N.H. Polls: What Went Wrong?

CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Some Theories About Bad N.H. Polls Don't Hold Water

(CBS)  By Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys.

---

After last week’s New Hampshire primary, pollsters found themselves trying to understand “what went wrong.” There were calls for investigations, and words like “problematic,” “debacle’ and “fiasco” were being tossed around. Of course, as one might expect, some of the people tossing those words around hadn’t been engaged in pre-New Hampshire primary polling, and some of their explanations don’t have data to support their claims.

One of those explanations was that white voters over-reported their intention to vote for an African-American candidate. That theory was based on findings from some elections in the 1980’s and the 1990’s when black candidates ran against white candidates. Those elections, however, tended to be in racially polarized situations (big cities like New York), and most especially in general elections. Voters see things differently when race is a factor, as demonstrated by political scientist Keith Reeves in this New Yorker column.

But the factor of race doesn’t explain New Hampshire. The Democratic campaign is not racially polarizing now, and hopefully never will be. It is true, however, that when voters tell an interviewer what they are going to do, some of them may sometimes try and guess what it is the interviewer wants to hear, and tailor their answer to accommodate that. The theory is that the respondent (white or black) might not want an interviewer to think they aren’t voting for a black candidate. They might think the interviewer will take offense, or believe the respondent to be racist.

Taken to its extreme, this theory predicts that respondents who think they have socially unacceptable opinions -- or situationally unpopular opinions -- simply won’t answer a questionnaire. Many of us think we have opinions other Americans might find offensive. Twenty years ago, CBS News and The New York Times asked Americans if they thought any of their opinions would be very offensive to most other Americans; 26 percent said they did. When asked what those opinions were, some did mention their racial opinions, but more cited religion and abortion and feelings about government policies.

In the 2004 elections, younger exit poll interviewers had a difficult time convincing voters, especially older voters, to fill out exit poll questionnaires. The popular belief that younger voters were more likely to be Kerry supporters may have helped explain why the exit polls understated support for George W. Bush. Clearly, at least some of those non-respondents thought that their opinions might be offensive to the interviewer.

There is data that can explain whether voters interviewed before the New Hampshire primary had different response rates based on candidate preference, and that data can test the “race” theory. The theory would predict that those not voting for Barack Obama would be less likely to complete an interview. In November, Hillary Clinton held a 15-point lead in the CBS News/New York Times New Hampshire poll. We called back the same sample the weekend before the primary. The January response rate for the November Obama and Clinton voters was nearly the same, 74 percent for November Obama supporters and 68 percent for November Clinton voters. Before publication of the results, we adjusted (“post-stratified”) the results to account for that small difference in response by previous candidate preference (which is normally done in panel surveys). Correcting for that small difference in response changed little.

There is a second theory. It suggests that pre-election polls didn’t account for enthusiasm, that “likely voter” models need to take account of this, and that perhaps the likely voter models applied before the election missed the difference in enthusiasm for the candidates. Well, maybe. The surge in enthusiasm for Obama in Iowa may have led some pollsters to open up their models to allow for voters who might otherwise be excluded, giving those who said they were probably going to vote, and those who may not have voted before more of an opportunity to be part of the sample. Prior to Iowa, as reported in the CBS News pre-New Hampshire poll release, there was enormous enthusiasm among Obama supporters, an enthusiasm that suggested that more than just past voting behavior was at work in getting people to the polls.

But New Hampshire wasn’t Iowa. In fact, if any of the candidates benefited from enthusiasm in New Hampshire, it was probably Clinton. Her supporters were 10 points more likely than Obama supporters to say that their choice was “a lot better” than any of the other Democratic candidates. More than half of her supporters in the CBS News poll had recommended her to others, compared with just four in ten Obama voters who recommended him to others.

So this explanation might actually give us some understanding of what happened. But since all the polls were off in the same direction, while methods and practices of pollsters differed greatly, we may be forced to return to the simplest explanation, the one discussed in last week’s column. It’s the only theory that explains why most Republican pre-primary polls were accurate, while the Democratic estimates were not. Just as in some previous New Hampshire primaries (Democrats in 1984 and Republicans in 1988), that state’s 2008 Democratic electorate was “fluid.” Voters made decisions that were only temporary -- and were likely to change their decisions right up to the last minute. And women voters -- for whatever reason -- were the ones most ready to do that.

[hwy71so]

"The Democratic campaign is not racially polarizing now,"

HA!!!!

...right...

