In defense of pollsters

January 9, 2008

Everyone in the political world saw all the polls over the last several days, and they all pointed to a big Barack Obama win in New Hampshire. Given Hillary Clinton’s narrow victory, this has prompted many to suggest polls shouldn’t be taken seriously anymore. I think that’s a little rash under the circumstances.

Josh Marshall reminded us overnight that, by and large, polls are usually right.

[B]y and large they have a very good record. It’s silly to think that we — whether ‘we’ is reporters or political junkies or ordinary voters — are going to ignore the information that’s right in front of us. And why should we?

It’s true I guess that in an abstracted reality we could simply listen to the candidates, ignore all probabilistic data available, go to the polls with no idea of the result and learn the outcome the following morning. But that’s not the world we live in nor do I think it’s one I’d want to live in.

Agreed. Pollsters put surveys in the field, and tell us the results. The numbers offer us hints of what’s to come. When all the polls agree on a likely outcome, far more often than not, that’s what’s going to happen. Yesterday was obviously the exception, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s time to trash the rule.

On a related note, Matt Yglesias offers an interesting observation (and accompanying chart):

Commenter Brian makes an observation “No one is talking about how the polls actually nailed Obama’s number. Obama didn’t lose this election. He stayed steady and Hillary surged ahead.” That seems to be true.

It does, indeed. As of late Monday, averaging the various polls out of New Hampshire, we saw these averages: Obama 36%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 18%

And with more than 98% of precincts reporting: Clinton 39%, Obama 36%, Edwards 17%.

The polls got two of the three just right. It’s that winner they missed.

Is there a reasonable explanation? This might offer some clues:

Among voters who made up their minds yesterday, Hillary beat Obama by 39%-36%, suggesting that the last news cycle of the contest might have played a decisive role in shifting votes Hillary’s way. Yes, I admit it — I’m talking mainly about the wall-to-wall coverage of The Tears, which were effectively the last close look at Hillary these voters had before entering the voting booths.

Meanwhile, among voters who made up their minds in the last three days, Hillary also gained ground, coming in only one point behind Obama, 36%-37% — numbers that are way out of sync with the big lead Obama had in polls over the weekend and yesterday.

Since Hillary had a relatively solid lead of 41%-37% over Obama among voters who had already made up their minds before last weekend, the late-deciding voters enabled her to regain enough ground to win.

Bottom line: polls are not, all of a sudden, useless. Yesterday was a rare occurrence, but data still has value.

Among voters who made up their minds yesterday

Or at least among voters who told pollsters that they made up their minds yesterday.

How much “Hillary Effect” (as someone called it in another thread) might be going on? Where people don’t want to say that they support Clinton but then pull the lever for her? I think there may be quite a bit – the woman has been so demonized over the last decade plus that no matter where you are on the political spectrum you probably know someone who hates her with a blind fury.

So why not just punt and tell people you’re undecided until the last minute? Hard to do in Iowa (where everyone can see what you’re doing and who you’re supporting) but easy to do in NH where the ballot boxes are secret.

  • NonyNony wrote: “…the woman has been so demonized over the last decade plus that no matter where you are on the political spectrum you probably know someone who hates her with a blind fury.”

    Certainly if you read some of the comments posted at TCBR.

    Happily, I’m not bothered by saying I would support any of the Democrats who are (or even were) running.

    Except for maybe Dennis K. It’s just a little squirmy to think of putting Elizabeth Kucinich into the White House.

  • The problem will polls is that they bend undecideds, creating a self fulfilling prophesy. Everyone wants to be on the side of the winner (just look at attendance when a team starts winning). But what happened this time really is anger of being OVERTLY told how to vote/what the outcome will be. CNN didn’t register Clinton as the winner until a second before Obama started his concession speech. I am just as tired of the pundits as I am of the Republicans.

  • Certainly if you read some of the comments posted at TCBR.

    You mean you don’t know people who hate Clinton like that in real life?

    Good for you – I have to put up with the occasional rant from my “Reagan-Made-Me-A-Republican” father who absolutely thinks she is some kind of devil woman set to rampage across the earth and make us all Communists working in the fields or something.

    Then I have to put up with the occasional rant from my “I Voted For Nader” friends who absolutely think she’s some kind of devil woman set to rampage across the earth and make us all Corporate Slaves sewing Nikes in sweatshops or something.

    I mean, she’s my last choice for president on the Dem side too, but I just don’t get how one woman can make both “sides” of the aisle break out in cold sweats and start ranting like a schizoid on a street corner like that. So I can see how, if you were a Clinton backer, you might just shrug and say “I haven’t decided yet” when asked who you were going to vote for – especially if a Clinton-hater was in earshot.

  • I think that CB nailed it with this morning’s opening headline: Dewey Defeats Truman Clinton Defeats Obama.”

    And with his opening line: “Oh, now I remember. We’re supposed to wait until after voters express a preference to declare a winner of a contest.”

