her victory after having been so outrageously vilified and slimed by the media and the Obama people. I think I was reached in a very deeply emotional way that I can’t explain or even begin to describe---I still very strongly support Edwards but I actually feel happy that he lost tonight.

I suspect that many others, including many voters in New Hampshire, were touched in the same way and felt the same need to rally round and support Hillary regardless of whether she was their first choice in this election. And that's what I think did Obama in, not racism.

Posted by Mitch Guthman | January 9, 2008 1:56 AM

Can we talk about how the Huey Long effect?

The MSM, all tv pundits, Barack Obama, bloggers and Democratic primary voters all discount how much America wants populist policies. It is a conspiracy I tell you.

Posted by jonny cornpone | January 9, 2008 1:57 AM

Is someone actually calling Hillary Clinton a populist?

Posted by JGH | January 9, 2008 1:59 AM

I am an upper middle class white guy who has serious suspicions about how the polls could have been so wrong

Seriously people, just look at the numbers. The polls didn't agree with each other even when taken on the same day. Zogby had Obama at 42. Fox had him at 32. Polling isn't an exact science.

There's no conspiracy here.

Posted by Jinchi | January 9, 2008 1:59 AM

After watching the coverage of the New Hampshire results, I am astounded at the lack of insight shown by the commentators on MSNBC and other networks. Why did older women come out in force to vote for Hillary? Because it is time for a woman president, Hillary is qualified, and Hillary has concrete ideas and plans based on experience. Obama, though nice, does not have the experience needed to lead us out of the mess created by the Bush administration. Moreover, his ideas are both vague and not in anyway new. As an older voter, I have heard it all before and Hillary is right, talking about change and making it happen are two very different things.

Posted by Diana Zinn | January 9, 2008 2:00 AM

Jinchi: "To nail one candidate's numbers and miss his opponent's result by 10 points is just to fail completely."

Nobody's denying there was a poll failure. The question is why.

If you only had two candidates, and you nailed one's numbers, by definition you would have nailed the other one as well. The fact that there are multiple candidates ruins that outcome.

So the issue is, who switched from who to Clinton to drive her over the expected outcome?

Did people desert the candidates other than Obama, or was it the undecideds, or did people switch parties, or all three? Or, to cover it all, did a bunch of people appear out of nowhere who were suddenly in favor of Clinton (that's called vote fraud)?

The fact that Edwards numbers were nailed appears to make it clear that it was the undecideds. I doubt a lot of Republicans switched parties to vote for Clinton.

What happened here is a bunch of older white women who were undecided voters came down en mass for Clinton based on 1) "The Crying Game", 2) their emotional reaction to the media criticism of Clinton, and 3) media focus on Clinton over the last 48 hours.

I don't see any other rational explanation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 2:01 AM

Can we talk about the American Idol effect? If people are making voting decisions in the manner speculated, then they are fucking stupid.

Posted by blah | January 9, 2008 2:02 AM

The tears are Hillary's Checkers speech. That desperate, that brilliant.

A classic, Oscar-worthy performance by a savvy politician who is about to give up on the Presidency after one round.

Obama was so stunned by it that he didn't even bother to counter. By the time he knew it hit him, it was over.

Slick Hilly the Comeback Queen

Posted by Jimmy James | January 9, 2008 2:04 AM

Many people, especially on the left, do not trust voting technology. Reference Florida (2000), Ohio (2004), for examples. The polls have never been this wrong. It angers me, and I am white. But my anger pales in comparison to that of other people. Go to a barbershop in north St. Louis tomorrow, and see what they think. You can call it irrational until the end of time, but there it is.

Posted by JGH | January 9, 2008 2:04 AM

Jinchi: Vis-a-vis the poll variances, well, of course, polls aren't going to be totally accurate between themselves.

We're not talking about that variance. We're talking about how one poll nailed Obama's numbers and Edward's numbers, but Clinton did much better than predicted.

That's an entirely different issue.

Explain that one poll.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 2:05 AM

If there were a Bradley effect, wouldn't we expect to see a discrepancy between exit polls and actual results? They seem pretty close.

Posted by RL | January 9, 2008 2:10 AM

Something else about the graph in the OP:

Is it proportional to total voter turnout or not?

If the polls underestimated total voter turnout, then Obama getting what the polls predicted he'd get doesn't make the polls right about Obama. It just means two errors canceled each other out.

Posted by Tim | January 9, 2008 2:11 AM

Turnout was bigger than ever. Over 500,000

Posted by Jimmy James | January 9, 2008 2:13 AM

Diana, your points are simply Clinton talking points. They're irrelevant in explaining why this happened in NH and not in Iowa.

We know older white women will prefer Clinton over Obama, although not necessarily for the (allegedly) rational reasons you state.

For the record, I don't think any of that is true in Clinton's case in any event: she's not a change agent, she's corrupt, she's a hawk, and she's probably going to find it hard to beat even the loser the Republicans nominate.

Worse, while she may have concrete plans and ideas for domestic issues, right now foreign policy is critical - and she's a disaster waiting to happen on that front. She's an AIPAC today, clueless about Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, and that means she is a real danger to the security - and economy - of this country.

What difference does it make if she has great ideas on health care if she starts a war with Iran, and the oil spike and the Chinese dumping the dollar crash the economy?

(Of course, she's considerably better than Giuliani, but that's not saying much given what a loon he is.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 2:14 AM

Let's just see who sits out November and lets the McCain waltz in now.

Posted by JGH | January 9, 2008 2:16 AM

s/b "AIPAC toady"...

To expand on the Iran issue, the problem with ALL the candidates (except Ron Paul and Kucinich, who are irrelevant) is that you cannot approach the Iran issue from the standpoint that "Iran is a threat" and "Iran must give up enrichment." That isn't going to happen.

So anyone working on that basis - and Clinton is (and so is Obama) - will end up failing on the diplomacy side, no matter how much they want to use diplomacy instead of the military option. That leaves them at a dead end.

So Clinton may not want a war with Iran (unless she's even more of an AIPAC toady than I think, which is quite possible), but she will still end up with one because her basic premises about the situation are incorrect.

The degree to which the US must use diplomacy with Iran is far greater than any candidate has indicated they are willing to go - and the reason is the Israel Lobby will trash them if they do indicate such a willingness.

Foreign policy, because of its impact on the US economy and security, is THE critical issue of the next decade and probably longer in this country. The US electorate cannot afford to get it wrong in this election, like they did in 2000 and 2004.

And Clinton is not right.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 2:21 AM

I think that it was a combination of a backlash against the mediapredicting prematurely a big Hillary loss and the bradley effect. How else can you explain that the polls were right about McCain winning but wrong with respect to Obama?

Posted by MGJ | January 9, 2008 2:23 AM

Explain that one poll.

