A Polling Crisis

For a long time it seemed inconceivable that we would face this problem, but don't we need some more polling to be done on this primary? All throughout 2007 I feel like I was being inundated with a new, meaningless national poll every 36 hours. And for a while, it seemed as if multiple Iowa and New Hampshire polls were coming out every day. But now, there's just an eerie silence. But I, for one, would be very interested in a poll of likely voters in the Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Democratic Party primaries and I can't be the only one.

For that matter, will nobody think of the small states? With regard to, say, Hawaii all of our information is based on conjecture and hearsay. Obama was born in Hawaii, but then you read things about "the Democratic establishment is aggressively working to inoculate the state against Obama--priming their warhorses, the two biggest government unions, for a major turnout effort and bringing professional organizers from the mainland." How about a poll? It's a weird situation.

Comments

This is just idle speculation, but someone actually has to pay for polls, and I wonder if the demand for public polls has fallen off somewhat after the NH polling debacle.

Posted by DTM | February 11, 2008 9:48 AM

How about we commission a Zogby poll asking such questions as "why do you think polls in general, and Zogby polls in particular, are so often wrong?"

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 11, 2008 9:54 AM

What Matt said.

Polls of WI, TX, and OH, done this week, would be very informative. HI honestly I don't care so very much about . . .

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 9:57 AM

As a resident, I'd like to see Wisconsin projections. It seems to be a great lab experiment. Neither campaign seems to have much organization in the state. I haven't seen a single yard sign (tho I'm not sure how you'd even FIND the yard under all the snow). Neither candidate has been here much if at all. So Wisconsin Dems will be deciding based for the most part upon (a) the preceding states' results and the attendant analysis and media coverage; and (b) whatever TV we see in the next 8 days.

Posted by Mark | February 11, 2008 10:02 AM

Much of the public polling we get is either commissioned by news organizations or is a free by-product of polling done on some other election. For instance A1 SuperDuper Polling Co. has been hired to do polling for a Gubernatorial candidate somewhere. Just for kicks, that pollster throws in a question about the presidential primary, and releases the results to a local news organization for publicity.

I suspect that we'll have lots of polling from Texas, a little less from Ohio, and virtually none from the smaller states like RI & VT.

Posted by dry_fish | February 11, 2008 10:18 AM

man, Hawaii has a Caucus, went 40% for Dennis Kucinich and has probably never been contested. How on earth you could you model turnout? Who is a likely voter?

That's probably a problem in a lot of other states, especially caucus ones.

My guess is pollsters don't want to get embarrassed ala Zogby in CA and Survey USA in MO.

Posted by example | February 11, 2008 10:24 AM

I'd also speculate that polling has to be planned (and financed) with a bit of lead time, but, say, a month ago, the expectation was that Super Tuesday would have settled the nominations by now, and thus these upcoming primaries would be merely pro forma.

Posted by jimBOB | February 11, 2008 10:26 AM

Completely agree - I couldn't even find good data on some of the big states (like Pennsylvania) so support my inclination that Clinton leads in the big-delegate states that remain.

Posted by odb | February 11, 2008 10:33 AM

You ask: "For that matter, will nobody think of the small states?"

One reason is that it costs just as much to poll a small state as to poll a large state or the entire nation, for that matter. No matter the population size, statistically, you need the same sample size, about 1000 people, to get a 4% margin of error. The outcome in the number of delegates and the ultimate effect on the election is small for small states but the cost of doing the poll is disproportionately high.

Posted by Benjamin | February 11, 2008 11:23 AM

I read that TNR post and said "that's silly. It's anecdotal, and that man's Chinese grandparents are in Hillary's prime demographic. If your family is such that the man determines how his wife will vote by essentially voting for her, you're pretty much going with the establishment--ironic that the establishment is a woman, isn't it" My dad, also being an elderly Asian man living in Hawaii, also favors Hillary. I don't know what that tells us beyond the obvious.

Also, that establishment didn't seem to be able to prevent Lingle from being elected twice. Establishment can work when the two candidates start out evenly matched. Considering Obama's advantages (home state where he still has family, momentum), I suspect Obama will win Hawaii...