[hwy71so]

What went wrong? HA

What went wrong was the media trying to manipulate the peoples desires and finding it didn''t work!!

[truth2power1]

Two theories?! That''s all you could come up with? Ask a statistician and he/she would tell you there are a dozen theories -- the most interesting of which is the possibility of voter fraud. Why does mainstream media brush this possibility aside? We''ll find out if this is the reason as soon as NH election official finish the recount.

BTW - I seriously doubt the Wilder effect (the race theory) was the reason because NH has a semi-open primary where one could choose from dozens of candidates.

[truth2power1]

Two theories?! That''s all you could come up with? Ask a statistician and he/she would tell you there are a dozen theories -- the most interesting of which is the possibility of voter fraud. Why does mainstream media brush this possibility aside? We''ll find out if this is the reason as soon as NH election official finish the recount.

BTW - I seriously doubt the Wilder effect (the race theory) was the reason because NH has a semi-open primary where one could choose from dozens of candidates.

[truth2power1]

Two theories?! That''s all you could come up with? Ask a statistician and he/she would tell you there are a dozen theories -- the most interesting of which is the possibility of voter fraud. Why does mainstream media brush this possibility aside? We''ll find out if this is the reason as soon as NH election official finish the recount.

BTW - I seriously doubt the Wilder effect (the race theory) was the reason because NH has a semi-open primary where one could choose from dozens of candidates.

[truth2power1]

Two theories?! That''s all you could come up with? Ask a statistician and he/she would tell you there are a dozen theories -- the most interesting of which is the possibility of voter fraud. Why does mainstream media brush this possibility aside? We''ll find out if this is the reason as soon as NH election official finish the recount.

BTW - I seriously doubt the Wilder effect (the race theory) was the reason because NH has a semi-open primary where one could choose from dozens of candidates.

[prinzowhales]

Electoral fraud is what went wrong in New Hampshire...

blackboxvoting.org

[antoniof123]

I love it when the polls show something people like they don''t have a problem with them when they show something they don''t like or the results come out differently they have a problem. While most polls are correct today the swing voter is swinging very rapidly because it is a day to day thing. I can be certain that if you were to vote do you think that the administration is doing a good job or not the not would be on target.

But like anything last minute can change everything.

[truth2power1]

Two theories?! That''s all you could come up with? Ask a statistician and he/she would tell you there are a dozen theories -- the most interesting of which is the possibility of voter fraud. Why does mainstream media brush this possibility aside? We''ll find out if this is the reason as soon as NH election official finish the recount.

BTW - I seriously doubt the Wilder effect (the race theory) was the reason because NH has a semi-open primary where one could choose from dozens of candidates.

[watcher269-2009]

Nothing went wrong - the Commentators (not Journalists) voiced personal feeling about the race (like they are ever correct) from FOX news and did not perform REAL polling of the voters.


The Orwellian News services tried to push who they thought should win or wanted to win. This will become even more evident in the coming months.


For REAL news - go to the Blogs!

[craigh9]

Why are people making such a big thing out of this. It was a topsy-turvey race. Clinton had as much as a 12 point lead 10 days prior and then it swung to a 10 point Obama lead. That, along with a very large turnout resulted in a 3% margin of victory. Regardless of who won, that should not be a large surprise.

[tylenol6]

Never underestimate the Clinton crime family in stealing
vote for Hitlery. She is power hungry.

[mbcsmith]

The Main stream media "polls" are creations of CBS''s desire to see Obama elected. They blame their disastrous polling results on the voter. Here''s a clue, the voter is never wrong.

[starleo146]

The Main stream media "polls" are creations of CBS''''s desire to see Obama elected. They blame their disastrous polling results on the voter. Here''''s a clue, the voter is never wrong.

Posted by mbcsmith at 03:48 PM : Jan 14, 20

You got that right, the media was trying to brainwash the voter against Hillary and the voter outwitted the tabloid media way to go New Hampshire listening to the media I thought for sure 11 point lead was way out there but didn''t know as I said listening to the media

[noloyalisti]

Actually the mainstream media is strongly pulling for Hillary Clinton. I think they feel, probably rightly so, that they can swiftboat her like the conservatives did last election to Kerry.

Note the unholy connection between Karl Rove and Hillary, Rupert Murdoch and Hillary and Wal Mart, all extremist right wing influences.