I'm not sure which of the 20+ post-Iowa polls you're referring to, but the simplest explanation is akin to firing a shotgun at a target - some of the pellets are bound to fall near the bullseye - that doesn't mean they were aimed any better than the rest.

And as for the Wilder/Bradley effect comments - people are basically arguing that all of the polls were correct: that Obama had a 5-10 point post Iowa bump and then Clinton rallied from behind - all in 5 days. The only way to make that argument is to believe that the polls were measuring dynamic changes in support over a very short time period - despite the fact that many of the polls were done concurrently over several days yet don't agree with one another.

Posted by Jinchi | January 9, 2008 2:29 AM

Someone keeps talking about the independent voters as a reason for Hillary's win.

Unfortunately for their reasoning, analysts say that independent voters broke significantly for Obama. So did young voters.

I think that Hillary's teary moment, which I don't think for a moment was scripted, helped voters (especially older Dem voters who might not have been planning to go to the polls) see that she is a human being and really does care.

I'm for Hillary, but I'm thrilled that the candidates in the running all seem to be made of sterling stuff. Even John Edwards, who I always see as a fast-talking used car salesman, has been impressive. I would be thrilled to have Hillary or Obama running the country, and I think one of them will be. I still think that a Hillary/Obama ticket might be a one-two punch to remember. That or Hillary/Bill, which I think is unlikely. But there are many other great possible VPs out there. All of them better than Darth Vader, aka Cheney.

Posted by Gene Venable | January 9, 2008 2:29 AM

Jinchi: "I'm not sure which of the 20+ post-Iowa polls you're referring to,"

The one at the top of the page: the average of the polls.

If the average is that far off on Clinton, but dead on for Obama and Edwards, where did the Clinton votes come from? That's the crux of the discussion.

You can't hit the average on the nose for Obama and Edwards, and be off by a full 10-11 points on Clinton without something being wrong ABOUT CLINTON.

"independent voters broke significantly for Obama. So did young voters."

Yes, but if older white women UNDECIDED voters broke for Hillary en mass, as well as some formerly Obama older white female voters, Obama might make up the difference in other independents, to keep his numbers, but the white female voters would drive up Clinton's. Supposedly the undecided were 17%, enough to explain an 11-point shift to Clinton while still giving 8 points to Obama.

This is the only rational explanation for the disparity in the average poll numbers.

It's not the disparity in specific polls that matters here, it's the disparity in the average at the top of the page.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 2:51 AM

Some Obama supporters are not gracious in victory or defeat.

Posted by O'Reily's advocate | January 9, 2008 2:55 AM

You can't hit the average on the nose for Obama and Edwards, and be off by a full 10-11 points on Clinton without something being wrong ABOUT CLINTON.

You can if the polls themselves are systematically in error. An average of wrong numbers can still yield a wrong number - it doesn't matter that it was closer to Obama and Edwards.

In the shotgun analogy, that's like the shooter aiming just a bit too far left.

Posted by Jinchi | January 9, 2008 2:58 AM

Blackboxvoting.org is reporting that the hand count ballots went 60/40 in favor of Obama, and the electronic count went 90 percent Hillary.

I do not for one minute believe this election wasn't hacked.

Posted by Jay Esbe | January 9, 2008 3:00 AM

When Obama and Edwards ganged up on Hillary at the debate, when the media piled on her planning her political funeral, when she became emotional, in the mids of the undecided she became the underdog in the truest sense of the word! That is why they all broke towards her at the end.

Posted by Democrat | January 9, 2008 3:00 AM

A question about the “Bradley effect”: Can anyone explain why a white person being asked about his or her preferred candidate in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire would feel socially uncomfortable expressing support for John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich and so feel pressure to express false support for Obama to avoid seeming bigoted in the eyes of a pollster?

As I understand it, this is the basis of the “Bradley effect” so in the absence of such an explanation or a plausible theory which accounts for why whites in New Hampshire would feel the need to falsely claim to support Obama, I don’t see how the “Bradley effect” is relevant to the result in New Hampshire

Posted by Mitch Guthman | January 9, 2008 3:04 AM

Notice from 49 yr old black female - the community is not happy w/the Clinton's. You don't say the things about a minority the way they did and expect us to vote for Hill. Look for the urban/black talk radio to be buzzing big time tomorrow. It actually started on Tuesday and there was so much excitment for Barack. Bill and Hill are toast to most black Americans. Absolutely toast.

Posted by PBrowne | January 9, 2008 3:11 AM

Some Obama supporters are not gracious in victory or defeat.

Obama supporters are never gracious.

Notice from 49 yr old black female - the community is not happy w/the Clinton's.

Are you a Jonah Goldberg parody?

Posted by Dan the Man | January 9, 2008 3:17 AM

"You can if the polls themselves are systematically in error. An average of wrong numbers can still yield a wrong number - it doesn't matter that it was closer to Obama and Edwards."

Yeah, but now you're claiming that the average of polls at the top of the page is off because ALL the polls were SYSTEMATICALLY off in the same direction.

Now explain how that happened, if the polls mostly didn't agree with each other as you said earlier.

And it does matter if it was closer to 2 out of 3 of the candidates - that again emphasizes that there was something wrong with the CLINTON estimate - OR the Clinton performance.

And I'm saying the difference in the Clinton performance is clearly explained by an obvious demographic: older white women undecided voters (and probably many formerly pro-Obama older white female voters, some of whom have posted here in other threads tonight) influenced by 1) "The Crying Game", 2) Bill Clinton, who they still lust after, 3) their emotions over the alleged press beating Clinton was getting, and 4) the overall media focus on Clinton in the last 48 hours.

Jay: Thanks for the Blackboxvoting.org connection. On their page I see this:

"John Silvestro and his small private business, LHS Associates, has the exclusive programming contracts for all New Hampshire voting machines, which combined will count about 81 percent of the vote tomorrow."

"The exact same make, model and version hacked in the Black Box Voting project in Leon County is used throughout New Hampshire, where about 45 percent of elections administrators hand count paper ballots at the polling place, with the remaining locations all using the Diebold version 1.94w optical scan machine. Because the voting machine locations tend to be urban, this represents about 81 percent of the New Hampshire voters."

They're still not sure if the disparity is some sort of "urban effect" vs the rural towns.

However, this post was interesting:

"My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP [Ron Paul] today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron."
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=82599&page=18 "

They are starting to call this Clinton "surge" "fishy".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 3:18 AM

To DantheMan - Since I have no idea what Jonah has been saying I can't answer your question. But DantheMan, parody or not, Hill and Bill have really done damage to their reps because of all the negativity towards Barack. Its as if how dare this black man challenge us? We are the ones with the power. The audacity of that black man to think he can challenge the Clinton power and get away with it. It is obvious the Clintons will say and whatever they need to do to get power and the dems are stupid enough to think they should have it. Make fun if you want, but this is serious to many of us and if you are not my kind then you wouldn't be able to begin understanding where I am coming from.

