Comments on: Bad Polling, Part Two

By: William Hallowell

William Hallowell — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:26:37 +0000

Interesting post. After Sen. Clinton’s unforeseen in NH victory, many people are questioning the pollsters. There is so much to consider when exploring what goes into political polling. Predicting elections is one of the most difficult challenges in survey work. Generally speaking, election surveys actually do work fairly well (it’s worth remembering that the polling on the Republican side in New Hampshire was pretty accurate). For all their flaws, surveys are still one of the best available tools for figuring out what the public wants. Check out our Public Agenda blog at http://publicagenda.org/headlines/headlines_blog.cfm for more on this!

By: Bleepless

Bleepless — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:40:16 +0000

What? There’s a problem? Democrats lie. That’s all.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:40:58 +0000

Could the democratic pollsters be so wrong because of non resident voting just a thought
The republican pols seem to be pretty good

By: Americaneocon

Americaneocon — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:39:25 +0000

I wrote about this as well. I think the “empathy vote” for Hill following the “crying game” shifted a lot of undecideds her way. The Times of London mentioned the data:

“A rare moment of public emotion in a New Hampshire coffee shop was credited today with helping to bring Hillary Clinton back from the political dead and handing her victory in yesterday’s crucial presidential primary.

Analysis of exit polls from New Hampshire showed that women voters, traditionally her most loyal supporters, flooded back after deserting her for Barack Obama in last week’s Iowa caucuses. Mr Obama narrowly edged Mrs Clinton for the female vote in Iowa primary last week but yesterday she enjoyed a clear 13-point lead.

The psephologists will be poring over the New Hampshire results for some time to work out how the pollsters got it quite so wrong, but already it appears that a much-broadcast episode in which she welled up while talking to supporters in a Portsmouth restaurant could have earned Mrs Clinton a priceless sympathy vote in the state.

My analysis is here:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-hampshire-results-stir-polling.html

By: Rich Horton

Rich Horton — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:29:43 +0000

Pollsters most often do get things right and for a good reason: they have a long track record of how to do things the right way. Things go wrong when the process isn’t followed for whatever reason. For starters, not every poll had Obama out to a huge lead, only a couple did. Many (most?) polls had Obama/Clinton within the margin of error and Clinton won by 3 percentage points. Where is the surprise?

The surprise comes because the media has a pro-Obama script. (Hell, I just saw a MSNBC reporter say “Obama winning is a good story we can all get behind” implying that a Clinton victory isn’t.)

Now, the poll that had Obama ahead by 12 point on Monday is simply indefensible and is suggestive of bad faith. (It is statistically POSSIBLE but not probable…and polls are all about what is probable.)

By: bill-tb

bill-tb — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:22:25 +0000

Pollsters fool the electorate … again

IMHO — The independents went for McCain, to screw up the Republicans, after assuming the Obama lead was solid. Too cute by half.

NH has become a ‘gimmick’ primary with same day registration and no real party loyalty, it’s open for the IM scamming of pollsters.

Both Iowa and NH should be relegated to meaningless.

By: ted goldman

ted goldman — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:18:29 +0000

Bias of polsters may cause skewed results.

By: Gaius

Gaius — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:11:56 +0000

Polls are fairly useless when taken as a snapshot look – I tend to look at the trends – all of which showed Hillary Clinton fading. That is the surprise here.

By: James

James — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:58:02 +0000

Oh, come on. Polls will never get it right. Any pol that listens to polling is an idiot (yeah, I know that means they’re all idiots). Every poll I’ve ever taken gives me a narrow selection of answers to choose from, NONE of which accurately portray what I think. Polls are poorly written. offer no good choices and are focused on, “Do you believe this or this.” I’d invariably select D: None of the above.

Most people are irritated by polling, don’t respond or don’t care how accurate their responses are. When I get a call and they’re conducting a poll, I know they are looking for liberal responses and ways to interpret any response to reinforce their own positions.

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:51:54 +0000

Had this been a case of a Republican defeating a Democrat when the polls said otherwise, the Nutroots would have gone nuclear with conspiracy theories about stolen elections. That’s what happened after Bush unexpectedly beat Kerry, and that’s what happens every time Ron Paul gets clobbered when real votes are counted instead of online polls.

But this was a case of Democrat beating Democrat. Thus, the comparative silence of the Nutroots.

I have always wondered if many (perhaps a majority) of MSM journalists secretly hate and detest the Clintons. Because they find that the idea of holding Democrats accountable for their crimes is blasphemy, the MSM was forced into a permanent 24/7 defense of anything and everything William Jefferson Clinton and his wife did. As a result, the MSM got a deserved reputation as Clinton shills, and it damaged their credibility immensely.

Is it possible that some MSM journalists saw Obama as a ticket out of the Clinton sewer and into a liberal paradise, and that they tried to “help” him with friendly polling data designed to create a bandwagon effect?

By: NortonPete

NortonPete — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:12:29 +0000

One suggestion would be to look into the politics of the pollsters themselves. I believe they are young college age individuals who could possibly write down how they feel instead of the views of who they are polling.