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.

[homespunlady]

veteran71
along with all the OTHER lies we''re being told there''s the fact DIEBOLD has had a NAME CHANGE. Guess changing your name but NOT your PRACTICES is the vote manipulator''s BEST answer to being CAUGHT up too many time in "fishy" election results world wide.

A GREAT ad for them might be:

Want to have a "bloodless" coup?
Let us help - election results that WE deliver.
Ask our satisfied dictators TODAY!
(followed by an evil laugh)

[homespunlady]

Personally if I was a new Hampshire resident I''d be REALLY TICKED OFF at the pundits of the Main Stream Media CALLING the bulk of New Hampshire VOTERS LIARS!!!

I''m tired of hearing and reading that honest and caring American VOTERS ARE LIARS because the VOTE COUNT CAN''T BE WRONG!!!

Since when did STALIN take over this country??

[homespunlady]

WHICH is more believable.

That HUGE percentages of people in one of the most straightforward states in the Union decided to conspire and LIE about their vote. (Which the MSM wants us to believe.)

OR that there were some SERIOUS VOTE shifting through the "forgetting" and machine dirty tricks that have been caught innumerable times elsewhere.

You decide.

A STATE OF LIARS or a RIGGED VOTE.

[homespunlady]

At least the KENYANS have more brains as to why vote "results" might not "match" pre-voting "results". THEY take their elections seriously enough to DO SOMETHING about "fishy" results.

Sheesh! NO WONDER this nation is going down the tubes and an ever increasing rate - STUPIDITY.

If things seem wrong the probably ARE!!!
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... no matter how often they tell you - it NOT an eagle!!
REMEMBER "Where''s there smoke, there''s fire"????

DUH has ALL THE JUNK FOOD, JUNK teevee, JUNK investment bull, junk mortgages, junk lifestyles and JUNK SCHOOLING really made this notion THAT stupid????

RECOUNT THE VOTE OPEN AND FAIRLY WITHOUT the SAME PEOPLE doing the RECOUNT!!!!

IF it was by some SLIM chance an HONEST set of results then they should do so for FREE just to PROVE their honesty in New Hampshire. As it is there''s evidence IN SPITE of the media LEAKING OUT all over.

holding FREE and FAIR elections in this country is like finding a "needle in a haystack".

[tulcak]

oh, and by the way, it will be President Kucinich. the pollsters and analysts will be shocked and finally realize what republican vision means. it means you can''t see reality even when it is happening to you.

[tulcak]

good grief!! they still don''t get it! this article is a great example of the fantasy world analysts and pollsters live in. they start with the assumption that most people are like them (republican) and rationalize the same way. no, no, no! most democrats do not have beliefs that other Americans would find offensive - most republicans do. they are intolerant and self-centered. believe it or not, you pollsters and analyst, most Americans are more concerned about doing the right thing for our country... NOT about "what''s in it for me" - this is how republicans vote. and, the majority of you pollsters and analysts ARE republicans. you simply cannot fathom the motivations of those who are not greedy and selfish.

[kaliveotin]

Millions of MINDLESS americans lap up the right-wing regurgitation without thinking. With low-life simpletons throughout america it was easy for Bush to beat Gore and Kerry because they had no backbone. Hillary is more of a man than either of them. She scares the Repubs because she can beat them, in spite of the mindless motivations of the Hillary Haters. It will take more than gay bashing and attacks on immigrants to win this time. Hillaries time has come. She will be our best President since Roosevelt, the second one. GO HILLARY GO. We support you.

[kaliveotin]

John Edwards is an ambitious attack dog without a direction or comprehensive plan. He couldnt help the Democrats win the presidency.Now he want to sabatoge Hillary, our best hope in 2008. John, give up, shut up, go back to chasing ambulances. You crossed the line with your sexist condesending comments about our next President.

[agnim]

Economics 101

Understanding how the self-absorbed and self-destructive Clintons helped to build and then initiate the destruction of the US economy to this day.

1. Every intelligent mind should know by now that THE UNPROVOKED & ARROGANT BUSH WAR IS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE PRESENT DESTRUCTION OF THE US ECONOMY?

2. The huge depletion of the US treasury gives rise to inflationary pressures, weakening of the dollar and a huge loss of confidence in the fundamentals of the US economy by business people THE WORLD OVER.

3. Every alert American must have known that bush wasn''t qualified to lead the nation, and that Al Gore would have continued the successful economic policies of his and the Clintons'' administration.

4. So why were the American people so careless and mindless in allowing the bungling bush over Gore?

5. The American people allowed the bungling bush over Gore because they were disgusted by the Clintons misbehavior, which fouled the White House, destroyed what marriage they had and undermine the US Presidency.

6. That self-destructive behavior by the self-absorbed Clintons was what initiated the undermining of the US Presidency and allowed the bungling bush to get a chance to mindlessly wage a foolish, UNPROVOKED war that subsequently empty the national treasury and destroyed the US economy.

7. Only the most ASLEEP/careless Americans would want/wander into another round of the Clinton destructiveness. NO CLINTON THIRD TERM! END THE SELF-DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA!

[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...

[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!

[tylenol6]

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

[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.

[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.