Posted by PBrowne | January 9, 2008 3:26 AM

By community and most black Americans I assume you actually mean you and your friends. This proud black woman will be voting for Hillary on February 5th.

Posted by Q. | January 9, 2008 3:27 AM

Has anyone considered that it was a really, really nice winter day and that more old people got out and voted mostly for Hillary?

Was it the weather?

Posted by Kid Sunshine | January 9, 2008 3:28 AM

To DantheMan - Since I have no idea what Jonah has been saying I can't answer your question.

Ah, a Jonah Goldberg parody who denies he's one. Even better. Congratulations!

Posted by Dan the Man | January 9, 2008 3:30 AM

Here's an interesting question.

What happens to the Clinton campaign if the "Clinton surge" turns out to be an electronic voting machine error?

What happens to it if it turns out to be vote fraud?

Just asking, since there's no evidence yet aside from a the major disparity between the hand-counted ballots and the electronically counted ballots which might have a reasonable explanation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 3:30 AM

Q - doesn't matter, you are a true minority for Hill, but good for you. I hope she makes you feel proud to be a woman and an African-American. She and Bill sure said a mouthful in saying what they thought about Barack. Guess that makes you proud. Again, good for you.

Posted by PBrowne | January 9, 2008 3:30 AM

RichardSHack - I bet we'll never know. Bill and Hill have lots of stroke and sometimes you just can't beat that kind of power. The only solace for me is that it was close and they both have the same delegate count.

Posted by PBrown3 | January 9, 2008 3:34 AM

When Obama and Edwards ganged up on Hillary at the debate, when the media piled on her planning her political funeral, when she became emotional, in the mids of the undecided she became the underdog in the truest sense of the word! That is why they all broke towards her at the end.

And yet, the piling on was by all accounts much more severe on the Republican side, where McCain and Huckabee beat up on Romney mercilessly in the GOP debate. No sympathy for Romney obviously, or backlash against McCain.

If you're in the Obama and Edwards camps, this has to give you pause, when the sort of par-for-the-course treatment that would go without mention in an all-male setting is apparently so offensive to a significant percentage of Democratic women as to change the way they vote. The run for the handkerchief might work in a Democratic primary setting, but it won't in the fall.

Posted by ChuckE | January 9, 2008 3:53 AM

I fear that the story is going to become Obama's Huge Collapse, which sucks, because it demeans both he and Clinton: it ignores that Obama, as you note, performed as well as was expected (and that he really did come damn close to winning), and it minimizes what was a really, really great electoral performance by Clinton.

Posted by Jon | January 9, 2008 4:05 AM

ChuckE, remember how many Republicans support torture? They have a lot of sadistic bastards on their side.

Posted by MNPundit | January 9, 2008 4:17 AM

The rise of "you go girl" politics. Awesome.

Posted by blah | January 9, 2008 6:07 AM

The story is the real losers are the pundits and the pollsters. The winners are the people of America and its democracy.

The pundits and pollsters should shut the fuck up and the "journalists" should report the results of the voters and stop trying to drive the process.

Posted by bajsa | January 9, 2008 6:24 AM

Nothing much to do with the topic, but can someone tell me why Wyoming doesn't count to anyone but the guy who won it and who comes off as desperate even bringing it up?

Posted by aleks | January 9, 2008 6:30 AM

Gee ??? The Polls got it wrong ??? OMG !!!!

I was just wondering 'why' the polls and pundits all 'decided' that Iowa was the only primary that mattered. All the rest are doggie poo.

Personally, I'd like to see Edwards, Richardson and Kucinich up there with Obama and Clinton; it'd be one hell of a convention!

Posted by Tahut | January 9, 2008 7:10 AM

I send condolences to Obama supporters. Congratulations to Hillary supporters. Some have suggested Edwards should get out of the way to support Obama. Since I am supporting Edwards, and supported him in the last electoral cycle as well, perhaps supporters in both camps will now have have an inkling how we Edwards folks felt coming out of Iowa twice in four years. Why do we still hang in there even though he hasn't won one of the first two contests? Edwards himself, of course, is imperfect. I realize that after seeing him lose. I can even understand some feeling that he reminds them of a used car salesman. But he and Elizabeth also have experienced and survived real pain in their lives, and although we are perhaps a bit too familiar with it by now, he did come from common roots. While we recognize his human flaws, I think we are impressed by his determination, his tenacity, his consistently progressive policies (a much better healthcare plan than that proposed by Obama) and his willingness to fight for them and for the ordinarly working people they would benefit. He continues to advocate for them with dogged strength and an optimistic demeanor. We are convinced that there are serious flaws in both his competitors (Hillary's high negatives and ability to galvanize the opposition, coupled with the public's desire to move beyond the Clinton/Bush presidential cycles; Obama's lofty rhetoric but less substantive policies and lack of experience). We think Edwards' strengths (years of both real-life experience as a top advocate taking on and beating powerful banks of corporate lawyers; rural working class roots; win against the Helms machine in NC, ongoing support for labor etc.) bode well for him to be the best possible winning nationwide candidate. Regarding questions about where Edwards supporters go now, who knows? Our bottom line is a democratic victory (because we feel that it will forward the policies we favor), but because we honestly feel that the party is missing its chance in that regard by focusing on only the two frontrunners. I think a number of us Edwards supporters will think long and hard about which of the less effective candidates will have the best chance in the general election. Speaking for myself, if Edwards drops out I may just stand back and watch the process until the winner is selected. Hope he keeps fighting for the progressive economic policies he represents.

Posted by popudem | January 9, 2008 7:30 AM

Wouldn't the Bradley effect apply to exit polls as well? Since the final numbers ended up close to the exit polls I think we can discount that factor.

Posted by Charlie | January 9, 2008 7:56 AM

Wouldn't the Bradley effect apply to exit polls as well? Since the final numbers ended up close to the exit polls I think we can discount that factor.

Posted by Charlie | January 9, 2008 7:56 AM

We have been complaining for years about the "kewl-kids", personality-driven, celebrity-tabloid gossip journalism with which folks like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert have projected their personal prejudices into the political process. Lots of voters have figured out the same thing.

Now, we see voter disgust at our journalism moving votes. I think that some of the late surge to Hillary is exactly what we have been wishing, and waiting, and hoping and praying for -- voter pushback against the media. Long Live Bob Somerby !

While this has benefited Hillary right now, as a long term development, it is great news for all progressives.

Posted by Tom in Ma | January 9, 2008 8:31 AM

Glen Tomkins | January 9, 2008 12:42 AM
Predictive polling is forced to rely on biased sampling, because only a small fraction of the likely voters whose names are pulled form the hast can be contacted and/or agree to participate. If this small percentage were a random sample, it is true that all we would have to worry about would be the random variance. But it isn't a random sample, people are filtered out or in based on their attitudes towards answering polls, when they're home to answer the phone, etc.