[dbl06]

the result in NH, I believe was media backlash. Why is the media so opposed to the Clinton''s? Hillary has been under scrutiny for months while Obama is yet to be vetted. No one is asking the tough questions of him. He received a pass by the questioners of the debates and so far by the main stream media. Why?

[starleo146]

Never underestimate the Clinton crime family in stealing
vote for Hitlery. She is power hungry.

Posted by tylenol6

The voters should decide who they want and just vote we do not need all this coaching and tabloid lies so we will vote there way

[starleo146]

This is there way to get back at Bill CLINTON THEY ARE TAKING ALL HE DONE OUT ON HER, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, SHE HAS DONE NOTHING TO DESERVE THIS LYNCHING SHE IS GETTING . THEY KNOW HILLARY ELECTED BILL WILL BE THERE AS WELL

[starleo146]

Why are people making such a big thing out of this. It was a topsy-turvey race. Clinton had as much as a 12 point lead 10 days prior and then it swung to a 10 point Obama lead. That, along with a very large turnout resulted in a 3% margin of victory. Regardless of who won, that should not be a large surprise.

Posted by craigh9 at 02:42 PM : Jan 14, 20

They want to beat her here so the republicans might be able to beat the other nominee in the nationals

[starleo146]

Nothing went wrong - the Commentators (not Journalists) voiced personal feeling about the race (like they are ever correct) from FOX news and did not perform REAL polling of the voters.


The Orwellian News services tried to push who they thought should win or wanted to win. This will become even more evident in the coming months.


For REAL news - go to the Blogs!

Posted by watcher269 at 02:24 PM : Jan 14, 2008
+ report ab

That is exactly it you hit it on the nose I hope people will read this

[starleo146]

love it when the polls show something people like they don''''t have a problem with them when they show something they don''''t like or the results come out differently they have a problem. While most polls are correct today the swing voter is swinging very rapidly because it is a day to day thing. I can be certain that if you were to vote do you think that the administration is doing a good job or not the not would be on target.

But like anything last minute can change everything.

Posted by antoniof123 at 02:09 PM : Jan 14, 2008
+ r

I hope the voters tell the exit polls or any question they ask just the opposite They click the winner before everyone has a chance in the west has not finished voting and they all want to be first we the voters need to teach them a lesson

[starleo146]

Electoral fraud is what went wrong in New Hampshire...

blackboxvoting.org

Posted by Prinzowhales at 02:00 PM : Jan 14, 2008
+ repo

What went wrong in 2000 and 2004 maybe we stopped them first this time

[starleo146]

Nobody can predict the future...why should pollster be any different?

Frankly I was happy that the pollsters'''' got the results wrong...

I never listen to pollsters, just like I never listen to (movie) critics...I am quite capable of making up my mind thank you very much!

Posted by ozilot at 12:59 PM : J

I am with you on that one ozilot

[starleo146]

What went wrong? HA

What went wrong was the media trying to manipulate the peoples desires and finding it didn''''t work!!

Posted by Hwy71So at 01:38 PM : Jan 14, 2008

See media we voters are not as dumb as you make us out to be

[noloyalisti]

I can''t believe how much media (and I guess) citizen attention is being directed toward this election which is just another fraudulent event.

The media is trying to make us forget about all the other signs of the fascist state, spying on citizens, incarceration and torture without charges, rampant nationalism, extreme emphasis on the military (see additional escalation in Iraq just announced) and crooked and corporate controlled right wing media.

[rowdytexan2]

Oh good grief, two things happened!

There was a record turnout in voting! The polls couldn''t accomodate that! The only people that exist in a poll are the people polled! There''s no way you can predict how everybody is really going to vote.

The second is, pollsters don''t like to be wrong and they jumped on the Obama bandwagon and got their polls to reflect that. Polls are very easily rigged to show what the pollsters want to predict.

There may have been some clerical errors here and there. But nine will get you ten it was due to the record turnout.

And I don''t believe it had anything to do with race!

[wheelofvoter]

Exxon and Walmart want McCain vs. Clinton and Clinton got Edwards votes. Hack all the way. Diebold precincts twice as likely to go for Clinton.

[lckmstr4u]

plain and sinple,American isn''t ready and doesn''t want a black president,good olde new england politics,only blacks americans like are ,football,basketball and some baseball players!!

[kaliveotin]

The polls were RIGHT! They gave the exact amount of support for OBAMA. It''s simply that almost all of the undecided voters voted for Hillary and that many of the older more experienced voters who might not have voted in past primaries felt tis time it was more important. Easy to predict given the nature of the current Presidency and the lackmof substance from the OBAMA campaign.