    Lance: Elizabeth Kucinich makes you “squirmy”? I don’t think that quite describes my reaction. I’ll just say that I think that she’s exceedingly hot, and leave it at that. 🙂

  • Can someone fill me in on how primary results lead to delegate splits? I wonder if in New Hampshire the delegates will split evenly between Obama and Clinton…

  • Certainly if you read some of the comments posted at TCBR. -Lance

    I think most of the people who comment here and oppose Clinton’s candidacy oppose it on merit and record and not hatred.

    I certainly don’t hate her, but do hold her responsible for her votes, most notably the one that started the Iraq war. Her support of Kyl-Lieberman only reinforced my belief that she didn’t learn anything from her past mistakes.

    Bottom line: polls are not, all of a sudden, useless. Yesterday was a rare occurrence, but data still has value.

    They do always seem to fail at critical times, however. How many of us were certain in 2004 that John Kerry would win convincingly becuase of polls?

  • This is what I think we have so far:

    Iowa delegates:

    Obama 16
    Hillary 15
    Edwards 14

    NH delegates:

    Clinton: 9
    Obama: 9
    Edwards: 4

  • At their best, polls offer a snapshot-in-time of what the electorate is thinking, but in a dynamic system with so many factors at play — some of which can interact — there’s simply no way to extrapolate with full confidence what the system will look like at a later point in time.

    There may be a cure, however, in the form of a virtual thought experiment. Everyone imagine a paper bag. Now imagine breathing into it until respiration returns to normal. As Tom Cleaver said several times last night — one step at a time.

  • NonyNony wrote: “You mean you don’t know people who hate Clinton like that in real life?”

    I have six brothers. At least three are Rethugs. One’s so liberal he makes Ed Stephan look like Attila the Hun. One’s a reformed ex-Republican whom I couldn’t say would vote for Clinton but who really, really hates BGII.

    Bill Clinton was DLC, and he managed to govern like a moderate (especially after the Democrates in Congress lost control in 1994). Which meant such things as Welfare Reform and Balanced (sort of) Budgets.

    It also meant that he (and Albright) were willing tools of the Chicago School of Economics plot to destablize the Asian Tigers in the 90’s (Read Naomi Klein’s book “Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Diaster Capitalism”). So yes, he helped throw a lot of people (millions, likely) into poverty.

    So I understand the Naderite hatred and I understand the Republican’t hatred (the Clintons made them look like fools by actually making the reforms the Republican’ts were running on for decades). But in a way I just laugh at them both. The Naderites need to get Americans to understand that BGII’s policies are bad for America rather than attacking Democratic politicians, and the Republican’ts are just whinny punks.

  • Ohioan –

    How did Edwards and Clinton tie in Iowa – with Edwards having some tenths of a percentage more votes than Clinton – and Clinton ends up with more delegates? That seems odd.

  • ***Jen Flowers*** agreed. Polls are not just predictive they are suggestive. I read that the “national” polls show Edwards leading Hillary yet everyone is walking around with this third place Edwards in mind. Shortly before NH began voting I was already reading that Hillary was finished and would have to rely on Feb 5 to have a chance. Polls are taken and then predictions made on those polls and then suggestions that it does no good to donate money to their campaign because they will lose any way. Hillary may very well have ‘surged’ ahead because voters may have believed she didn’t deserve this predicted fate. Your question is right on. Does hearing polls numbers before you go into vote influence your vote? How about a rebellious streak?…”oh yeah, I’ll vote for her anyway…show them.
    Who knows…I just know I get sick of hearing it…polls and pundits…especially when it’s negative for my candidate.

  • CB – I think two things happened in NH yesterday. Women 40+ said “we’ve had enough!” and other voters in the state said “wait a minute, we need to hear more from Obama.”

    It’s undeniable there was a misogynist pile on of Hillary over the last 24 hours, even Edwards (I think to his detriment) decided to jump in as well. Every woman over 40 who watched the tape of Sen. Clinton knew EXACTLY what she was feeling. We’ve all been there, and we all knew it was honest emotion.

    BAC

  • Correction to #9… It was Ed Stephan who wrote “One. step. at. a. time” last evening, not Tom Cleaver. Apologies to Ed, or Tom, or both and anyone else who wants one.

  • doubtful said: “I think most of the people who comment here and oppose Clinton’s candidacy oppose it on merit and record and not hatred.”

    That may be true, but there is plenty of pure hatred being spewed forth, and not just against Hillary.

    The assertion that “Most Don’t” doesn’t invalidate the statement that “Some Do”.

  • re: #11 and #16,

    my guess is that the list in comment #8 just has Edwards and Clinton reversed.

    Anyone know of a site we can go to to confirm?

  • The assertion that “Most Don’t” doesn’t invalidate the statement that “Some Do”. -Lance

    Ugh, I’m having flashbacks of Venn Diagrams now.

    • Comments are closed.