Bingo!

Random sampling only works reliably on events that are periodic or that occur according to a random probability distribution!

If every voter determined their choice by rolling a dice, or picking the candidate round robin according to their order entering the voting building, the polling would work perfectly!

Polling is a psychological one and the idea that you can somehow magically use random sampling for non-random nor nor-periodic events, is the problem.

Posted by The Grand Panjandrum | January 9, 2008 9:03 AM

"Random sampling only works reliably on events that are periodic or that occur according to a random probability distribution!"

It's funny watching ppl who no nothing about math make asinine statements about math.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 9, 2008 9:16 AM

Yes, for once I knew to keep my mouth shut. Given the medium of debate, I don't even have to risk nodding when I think someone might be saying something intelligent.

Posted by aleks | January 9, 2008 9:21 AM

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

Can someone better at it do the math? Seems to me the winning margin is right there in those figures, saying "we want Clinton's economy back."

Can we stop nattering about wimmins falling for crying now?

Posted by artappraiser | January 9, 2008 9:32 AM

I'm a NH Independent who supports Edwards. I know quite a few other "Undecideds" who went to see Obama over the final few days and came away a little less enthusiastic than they expected. No doubt he is a charismatic speaker who does a great job of sharing his vision. The feedback I got, however, was that it seemed short on substance. In contrast, I went to see Hillary and actually came out with a higher opinion of her than I originally had. Had Edwards not been in the race I probably would have gone with Hillary. I want Edwards to stay in the race. Both Hillary and Obama belong to the current Democratic Congress, which I feel has been a huge disappointment. Neither candidate has adequately stood up to GW Bush (and by stand up I do mean 'support impeachment') and for me that is close to unforgivable. Hillary's vote on Kyle-Lieberman is a big problem for me, and Obama, though he says the right things, has been short on putting the words into action. The primaries promise to be very interesting. As an Independent, though, I have to say neither Clinton nor Obama has won me over at this point. Alas, the Republicans are even worse...

Posted by JCNH | January 9, 2008 9:36 AM

"Can we stop nattering about wimmins falling for crying now?"

No. Clinton won NH by poaching Edwards' voters. She stole all the economic concern voters away from Edwards.

She did this with a very smart pincer movement. The crying made her human and attracted attention to her. She combined this with stealing Edwards' populist economic rhetoric for the first time in the race, using line after line.

If Edwards had gotten 22% instead of 17%, Obama would've won NH.

(And the crying definitely brought some female votes home just on its own, of course.)

She got herself a two-fer: she beat Obama by stealing Edwards' voters, and by marginalizing Edwards, she made her path to beating Obama much easier.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 9:39 AM

"I want Edwards to stay in the race."

Then send twenty bucks to the proud progressive in the race.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 9:41 AM

Mitch Guthman's comments (up thread) resonated for me. I am not a Hillary supporter, but I was so furious with some of the smug H-bashing comments (Matthews, for one)that I would have crossed over from my preferred candidate and voted for her if I was in NH. I was so sensitized to this that I noticed when a CNN commentator changed the subject every time another commentator mentioned that women might be voting for Hillary or that her win might be due to her and not to Bill. I think part of what happened was there was a backlash yesterday in NH to the feminist backlash women have endured for years.

Posted by olddesertwoman | January 9, 2008 9:46 AM

Somewhat OT, but was it my imagination or did the media somewhat rush to call the GOP race for McCain and delay a bit for HRC?

Interestingly, McCain and Obama did draw from some of the same pool of independents (as I've pointed out, they are using a similar rhetorical strategy as is, as his people even pointed out, Huckabee). And, btw, look at how these people felt about the war, etc. If these people were voting based on actual issues and records, they would have ran away from McCain ... it just goes to show that part of the reason why our political discourse is so vapid is that our citizenry is rather proudly vapid (they mistake vapidity for indpendence).

FWIW, I somewhat think these results show that Obama might do better in the general reaching out to low information independents while still keeping high information (netroots types who find HRC too conservative) excited enough to turn out. HRC seems to have the low information Democratic vote locked up though.

Posted by DAS | January 9, 2008 9:56 AM

Another point on Clinton's success (as alluded to above): the so-called "break-down" (as if it were such a thing ... she didn't break down) really marked a turning point in Clinton's speech-making abilities. Now she's started to modulate her voice and sound human rather than like an over-amplified dallek.

She's still not playing Obama's or Edwards' league in terms of her voice modulations, etc., but she's "surged" ahead of even McCain in terms of sounding like a normal human talking rather than like Loud Howard from Dilbert.

I wonder how many people changed their mind about her (at least going from undecided to HRC supporter) after hearing her "crying" or a similar more recent speech in which she revealed that she does not suffer from voice-immodulation disorder?

Posted by DAS | January 9, 2008 10:05 AM

I think the most likely explanation for the Clinton votes is that they had a better get out the vote operation on the ground, and persuaded enough of the soft Obama supporters to turn. Seems very reminiscent of Whouley's work for Gore in NH in 2000.

Posted by DMH | January 9, 2008 10:12 AM

It is fucking Hilarious to see so many people bending over backwards to ignore the impact race likely had in this vote.

But every blogger has gone back to 'must protect Clinton' mode.

Fucking scumbags.

Posted by Soullite | January 9, 2008 10:22 AM

If women came running to vote for Hillary because the process was "mean to the girl" then they really don't deserve to vote, do they? So I hope that wasn't it, because it would mean that Coulter The Clueless actually got one right. (Gods forbid.)

Not surprised to hear about the possible vote fraud. The Clintons are part of the same filthy corporate machine as the Bushes.

And this crap about "it's time for a woman president"? Gimme a break. What it is NOT time for is more Clintons in the White House.

If Obama wins, I'll suspend my libertarian leanings and vote for him, simply because we must have a decisive change from the current corporate machine, or we're doomed. I'm certain I'm not alone. If Hillary wins, I'd be hard pressed not to vote for even Huckabee, whom I detest, but not as bad as I loathe the Clintons.

It's up to you, Democrats. Kick the Clintons to the curb, or watch the GOP quite undeservedly remain in power, to the detriment of us all.

Posted by John | January 9, 2008 10:34 AM

Petey Pie, knowing a crazy sexist like you is supporting John Edwards, who has shown himself to be as sexist, is reason enough not to support Edwards from here. I didn't understand the sexist attacks for a long time, but I understand now. Keep snarling about women, and watch what happens.

Posted by Jennifer | January 9, 2008 10:45 AM

All I can say is this: I am a lifelong Dem who has supported Gary Hart (twice), Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, and now Obama. I loathe the Clintons. And if she wins, I am OUT of the Democratic party, and will do EVERYTHING in my power to keep her out of the White House. Hell, I'd vote for W again if I could to keep her out- just so we can have another crack at an open primary in 2012.