[jjp735i]

Did anyone think about the fact that maybe people are tired of pollsters and decided to play with them? I would. I don''t feel it is some strangers business who I might vote for and besides, they do spin the information they get and not always in a good way.

[hwy71so]

J. Ross Perot 2000

[king77shaw]

Diebold hack job!

[rayuk-2009]

Anomalies are a fact of statistics, they just happen and NH is not an exception. Have you ever noticed that things seldom ever turn-out as they first appear? Sure you have and what you have seen is the possibility of an anomaly that may or may not have just occurred.

[arthall33]

Stalin said it does not matter who votes for who....the only thing that matters is who counts the votes..its already been proven that there was vote fraud in NH on both sides....google it and check it out.....

[arthall33]

Stalin said it does not matter who votes for who....the only thing that matters is who counts the votes..its already been proven that there was vote fraud in NH on both sides....google it and check it out.....

[davidmwe]

Something is off or strange, for the number of people searching on the internet for the candidates must be indicative of something. Google Trends report showing Ron Paul and Barack Obama WELL in the race on the internet (for number of searches on them), See:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=31

[jon2012-2009]

The polls represent only a sampling, not the entire universe of voters. And then the sampling takes place at a different, even though proximate, time. So for either or both reasons, polls will not always be accurate. What''s amazing is that the polls give us a good picture lots of other times.

[noloyalisti]

One of the important signs, among others, of a fascist state are the fraudulent elections that we now have here.

Another important sign is the monopolization of the media by right wing corporations who also set government policy, both of which we now have.

Edwards wins almost every poll that is conducted outside the war profiteering media. They are afraid of him because he has sworn to break up their profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation.

[tylenol6]

VOTER FRAUD, that''s what went wrong. We shall see after
the votes are recounted............

[killtheliars]

We the people need to demand that a law be passed stating anyone invloved in election fraud, wether as local poll worker or president should be executed with no exceptions. If you killed a few cheaters this $hit would stop real quick. Our electoral system is more important then the lives of a few cheaters, no matter who they may be.

[tylenol6]

nyloyalisti @ 2:27 p.m.
"They are afraid of John Edwards because has sworn to
break up profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation."

Oh really? John Edwards is a CFR member, which is a world globalist SCUM that is selling out our country. CFR members are the lower tier that carry out their
message for this globalist elite. Don''t let John Edwards fool you. He is one of them. The name (CFR)
which stands for Council of Foreign Relations, no one
would even question what this group even does. True?
The name sounds very influential. But, they are an evil group. Do you ever see video''s of people asking
these candidates "Are you a member of the CFR? Look it
up for yourselve if you don''t believe me. Hate to tell
you this but all the candidates are CFR members except
RON PAUL, GRAVEL, AND KUCINICH. Why do you think the
media is censoring RON PAUL?????? My vote goes to
Ron Paul. He stands for the CONSTITUTION and is probably our only last hope for turning this country
around.

[tylenol6]

nyloyalisti @ 2:27 p.m.
"They are afraid of John Edwards because has sworn to
break up profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation."

Oh really? John Edwards is a CFR member, which is a world globalist SCUM that is selling out our country. CFR members are the lower tier that carry out their
message for this globalist elite. Don''t let John Edwards fool you. He is one of them. The name (CFR)
which stands for Council of Foreign Relations, no one
would even question what this group even does. True?
The name sounds very influential. But, they are an evil group. Do you ever see video''s of people asking
these candidates "Are you a member of the CFR? Look it
up for yourselve if you don''t believe me. Hate to tell
you this, but ALL the candidates are CFR members except RON PAUL, GRAVEL, AND KUCINICH. Why do you think the media is censoring RON PAUL?????? My vote goes to Ron Paul. He stands for the CONSTITUTION and is probably our only last hope for turning this country around.

[tylenol6]

nyloyalisti @ 2:27 p.m.
"They are afraid of John Edwards because has sworn to
break up profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation."

Oh really? John Edwards is a CFR member, which is a world globalist SCUM that is selling out our country. CFR members are the lower tier that carry out their
message for this globalist elite. Don''t let John Edwards fool you. He is one of them. The name (CFR)
which stands for Council of Foreign Relations, no one
would even question what this group even does. True?
The name sounds very influential. But, they are an evil group. Do you ever see video''s of people asking
these candidates "Are you a member of the CFR? Look it
up for yourselve if you don''t believe me. Hate to tell
you this, but ALL the candidates are CFR members except RON PAUL, GRAVEL, AND KUCINICH. Why do you think the media is censoring RON PAUL?????? My vote goes to Ron Paul. He stands for the CONSTITUTION and is probably our only last hope for turning this country around.

