"NH polls are a leading indicator of National Polls" - Nate Silver (of 2007)

[virtualobserver]

From Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/25/1424878/--NH-polls-are-a-leading-indicator-of-National-Polls-Nate-Silver-of-2007

New Hampshire polls are a leading indicator to national polls. Voters are more engaged and more informed in New Hampshire than they are nationally. As the primary season progresses, voters continue to become better engaged and informed, until the actual voting takes place, when the voters are presumably as informed as they ever will be.
In other words, if a candidate is doing better in New Hampshire polls than he is in national polls, that suggests that as voters become more informed, they will continue to slide toward that candidate. At so the candidate will do well in the voting booth, at which point all voters are highly informed (relatively speaking, at least). On the other hand, if a candidate is doing better nationally than he is in New Hampshire, that suggests that the candidate may not hold up to scrutiny, that he may be trading primarily on name recognition, etc. His support is superficial.

The litmus test of this then becomes Iowa. If a candidate is doing better in New Hampshire polls than he is in national polls, and that candidate does well in Iowa, that provides very powerful evidence that this increase in information works to the benefit of that candidate.

You might call this something like "the momentum of information". This hypothesis, by the way, has been confirmed by other researchers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. LBJ knew that in '68.

[book_worm]

43. true

though people actually forget that LBJ won the NH primary as a write-in candidate.

[leftofcool]

2. Interesting. Nate could be right.

[virtualobserver]

5. yes, although..."In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is"

a nod to the recently deceased Yogi Berra

[erronis]

7. +1 (after I get my head wrapped around your virtuality.....)

[Dawson Leery]

3. Imitation is the best form of flattery.

As the Bernie supporters have copied Hillary's logo.
:kick:

[virtualobserver]

4. It is the improved version - it no longer lurches to the right

[Motown_Johnny]

9. The logo is the best thing about that campaign. Although even it is backward.

[sabrina 1]

21. They dragged it to the Left. Very nicely done. Btw, you have to type the word 'donkey'

rather than 'kick' to get this:

[yellerpup]

6. Very interesting.

I see no reason it can't work out this way for Bernie.

[Gloria]

8. Except Cit United is now in the picture....

and also, since Sanders is not a Democrat, would donors give their money to him? And, would he want to take it, after all the grassroots message????

There would possibly be a lot of stay at home Democrats as well, for whatever reason...

[Motown_Johnny]

10. I doubt that many (D)s will sit it out.

If only to vote against whatever lunatic the (R)s nominate.

[dpatbrown]

12. First of all,

I see no reason to think it won't work. And when Senator Sanders is nominated, if there are some Dems who stay home, well, it would be very disappointing and shameful.

I have a lot of respect in Nate, and also, and more importantly, research that backs it up.

I also predicted in 80 that this country would never elect Reagan.

[Gloria]

15. So far this cycle, his only forecast as far as I know is that

Clinton is still likely to win.

[99th_Monkey]

16. But CU has been in then picture from day-one in NH 2016 Primary

So I don't see how that takes anything away from Silver's analysis.

And if you want to talk "stay at home voters" that's a very two-edged sword,
i.e. Hills abysmal trustworthiness polling percentages does not suggest that
the electorate is very enthusiastic about turning out to vote for her.

Add go this the fact that Hillary's already 100% known to voters, and the more
voters find out about her, the less they like her v. Sanders being a relative unknown
and the more people learn about him the more they tend to like & trust him.

[yellerpup]

33. No, I don't believe he would take PAC money.

He has already returned many improper contributions to his campaign. I don't think Citizens United can buy this election. They tried the last time and they failed and they will fail again. If you recall the voter suppression (and attempts at voter suppression) from the last few election cycles, you know that denying people the privilege of voting makes them even more determined to vote. People are turning out now for Bernie and will continue to turn out for him. As for a lot of voters staying home (Democrats, too) I think more people will show for Senator Sanders more than they will for anyone else. I'm sorry Hillary is so polarizing, but I think if she's the nominee fewer voters will turn out.

[sabrina 1]

22. He's already ahead in Iowa now. Also in other states, not as critical as these of course but

helping to confirm the theory that what happens in those states, is a signal as to what will happen as voters become more informed. Eg, Utah favors Bernie over Hillary and Biden by a large margin among Dems. WV is leaning towards Bernie also.

Still a lot of people out their who never heard of Bernie but every day that is changing and so are the polls.

[yellerpup]

32. I pitched him to my hairdresser today.

She kept saying, "but, he's a socialist." I explained to her he was a democratic socialist and cited Norway as an example. She said, "Those guys have a great culture over there; they're doing fine!" I told her to look Bernie up online and watch any of his speeches, that he's been saying the same things over his whole career, there is no dirt or scandal to dig up and not to be afraid of the word 'socialist' but just find out what it means. I think he can do it. I hope he can!

[DCBob]

11. Not this year when the candidates are so polarized among racial groups.

Meaning Bernie attracts higher pct of white voters and Hillary attracts more minority voters.

[virtualobserver]

13. except they aren't

[sabrina 1]

25. Same exact dynamic Nate is talking about. PEOPLE, not sure why some here want to separate

minorities and place them in a 'must vote for Hillary' box from the rest of the country btw), who never heard of Bernie in NH eg, showed the same poll numbers, 3% among WHITES, until they got to know him. Then those poll numbers changed.

Are you saying that AAs are somehow different than everyone else and vote as a 'block' rather than according to the information they get? Seriously?

We know that at least one third of the country still doesn't know who he is, it was about half a few weeks ago. That includes ALL AMERICANS. I don't like to put people in boxes btw, and I know that both minorities and everyone else, simply knew nothing about him.

But now that they are learing, those numbers are changing rapidly.