But my faith in and love for this country is badly shaken today, and if my party gets that horrible woman elected President, I will look for work in Canada.

I hope the Hill fans understand that they will DESTROY this party and this country by nominating her. They will RIP it apart. We, who supported Dean and now Obama, will RIP it apart.

Just so y'all know.

Posted by Greggie | January 9, 2008 10:46 AM

John, you are an even more sexist moron.

Posted by Jennifer | January 9, 2008 10:47 AM

Jennifer is right. Any and all criticism of Senator Clinton, including her votes, positions or policy preferences, is sexist and should be discouraged.

Posted by Mark Penn | January 9, 2008 10:57 AM

And Mark has a poll to back that up.

Posted by aleks | January 9, 2008 10:59 AM

I might add, I am a white male, and I resent GREATLY being called a sexist every time I say I loathe Hillary Clinton, without even asking me whether or not I like Bill Clinton! I loathe him as well! Most Dems who want to destroy Hillary Clinton are not anti-woman, but rather anti-Clinton, anti-politics-of-the-past.

You can't engage in the not-so-subtle race-baiting that the Clintons have been engaged in these last 4 or 5 weeks, and then cry biggotry!

Posted by Greggie | January 9, 2008 11:03 AM

As noted elswehere, these people are just not fit to be pollsters.

Posted by Marco | January 9, 2008 11:05 AM

What Greggie said. 100% from me across the board.

Posted by Aaron | January 9, 2008 11:09 AM

Thanks, Aaron! Glad to see i'm not the only one. The Army of Change marches on to South Carolina! The agents of Status Quo have not won quite yet!

Posted by Greggie | January 9, 2008 11:15 AM

Well if Obama is sexist and Clinton is racist, I think we should all get behind Edwards.

Posted by not Joe Trippi | January 9, 2008 11:21 AM

Dislike for President Clinton was merely a preemptive attack on Senator Clinton's candidacy. The only reason Greggie hated Bill was because he was MARRIED TO A FIRST LADY, thus grooming a woman to have the qualifications and experience to be president.

Also, I got a pushpoll robocall asking if it would affect my support for Sen Obama to learn that his supporters had watched the Iowa returns come in at a strip club.

Posted by aleks | January 9, 2008 11:26 AM

You have to give Hillary credit, that scripted crying moment was brilliant. She demonstrated she doesn't crack under pressure.

The plausible theory for me is that the independents saw the polls showing a crushing victory for Obama after his crushing victory in 95% white Iowa and they decided to vote for McCain to give the Republican establisment the finger.

What they did was give the Clinton machine a boost as it beat expectations.

Can someone better at it do the math? Seems to me the winning margin is right there in those figures, saying "we want Clinton's economy back."

Bill Clinton makes me laugh. (I always think of Daryl Hammond biting his lip and giving the thumbs up to emphasize talking points on Saturday Night Live.)

He's calling the Obama campaign a "fairy tale" when this concept of how great the 90s were is a fairy tale and the concept that it was Clinton's economy is a fairy tale. It was Greenspan's and the Tech bubble's economy, Bill Clinton just happened to be President at the time. Also some Democrats naive conception of the Clintons as the good guys and the Republicans as the bad guys is such the fairy tale. Clinton used the Republicans as a foil and governed from the Center Right.

If the Edwards people want change and want anybody but Clinton they should drop out and support Obama. (But I was rooting for Nader in 2000, so I'd understand if they stay in it until the end. I've never seen Edwards as a "car salesman". He's always seemed pretty genuine. Though Petey would make a great car salesman.)

Posted by Peter K. | January 9, 2008 11:28 AM

Well if Obama is sexist and Clinton is racist, I think we should all get behind Edwards.

Posted by not Joe Trippi | January 9, 2008 11:21 AM
*******************

Edwards is bigoted against rich people.

Posted by aleks | January 9, 2008 11:28 AM

"What they did was give the Clinton machine a boost as it beat expectations. "

Sorry to nit-pick but fair's fair, she didn't lose by a narrower-than-expected margin, she won.

Posted by aleks | January 9, 2008 11:31 AM

The biggest factor in New Hampshire was the power and freedom of the secret ballot as opposed to the repressive caucus system.

When the New Hampshire voter got into the booth, she said "Hey wait a minute. This is my vote".
She used this power to fight against:

The media telling her that she had to marry Obama on the second date or she is on the wrong side of history.

That a viable woman for president is of no historical significance.

That the unchecked feeding frenzy and glee of the male pundits and candidates is acceptable.

Calling this the Bradley effect is just as outdated and repressive as Iowa's caucus system. This upset was a celebration of the right to vote.

I am an Obama fan, but I am bigger fan of democracy which was the big winner in New Hampshire.

Posted by BTW | January 9, 2008 11:32 AM

Let me make one more point about feminism:

I have 2 daughters. I WANT them to see a woman as President. It would be great. But we here in Texas had our first female governer over a century ago. She was the wife of a former governer who was excluded from running by term limits. George Wallace's wife was the governer of Alabama in the '60s or 70s (I forget which) for the same reason. A former First Lady winning the Presidency because people want to vote for her husband but are not allowed to by term limits is NOT feminism. "Marry well," is NOT a feminist message I want to send to my daughters.

Posted by Greggie | January 9, 2008 11:38 AM

Sorry Jenny; the only sexist here is you, sweetie.

Posted by John | January 9, 2008 11:45 AM

"What they did was give the Clinton machine a boost as it beat expectations. "

Sorry to nit-pick but fair's fair, she didn't lose by a narrower-than-expected margin, she won.

Well yeah but pre-Iowa, the narrow win would have met expectations. Post-Iowa it beat expectations.

Hillary Rodham Clinton 112,238 39.0%
Barack Obama 104,757 36.4
John Edwards 48,666 16.9

Pretty close.

Posted by Peter K. | January 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Seriously people, in any other field of science if you make a prediction and it fails you don't start making up all sorts of ad-hoc explanations to prove your theory is right anyway.

If you tried it you'd get laughed out of the room.

Posted by Jinchi | January 9, 2008 12:56 PM

I loathe the Clintons. And if she wins, I am OUT of the Democratic party, and will do EVERYTHING in my power to keep her out of the White House. _ greggie

I'm no Clinton fan, but why the Clinton-hatin'? Y'all sound more like some anti-Scalawag Southron rather than someone who actually voted for Dean.

Posted by DAS | January 9, 2008 12:58 PM

I still don't get how NH was a win for Senator Clinton. She split the regular delagates with Senator Obama, nine each. Sen Obama has 3 N.H. superdelagates to her 2. It looks like a tie to me.