[tylenol6]

nyloyalisti @ 2:27 p.m.
"They are afraid of John Edwards because has sworn to
break up profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation."

Oh really? John Edwards is a CFR member, which is a world globalist SCUM that is selling out our country. CFR members are the lower tier that carry out their
message for this globalist elite. Don''t let John Edwards fool you. He is one of them. The name (CFR)
which stands for Council of Foreign Relations, no one
would even question what this group even does. True?
The name sounds very influential. But, they are an evil group. Do you ever see video''s of people asking
these candidates "Are you a member of the CFR? Look it
up for yourselve if you don''t believe me. Hate to tell
you this, but ALL the candidates are CFR members except RON PAUL, GRAVEL, AND KUCINICH. Why do you think the media is censoring RON PAUL?????? My vote goes to Ron Paul. He stands for the CONSTITUTION and is probably our only last hope for turning this country around.

[tylenol6]

nyloyalisti @ 2:27 p.m.
"They are afraid of John Edwards because has sworn to
break up profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation."

Oh really? John Edwards is a CFR member, which is a world globalist SCUM that is selling out our country. CFR members are the lower tier that carry out their
message for this globalist elite. Don''t let John Edwards fool you. He is one of them. The name (CFR)
which stands for Council of Foreign Relations, no one
would even question what this group even does. True?
The name sounds very influential. But, they are an evil group. Do you ever see video''s of people asking
these candidates "Are you a member of the CFR? Look it
up for yourselve if you don''t believe me. Hate to tell
you this, but ALL the candidates are CFR members except RON PAUL, GRAVEL, AND KUCINICH. Why do you think the media is censoring RON PAUL?????? My vote goes to Ron Paul. He stands for the CONSTITUTION and is probably our only last hope for turning this country around.

[tylenol6]

nyloyalisti @ 2:27 p.m.
"They are afraid of John Edwards because has sworn to
break up profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation."

Oh really? John Edwards is a CFR member, which is a world globalist SCUM that is selling out our country. CFR members are the lower tier that carry out their
message for this globalist elite. Don''t let John Edwards fool you. He is one of them. The name (CFR)
which stands for Council of Foreign Relations, no one
would even question what this group even does. True?
The name sounds very influential. But, they are an evil group. Do you ever see video''s of people asking
these candidates "Are you a member of the CFR? Look it
up for yourselve if you don''t believe me. Hate to tell
you this, but ALL the candidates are CFR members except RON PAUL, GRAVEL, AND KUCINICH. Why do you think the media is censoring RON PAUL?????? My vote goes to Ron Paul. He stands for the CONSTITUTION and is probably our only last hope for turning this country around.

[tylenol6]

nyloyalisti @ 2:27 p.m.
"They are afraid of John Edwards because has sworn to
break up profit party and start disassembling the fascist situation."

Oh really? John Edwards is a CFR member, which is a world globalist SCUM that is selling out our country. CFR members are the lower tier that carry out their
message for this globalist elite. Don''t let John Edwards fool you. He is one of them. The name (CFR)
which stands for Council of Foreign Relations, no one
would even question what this group even does. True?
The name sounds very influential. But, they are an evil group. Do you ever see video''s of people asking
these candidates "Are you a member of the CFR? Look it
up for yourselve if you don''t believe me. Hate to tell
you this, but ALL the candidates are CFR members except RON PAUL, GRAVEL, AND KUCINICH. Why do you think the media is censoring RON PAUL?????? My vote goes to Ron Paul. He stands for the CONSTITUTION and is probably our only last hope for turning this country around.

[tylenol6]

So sorry about all the repeats....it was an error...

[prinzowhales]

Notice how they phrase the headline to avoid mentioning the electoral fraud in New Hampshire.

I canceled by DISH because they offer no packages that don''t contain one or more heads of the CNNMSNBCABCCBSNBCABCFOX hydra. Its time to hit these b*stards in their pocketbooks!

[brianbwb-2009]

uh oh, the Paul spammer is back, clogging up the tubes.

Hey Ron, enough already, we know who and what you are, and you have no chance.

Go back to your OB/GYN practice, so you can "look up" your old girlfriends...