I find it terribly offensive to single out any group and try to speak FOR them. They are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves and each and every day many of them ARE. We now have dozens of minority groups FOR Bernie all over the country so please do not try to speak for people who are not children and not incapable of learning about a candidate and deciding for themselves whether or not to support that candidate. I see AAs all the time talk about this phenomenon of mostly white people trying to speak for them and a few others who are AA but do not represent their views.

[Ed Suspicious]

28. Isn't that interesting, the way some people want us broken up into demographics?

[sabrina 1]

38. Real people don't subscribe to this in general. But for those with an agenda it is a way of

controlling the population, dividing and hopefully, conquering and holding on to the power they have grabbed, means keeping the people divided.

[DCBob]

37. The latest numbers I saw from SC and other polls certainly back up what I posted.

[sabrina 1]

39. Yeah, that's what they said about NH and Iowa and Utah and WV and about women, who like AAs, are

taken for granted as a sure thing to vote for a 'woman'. Very insulting, and women are now saying just that, many of them learning about Bernie and switching to him because, as many have stated, 'I don't vote based on gender or any other personal attribute, and it's insulting that people assume that'. We, women, vote for the candidate that we believe is best for this country. As do most voters.

So again, we are talking about PEOPLE, VOTERS, many not yet registered but ready to vote for the candidate THEY choose, not for one that they are expected to vote for.

Many minorities are not being polled, because like other demographics, approx 60% of the population, they don't vote disgusted by politics as usual. THOSE are the voters, Black, White, women, men, Bernie is getting most of his support from and it's kind of fun to see how the polls don't reflect these new voters knowing that the numbers are way higher than traditional polls can predict.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Only problem with that is

It's not true. Only in your Hillary bubble is it true, because you WANT a racial divide. It's the only way Hillary could possibly win.

Thankfully, POC are smart enough to see through the bullshit lies and will vote for their own best interests.

That means voting for Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

40. Exactly, there is no minority problem for Bernie. It was a made up meme because they could not

attack him on the issues, and most people know that. Only place you see this is among the 'left elitist bloggers' from DK mostly brought here from there. And they cling to it desperately, while out in the real world things are moving forward leaving them behind with their little, useless, talking points.

[WillyT]

14. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[stevenleser]

17. Except when the NH polling is due to a local candidate. nt

[virtualobserver]

18. I saw the early polls from NH

Bernie was polling at 5% and a majority didn't even know who he was.

[OnlinePoker]

19. Funny that he seems to change on this post from 16 September.

The article is about Hillary and mostly what would happen if Biden enters the race (Sanders is only mentioned once in the text and 3 or 4 times in the footnotes)

"...an insurgent candidate who wins Iowa or New Hampshire won’t necessarily have staying power if they’ve failed to build a broad coalition of support."

In the footnotes to the piece, he writes: "It’s possible that Sanders will soon brush up against the limits of his support — about one-third of Democratic voters nationally are white liberals, and Sanders’s support is concentrated overwhelmingly among that group. Biden might be more competitive with Clinton for the votes of white moderates, Hispanics and African-Americans, however."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-is-in-a-self-reinforcing-funk/

[virtualobserver]

20. I don't really see it as a change

Bernie still has to win that broad base of support as people become aware of him.

with The New Hampshire example Nate projects that the person that bursts into the lead in NH will also do that nationwide with a delay.

[Beartracks]

23. Then there's the "inertia of misinformation."

That's how the elite try to maintain the status quo.

==========================

[Gothmog]

24. That may be the case so long as the candidate have similar appeals to all demographic groups

For this cycle, Nate is looking at the fact that one candidate has little support except among one narrow segment of the Demcratic base. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19.

There are other indications that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination. He hasn’t won a single endorsement from a governor, senator or member of the U.S. House of Representatives (unlike Obama at this point in the 2008 campaign). Sanders is also well behind in the money race (again, unlike Obama). These indicators haven’t changed over the past month.

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

2007 is very different from 2015 and 2016. I find the reliance of the Sanders supportes on this 2007 article to be amusing.

[virtualobserver]

26. we will find out how different it is after a couple of debates---not reliance, it is just....

an interesting analysis

[kenfrequed]

27. I would like to see his revision of this

It would be curious if he had to actually speak to this.

[mythology]

29. I'm not sure Sanders supporters would want to hang their hat on this

In that election Clinton won New Hampshire but not the nomination.

[virtualobserver]

30. the main point was

"if a candidate is doing better in New Hampshire polls than he is in national polls, that suggests that as voters become more informed, they will continue to slide toward that candidate."

He was using the prior elections.

In Hillary's case her numbers in NH were not better than her national polls. Anyway, Then as now...it is impossible for voters to become "more informed" about her....She is one of the most famous people on earth.

Bernie's numbers do, however, fit the pattern that Nate Silver mentioned.

[Kokonoe]

31. So Hillary Clinton must convince uninformed voters they already know too many facts?

What's the problem.

OK well, all people can not be fooled like a Fox news viewer.

This is going to cost hundreds of millions!

I give a Hillary the seven billionaire salute.

[MohRokTah]

34. There is an exception to that.

Whe a candidate is from a state or a neighboring state, losing the primary is the only real indicator of anything.

Sanders is from right next door, so if he wins NH by anything less than 10%, it' really a loss.

[virtualobserver]

36. I saw the early polls from NH- He wasn't well known there.... less than 50 % had heard of him

Plus Hillary had a huge lead over him initially

[bvar22]

41. And THAT is the reason

that DWS and the Hillary Camp are desperately trying to quash debates and public appearances with Bernie.
They KNOW that Bernie wins BIG in a fair campaign.

[virtualobserver]

42. They hoped that Bernie would fade by the first debate

but it is Hillary that is fading