As other have pointed out, Edwards staying in could keep either of the other front runners from reach 2025 delagates. At the very least it would at least make the convention interesting. At best, it would improve the progressive wing's ability to affect the platform and possibly result in another Veep nom for Sen Edwards.

Posted by Michael | January 9, 2008 1:06 PM

As I wrote before, I am a lifelong Dem who voted for Gary Hart (twice), Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howrd Dean, and will be an Obama man this time. If this party nominates ANOTHER totally unacceptable candidate, I'm simply out.

Triangulation is a code word for selling out he base.

Billy Shaheen is a code word for Race Baiting.

Bill Clinton did not pass a SINGLE progressive policy of note. He DID pass Nafta, DOMA, the Iraq Liberation Act, Wellfare "Reform" and a number of other Center-Right policies.

Meanwhile, he squandered our Cold War Peace Dividend, handed both houses of Congress back to the Reps, and the Presidency as well, and he dragged our party's good name through the mud. We spent a good portion of our party's political capitol defending a lame-duck President who couldn't keep his pants zipped and (rather than take the personal hit) lied about it under oath.

Then he sent his "victim" wife up to my birth-state to Carpet Bag her way ito the Senate.

Then she became Bush's "Beard" on the Iraq War back in '03, '04, '05, and '06 when we really NEEDED her, because it was the best way for her to position herself to defeat our beloved candidate (whoever that turned out to be) in '08.

And now she and her husband and crew have been race-baiting for months.

Not to mention the fact that it is inappropriate for a recent former President to be this involved in the nominating process of his party, even on his wife's behalf.

They were supposed to fight for us. Instead we ended up fighting for their personal gain.

I loathe them both.

Need more? If so, I can keep going.

Posted by Greggie | January 9, 2008 1:12 PM

There was no crying game - there were no tears, no hysterical meltdown -just a desire by the press to bash Hillary. Oh - look- she might have a tear in her eye - great - weak weak female - ought to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Ok that should do it - repeat it enough times and people will believe that she had a major meltdown.
get a grip folks - and talk about real issues, Obama is an empty suit, a pretty boy who preaches "change" without any indication - to what, or even from what. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
It is a long way until the primary season is over, everyone take a deep breath, turn off the TV and let the pundits talk to themselves.
Think for your self, and look for a person who can lead this country out of the mess Bush has made.

Posted by xyz | January 9, 2008 1:20 PM

And we all know that is Barack Obama... or maybe John Edwards. I could live with McCain. But PLEASE understand that a Clinton in the White House will tear this country apart. When they write the story in 5 centuries about the decline of the American Empire they will point to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and say "That's where it all wnet wrong" IF we are not smart enough as a people to keep these two totally vapid families from treating our great nation as their own personal fiefdom for 3 decades.

Posted by Greggie | January 9, 2008 1:35 PM

As someone who actually voted in NH, I'd like to dispel a few myths.

First, the fraud conspiracy theory stuff grows tiresome. I voted in Concord, which used the machine that people are talking about. I voted on a paper ballot, then placed it into a machine for counting. Are there really still Americans so technophobic that they think a machine is more likely to permit fraud than a patchwork system of hand-counting volunteers and local pols who probably support one of the candidates involved? We have paper ballots - if you want to count 500,000 pieces of paper by hand, and think you can do so more accurately than an optical scanner, be my guest. Hillary did better in towns with machines because Manchester is just a little bit different demographically from towns in Coos county.

Secondly, the polling is crap - people are sick of being bothered at home and sick of polling-driven coverage, and response rates must be atrocious. I watched every person I know with a land line hang up on pollsters. I never had to hand up on any pollsters because I only have a mobile phone. There's no statistical methodology that allows you to accurately adjust for who answers your poll in these circumstances. Forget polling. The election results will come in, and then we'll know who won.

Thirdly, Hillary won because she came off as more human than before and really got on the "Change is hard work" message. Of course Obama is still a more compelling orator - I was in a bar last night and the room went silent for his concession speech while people chatted through her victory speech - but she made up enough ground to sell people on the idea that experience and political skill are more important than big ideas.

Posted by cgaros | January 9, 2008 1:51 PM

You're from NH? Then we all hate you. Hope when Pres. Hill starts a new war, the enemy blow up NH. What gives you the right to go 1st, by the way? Your good judgement? Your representative minority population? BS. Go to hell, NH.

Posted by Anon | January 9, 2008 2:02 PM

Well said, cgaros.

I never take much stock in the polls after polls saying he or she is ahead or behind since in statistics and polling, the devil is in the detail. Pollsters can be as fair as they can, but if one wants to game the stats, one can do it with both eyes closed. Voters (or would-be voters) are so easily swayed by all these poll numbers which oftentimes are just junk.

NH and Iowa are small states to start with, and we have even smaller sampling size to give us a skewed pictures. How much use are they, really?

Posted by tiddle | January 9, 2008 2:47 PM

"If women came running to vote for Hillary because the process was "mean to the girl" then they really don't deserve to vote, do they? So I hope that wasn't it, because it would mean that Coulter The Clueless actually got one right. (Gods forbid.)"

You're more than sexist, John, your simply disgusting. Do you think African Americans who don't vote to your liking should be enslaved again?

It's nice to see Yglesias take a stand against these kind of comments to show women that you have our backs...oh, wait.

Posted by Rose | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM

not sure if this was mentioned yet--since i cant read through the sea-scroll of comments, but...

Has anyone considered that public polling is subject to response bias? socially desirable reporting?

Posted by l | January 9, 2008 3:57 PM

the massive bump Clinton must've come from what?
Massachusetts residents doing same-day registration or "borrowing" dead-but-unpurged registrations? Call it the "Richard Daley effect."

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 9, 2008 4:06 PM

did a bunch of people appear out of nowhere who were suddenly in favor of Clinton (that's called vote fraud)?
Despite what I wrote above, that is not necessarily the case. I do know there were a lot of folks in the "same day registration" line at my polling place. Whether they were ringers from out of town or locals who Clinton had somehow inspired to vote for the first time in their lives I have no way of knowing. In either case, they would not have turned up in the pollsters' "likely voters" group.

Combining the above with the exit poll data, did Clinton come up with something extra-appealing to previously apathetic older females? I seem to recall something about a late mailing related to Social Security, could that have been it? (And/or busloads of supporters from MA, of course ;-)

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 9, 2008 4:22 PM

PBrowne says:
"Q - doesn't matter, you are a true minority for Hill, but good for you. I hope she makes you feel proud to be a woman and an African-American."

I don't want a President to "make me proud" of my identity. I want a President to implement policies that bring the US peace and prosperity.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 9, 2008 4:25 PM

Petey:

Re: "nattering about wimmins voting on crying" and "She did this with a very smart pincer movement"

You know I agree with you about the humanizing thing, as I was pointing it out in several comments last night. What I disagree with is the emphasis on the crying sound bite and then getting waylaid with all kinds of discussions about feminist issues based on that. There is no way she could have known that that one little bit of her entire New Hampshire act would be picked up by media and blogs and become an issue. So analyzing that bite as effective campaign technique and then getting into feminism takes you nowhere.