Posted by JMS | February 11, 2008 11:32 AM

The Hawaii democratic establishment was strong enough to keep Lingle down the first time she ran - and that was an election against a corrupt incompetent. Lingle is the first republican governor there in decades.

Hawaii also has very strong unions, and a heavy Asian population. Those demographics havn't gone well for Obama in the past. If the establishment there is truly against him, Hawaii could be a lot closer than everyone is expecting.

Posted by Spike | February 11, 2008 12:32 PM

finally, the absence of poll hype, and you guys just can't deal....

hawai'i will be one to watch. complicated state and demographics changing.

Posted by eli | February 11, 2008 3:05 PM

finally, the absence of poll hype, and you guys just can't deal....

hawai'i will be one to watch. complicated state and demographics changing.

Posted by eli | February 11, 2008 3:05 PM

finally, the absence of poll hype, and you guys just can't deal....

hawai'i will be one to watch. complicated state and demographics changing.

Posted by eli | February 11, 2008 3:05 PM

Lingle may have lost the first go 'round because voters were just getting acquainted with the idea that they might be voting for a lesbian. The second time around, the Democratic heir apparent was taken out by corrupt campaign financing, and enough voters decided that an honest gay was ok. Lingle isn't out of the closet, and her orientation doesn't get discussed in public, much like Kolbe in AZ.

I suspect Kucinich did so well in the last caucus because we're small enough to get swamped by an activist 'flash mob' event. With any luck, enough Obama supporters will give an evening to overcome any attempt to crown HRC.

Posted by cmholm | February 11, 2008 3:06 PM

And yes, the demographics are changing, in that more haoles are moving in, and the GOP isn't so closely associated with the plantation owners era. More Latinos are moving in, too, but most aren't citizens and don't count.

On the other hand, the *state* GOP caucus were nearly wiped out of the Legislature in the last go 'round when the Party leaders decided to ride GWB's coattails, rather than focus on local issues.

Posted by cmholm | February 11, 2008 3:20 PM

Hawaii will be a crushing win for Obama due to:

1) Hometown advatange
2) Establishment support - both Abercrombie and I think the (pretty powerful) State senate pres have endorsed him - although I am not 100% sure that she has
3) Advnatage he has had in caucus vs primary
4) The only guy (except for Paul(!)) I've seen run ads out here.

The demographics (75% asian) do not matter for this particular election due to the stuff mentioned above.

Off the top of my head the union support I think breaks down as follows:

Hillary will probably officially get the (military) shipyard union (3rd most powerful), and the state employee's (1st most powerful) - but HGEA will have a bunch a people 'breaking ranks' and voting Obama

I think the hotel/culinary workers (2nd most powerful) will go to Obama following the lead of the one in Nevada (very similar in economic demographics, if not ethnocultural)

Posted by Kolohe | February 11, 2008 3:52 PM

I lived in Hawaii 20 years ago and it was a very divided populace. There were the rich and the poor and that was it.

I imagine things have changed some in all these years, but I can't imagine trying to poll HI. Each island was like a different country, each side of each island was polar opposite to the other.

It's a very cool place to live if you've never done it. We lived up toward the North Shore and were about the only family that wasn't Morman or Samoan.

I had a blast learning both cultures, then trying to figure out the Philippino, new Japanese migrants (rich) and on and on.

Posted by G Davis | February 11, 2008 5:03 PM

Senate President Colleen Hanabusa is Clinton campaign spokesperson in HI. It's not clear who House Speaker Calvin Say is behind. He's an old boy network politician, but has made positive noises about Obama.

Posted by cmholm | February 11, 2008 5:12 PM

Ah thanks cmholm, I got the senate & house leaders mixed up.

I still stand by my prediction of a landslide for Obama

Posted by Kolohe | February 11, 2008 6:17 PM

The Columbus Dispatch published the results of it's usually reliable mail poll 2-3 weeks ago. As I recall, Clinton led by 20%. This was a little closer than the previous poll published in Nov. None of this probably really matters, since its just in the last week that people here of started to realize that, unbelievably, the Ohio Primary is actually going to matter.

Posted by mcnicop | February 11, 2008 6:25 PM