Sooo... what happened in the 2008 Democratic NH primary? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 08:26:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Sooo... what happened in the 2008 Democratic NH primary? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Sooo... what happened in the 2008 Democratic NH primary?  (Read 2733 times)
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:16:51 AM »

Supporters of other candidates felt that a long race could possibly benefit them, mainly Edwards and Richardson.  They feared that if Obama won New Hampshire it would be over (similar to Richardson's supporters giving Obama Iowa).  Edwards and Richardson both fell a few points short of what they were polling, and Hillary was the one that these points went to.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2008, 07:33:14 AM »

Supporters of other candidates felt that a long race could possibly benefit them, mainly Edwards and Richardson.  They feared that if Obama won New Hampshire it would be over (similar to Richardson's supporters giving Obama Iowa).  Edwards and Richardson both fell a few points short of what they were polling, and Hillary was the one that these points went to.

The median average of polls for the 6th and 7th of January was as follows:  Obama 38%; Clinton 29%; Edwards 19%; Richardson 6%; Others 3%.

The actual result was as follows: Obama 36%; Clinton 39%; Edwards 17%; Richardson 5%; Others 3%.

The difference in polling and results for Clinton's and Obama's competitors is clearly not enough to account for such a difference overall.
Well, the reason I got a different spread was because I discounted some of the polls.  For example, the Zogby (always an awful poll) which had Obama up 13% and the Uni polls that came out.  Rasmussen for example had the polling at 37-30-19-8, when the actual result was 36-39-17-5

Which comes out to:
Obama -1
Clinton +9
Edwards -2
Richardson -3

To mean, that means undecideds broke late to Clinton hard, as did supporters of other candidates.  As you can see, Obama got what he polled.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2008, 10:12:46 AM »

I never really got a definitive explanation for this:

January 1st Poll Average: Clinton +17
January 2nd Poll Average: Clinton +16
January 3rd Poll Average: Clinton +7
Iowa Caucus Result: Obama +5 on Clinton
January 4th Poll Average: Obama +0.25
January 5th Poll Average: Obama +2
January 6th Poll Average: Obama +8
January 7th Poll Average: Obama +9

Final Primary Result: Clinton +3


The most frequent explanations given are the Bradley Effect and Clinton's last-minute tear-jerking incident, but I still find it a little hard to believe that they can account for such a massive disparity between every poll released in the last couple of days and the actual result.

What is your view?
Joe, after reading this over again, I'm thinking there is obviously something wrong a poll swing of 10 points in one day (January 2-3) w/o any voting, and a 26 pt swing in a week regardless
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 10 queries.