Rather, in order to analyze it correctly, I think you'd have to see more of what she said to voters that was broadcast on local TV, in which she no doubt tried the "new, improved humanized Hillary" that we saw in her victory speech, and combine that with how Edwards chose to attack her and back Obama in the debate. One thing that was very smart was for her to do a lot of question and answer sessions and not just speeches.

In the end, I agree with you: seems like this the "comeback," it's a combo of economy and Hillary working on her "I'm a humane human thing." The feminist issues raised are a sideshow.

Edwards erred in doing a bit of a bully thing, not very feminism related. If he had done it to a male who had managed to ply a "human/humane" image, it would have worked to that male's benefit.

All in all, the tough guy/gal thing is a difficult role for a Democrat to play (and you know it is the reason for Dem trouble in the past with ID on national security.) Plenty of Republican voters like tough guys, but lots of Democratic voters do not, preferring leaders who are kind rather than tough. That women tend to prefer kind to tough is a no brainer, and ALSO a feminist issue unrelated to the campaign.

Posted by artappraiser | January 9, 2008 4:27 PM

Obama had to negotiate with his wife to get her to agree to let him run for president. So he gave up cigarettes. I have an opionion about the intelligence level of people who smoke. Do we need a president who has to ask permission and do domestic negotiations?

Sen Clinton's used to giving (or withholding) permission, as circumstances dictate. Let's start with the boss.

Posted by S.A. Shipley | January 9, 2008 4:38 PM

p.s. Some silly practicin' pyschology without a license just for the hell of it: When Hillary said she found her new voice talking to New Hampshire voters, I am prone to believe that one as sincere, because it made me recall the Listening Tour thing of her Senate campaign. I think she might need direct input of ordinary humans to orient herself. And then I think, this does NOT bode well for her future behavior in a presidential bubble.

Posted by artappraiser | January 9, 2008 4:41 PM

I disagree, artappraiser. I think this confirms that Sen. Clinton DOES listen to her constituents and to people who may not have the same views. And I think that if she does win the WH, we won't see the same bubble that's been there for almost 8 yrs.

Also, as for the Bradley effect. If that were truly rampant last night, I would think John Edwards would have been the beneficiary, not the woman in the race.

And finally, this is the toughest race Se. Obama has run in his political career - afterall, Edwards and Clinton are not Alan Keyes. How he runs will tell us a great deal about him and what he believes in.

Posted by mkolb | January 9, 2008 7:07 PM

Mkolb,

I totally agree with your two last paragraphs. I just can't buy a Bradley effect in NH Democratic voters with Obama. It's possible if it was someone like Jesse Jackson, but not Obama. (Put Colin Powell up to a vote in NH for a test of Bradley effect, bet you won't see any.)

My pyschobabble on Clinton was just that, and was something I worry about but if you read my comment previous to it, you will see that I am laying out the same argument as yours on the issue. Hey, wasn't it Hillary that pushed for more skillful use of polls in the Bill administration, ala, "we are getting too out of touch"?

Posted by artappraiser | January 9, 2008 9:01 PM

Greggie (and Aaron):

If you would vote for George W Bush (if it were possible) instead of Hillary Clinton for Pres, then you are either (1) the douchbag from hell, or (2) a Republican. These may or may not be equivalent.

Posted by Bob | January 10, 2008 1:42 AM

(As I also posted at CrooksAndLiars.com, which cited this article as well...)

I’m sorry, but I think Matt Yglesias’ premise is wrong.

Polls look at groups of people like “likely voters”, those who will PROBABLY be voting. That’s what lets some of them be reported as “Undecided”, etc.

However, actual vote totals count only those who ACTUALLY voted. This is not the same group as the former, unless every single “likely voter” actually made a decision and voted for someone.

Thus, claims such as “the polls got Sen. Obama’s percentage correct” can’t be right…they can be close, depending on how many “likely voters” stayed home, but they can’t be right.

Also, it’s a matter of scientific fact that polls have not just a “Margin of Error” (the idea that the specific percentages are within X points of what we’ll actually see), but also a “Confidence Interval” (usually 95%). That means that the Margin of Error will be seen in 19 of 20 cases. That 20th doesn’t necessarily indicate a flawed poll, however, and people need to remember that.

Sure, polls with results that differ from reality, as seemed to have happened here, may bear further scrutiny, but they’re not necessarily “wrong” or “biased”.

Posted by Bram Weiser | January 10, 2008 3:19 AM

Statistics machine vs hand count/ town by town

2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results - A Closer Look At The Count
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

Clinton wins over Obama in Diebolt counted towns
loses to Obama in hand counted towns

Posted by Kristin | January 10, 2008 5:32 AM

Statistics machine vs hand count/ town by town

2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results - A Closer Look At The Count
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

Clinton wins over Obama in Diebolt counted towns
loses to Obama in hand counted towns

Posted by Kristin | January 10, 2008 5:33 AM

gosh - this so explains it, and i'm so stupid. the polls weren't wrong - I was.

you see, the polls were only wrong if, by 'wrong', you mean 'not indicative of reality', and really, what is reality?

Posted by Peter | January 10, 2008 10:44 AM

[I] will do EVERYTHING in my power to keep her out of the White House

...he said, from the comfort of his living room couch, as he shoveled more ice cream down his windpipe.

i've made statements like that before. you mean well, but you're totally full of it. anger got the best of you. it happens.

focusing on electing one criminal vs. another is not going to change things significantly. it's best to work on building mass popular movements and then pressuring whoever gets into office. we need to work on institutional change (like challenging corporate power, for instance) - all of this election stuff is just a charade. to see all of you 'learned' people take it so seriously is pretty funny. i'm just hanging out to take a break from real work - it's no different than watching an NFL game - it's just entertainment, but you guys act like there's something meaningful going on here. democracy and voting and all that. it's just claptrap. don't waste your time. do something meaningful, instead.

:)

p.s. the original post was attempting to prove that the polls, contrary to reality, were actually correct. too bad not too many people commented on this.

Posted by Peter | January 10, 2008 11:18 AM

There was and is no Bradley/Wilder effect. It's a misinterpretation of the polls.

The polls weren't wrong; they were just wrongly interpreted. Looking back at the so-called Bradley effect per yesterday's punditry, I'd have to conclude that the African-American candidates got almost exactly the percentage of the actual vote that they got in the pre-election polling.

There has been too much focus on the margin and not enough direct comparison of the before and after percentages for the individual candidates. This week, Barack Obama ended up with nearly exactly the percentage he was predicted to get. It was Hillary Clinton's percentage, not his, that was off. The same thing happened in the Bradley and Wilder races that were used to name and support the Bradley Effect.

