Comments on: Why were the polls wrong in New Hampshire?

By: Robert Waller

Robert Waller — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:12:21 +0000

I think there are other problems that pollsters face in the USA’s primaries and caucuses (apart from their endemic habit of small samples).
One is that they cannot weight by previous voting, as there hasn’t been a previous primary with these candidates. Another is the rules, which in some states allow independents to vote in either party’s primary without prior notification.
Finally, personal voting is likely to be more subject to late movement than party, due to the lack of the long-term identification factor.
So there are even more reasons to be wary of pre=contest polls than usual!

By: Anthony Wells

Anthony Wells — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:24:14 +0000

Andy – given that there wasn’t a race issue here, and the is no obvious reason for a very sudden swing, I’m thinking that the turnout model is could be where pollsters are falling down.

By: Andy Stidwill

Andy Stidwill — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:55:07 +0000

I notice the polls have made a mess of it again in Michigan. They were all saying the result would be something like 27%-26% for Romney and McCain. In fact the result was Romney – 39%, McCain – 30%. So Romney scored about 12% more than the polls said he would. That’s quite a big mistake. This isn’t the greatest of months for the polling companies.

By: Anthony Wells

Anthony Wells — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:01:15 +0000

There are still 6% or so of people in the US who will openly admit to pollsters that they would not vote for a black candidate, presumably there are more out there who think the same but wouldn’t tell a pollster they are a racist.

Whether that matters of course depends on whether Obama’s positive qualities are enough to outweight the negative his race will be to some voters (for some voters obviously his race will itself be a positive). And, I suppose, whether the negative effect of whatever opponent he ended up facing had an even larger effect – far more people, for example, say they could never vote for a Mormon.

By: Robert Waller

Robert Waller — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:04:09 +0000

I can remember many black candidates in the US who did not live up to their poll ratings – Harvey Gantt against Jesse Helms, Tom Bradley in California, and most recently Harold Ford in the Tennessee Seante race in Nvember 2006 – the one uppe rhouse target the Democarts did not achieve. I’d be surprised if some ‘shy’ (to put it politely) effect was not part of the outcome in New Hampshire – especially as Obama had become the surprise favourite, which he wasn’t in Iowa (and may not be again).
Arguments about why the polls are wrong are in any case less improtant unltimately than whether the US can elect a black president. The answer may be – yes, but it will be much harder. If Obama becoems the D nominee I would not put his chance of beating whoever the R is anywhere near as high as 50%.
In fact, I’ve always believed that the first black president is more likely to be a Republican – a bit like the first woman UK PM was a Conservative.
And very unfortunately I must add that one prominent black possible candidate that an employer of mine once worked for decided not top run partly because it was felt there was a real chance of assassination.
I think we’d all agree that we sincerely hope that the USA has moved on in every sense in the 21st century.