So what's happening? Maybe it's that those who intend to vote for the African American candidate decide early and say so when polled. Those who decide not to, decide early, but say they're undecided when polled. And maybe they think they are undecided.

The error the pundits and the pollsters made in all of these cases is to assume that the undecideds would split the same way the decideds did. They did not.

There appears to be no evidence that people lie to pollsters, saying they'll vote for the African American candidate and then secretly vote against him or her. That's the sort of explanation that would result from bias on the part of the poll interpreter.

What this process needs is fresh, unbiased eyes. AND someone with enough prestige to bring this to the attention of the pundit and pollster classes!

Posted by Lynnisse Roehrich-Patrick | January 10, 2008 11:41 AM

Could it be that white women are not voting FOR Hillary Clinton but that they are voting AGAINST Michelle (not Barack) Obama? Could it be that white women can't stomach the idea of a sexually attractive black female who is not of the mammy variety walking around the WHITE house on the arm of a tall, dark and handsome male?

Could it be that white males prefer Obama because 1) Obama sticks to his "own kind,"and; 2) they are unwilling to send a message to white women that that now, white women can shop amongst the whole delicatessen for males just as white males have been shopping the whole delicatessen for females for centuries ala, perhaps, George Bush?

Posted by Andrea Hetheru | January 10, 2008 1:21 PM

Andrea Hetheru:

If anyone's voting against Michelle Obama, it's not because she's black but because she's a screeching far-left radical who makes Teresa Heinz-Kerry look sane.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 10, 2008 1:55 PM

Nobody is looking at the respective GOTV work of the 2 campaigns. What if this was all just good old-fashioned legwork? Most of these posts and ALL of the media analysis assumes the voters were following every blip in the media. Nice for the media to believe, but not my reality - and I am a very aware and engaged voter.

Posted by Shari Loe | January 10, 2008 2:45 PM

Shari Loe:

I commented on it way up above.
Clinton's GOTV effort was so energetic that my wife started threatening to go vote for someone else if they didn't stop calling her up and bugging her. She got 9 phone calls and one in-person visit in the last 48 hours before the polls closed. That may well have been part of it.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 10, 2008 3:13 PM

ANDREA HETHERU WROTE:
"Could it be that white women are not voting FOR Hillary Clinton but that they are voting AGAINST Michelle (not Barack) Obama? Could it be that white women can't stomach the idea of a sexually attractive black female who is not of the mammy variety walking around the WHITE house on the arm of a tall, dark and handsome male?

Could it be that white males prefer Obama because 1) Obama sticks to his "own kind,"and; 2) they are unwilling to send a message to white women that that now, white women can shop amongst the whole delicatessen for males just as white males have been shopping the whole delicatessen for females for centuries ala, perhaps, George Bush?"

RALPH PHELAN WROTE:

"Andrea Hetheru:

If anyone's voting against Michelle Obama, it's not because she's black but because she's a screeching far-left radical who makes Teresa Heinz-Kerry look sane."
------------------------------------------------

Hmmm. Wasn't Hillary Clinton characterized as such during her husband's electoral office career? If so, is voting against Michelle Obama for such reasons a logical, i.e. likely, response? Ahh, Race-ism & Sex---It seems likely that the establishment, maintenance, expansion, and refinement of Race-ism is a compensatory reaction by the most effective people in the known universe (from the empirical and logical evidence), the White Supremacists, in the people activity area of Sex. People who practice White Supremacy are likely to obscure this basic reality by insisting that it's "more complicated than that."---Deceit and Confusion are their stock-in-trade. People who wish to replace the SYSTEM of Race-ism (White Supremacy) with a SYSTEM of Justice should duck and let all that other verbiage fly by. Expect to hear or see words that pretend that they are confused by what I just said....

Posted by Andrea Hetheru | January 11, 2008 11:26 AM

"Wasn't Hillary Clinton characterized as such during her husband's electoral office career?"

(1) Yes. But during her years in the Senate she has demonstrated otherwise - left but not loony-left. And we know *her* spouse will be a source of *good* political advice.

(2) And while it's true that she's way to the left of her husband, who happens to be the last Democrat I ever voted for, that still leaves her to the right of both Edwards & Obama, which to my taste makes her the least-bad Democrat candidate.

It's ironic, but in my experience white people spend a lot less time thinking about race than black people, because for large fractions of their lives they don't need to care. I give the voters sufficient credit to believe that they're making their voting decisions based on "what's in it for me."

One more hypothesis as to where all those extra Hillary voters came from:

The weather was freakishly warm. She exit-polled very well among older females (the "My Social Security check is the most important thing in the world" voters.) Maybe they turned out in unpredented proportions because this year they didn't have to worry about slipping on ice in the parking lot and breaking a hip?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 14, 2008 7:50 AM

cgaros comments that he trusts optical scan machine counting over hand-counting of paper ballots. In December 2005, our Board of Elections decided which voting machines to purchase in Orange County, NC. At an open hearing, the ES&S salesman said that the only way to verify the machine count is to hand-count the paper ballots since there is no way to otherwise be certain of the accuracy of an electronic voting machine. For this reason, NC election law now mandates that every voting machine have a voter-verified paper ballot, and that post-election audits with hand-counted ballots be conducted of a random sample of voting machines in each county. Such audits are conducted by citizen precinct judges with party observers, not paid election officials.

If New Hampshire would have had such a law in effect last week, then the question of whether or not the disconnect between exit polls and Clinton/Obama voting results was caused by covert hacking of the Diebold voting machines could have easily been answered without Kucinich requesting a hand recount.

Posted by Tom Henkel | January 14, 2008 5:13 PM

RALPH PHELAN WROTE: “It's ironic, but in my experience white people spend a lot less time thinking about race than black people, because for large fractions of their lives they don't need to care.”

Race = Race-ism = White Supremacy = the dominant socio-material system of the known universe in which all persons who classify themselves and are accepted as white unjustly subject to them all persons that they classify as non-white.

Race-ism (White Supremacy) exists because those people who have the will to eliminate Racism (White Supremacy) lack the ability and because those people who have the ability to eliminate Racism (White Supremacy) lack the will..... Those people who are white who do not exercise their ability to eliminate Racism (White Supremacy) at all times, even at the direct or indirect threat of death by one or more White Supremacists, are White Supremacists themselves.

[If anyone emails me on this topic as relates to the N.H. Primary results, and no response by me is received, consider it likely that one or more Racists have targeted me for direct (and probably stealth) violence in the protection of their enterprise---deciding that deceit was not going to be effective.]

Posted by Andrea Hetheru | January 18, 2008 10:18 PM

How Wrong Were The Polls?

Comments (157)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories