The disparity between polling and this result is too wide to explain...

[Blackhatjack]

All polling is subject to question given the make up of the pool, the methodology employed, and other factors.

When a number of polls are conducted by different national polling organizations, you may get different results when comparing individual polling results, but trends can be identified and the MOE helps to compare the overall accuracy of polled results.

In this case, national polling AND Clinton internal polling all indicated an expected result that differed by more than 15% --a very large number under any kind of scrutiny.

I don't know how there could be such disparity between polling results and actual results like we have seen in New Hampshire.

I agree with one of the pundits that if this was just a 'change' in the minds of the voters on the day before the vote was taken, there may be no useful purpose for political polling in the future.

The only possible factor that contributed to this disparity between polling results and vote results that I can imagine would be some kind of massive movement of Independents(45% in N.H.) to the Republican Primary to vote for McCain over Romney --yet the total numbers do not on first review account for the vote results.

It is going to be interesting to hear from the various polling groups as to how they could be so wrong.

[debatepro]

1. and yet...

it is so interesting how they were so right about republicons.

[The Magistrate]

2. Not Really, Sir

A high proportion of undecideds, soft allegiance even among the decided, and a tremendous influx of people who do not fit 'likely voter' screens....

[alfredo]

3. Pollsters call land lines, most young people have cell phones.

[EFerrari]

5. Then, wouldn't the poll be skewed against Obama, not for him? n/t

[alfredo]

6. Not always. Hillary pulled in a lot of youth votes.

[Blackhatjack]

9. If true, that would contradict the results for that demographic in Iowa...

Hillary 'pulled' most of her support in Iowa from age 65 and older, and Obama dominated the youth vote there.

What exactly did Hillary do different in N.H. to retool her message in such a way to appeal to this demographic? I don't see that.

[casus belli]

12. "This Demographic" didn't show up in NH

That's the difference. By this I assume we are talking about the youth vote, since it accounts for the largest disparity between the two states. That and Hillary did much better with young women in NH than in IA

[alfredo]

14. I think it has to do with the attitude of NH voters. I think they got pissed

at the MSM trying to tell them the race was over and Obama won.
Yes, she did retool her image. She showed a softer, more sympathetic person. It could have been not so subtle manipulation, but it worked and it made some talking heads look like assholes.

[TheWebHead]

4. i'd like to know more about the exit polling...

the telephone polling frankly was subject to a tremendous and not so logical swing. Hillary was way up before Iowa, and I don't think a 25%+ swing in a few days was reasonable.

[RummyTheDummy]

7. I disagree

Turns out, even though Obama was ahead in all of the polls, the votes were still out there for Hillary to get because of the high number of undecideds. She got them. She creamed him in that regard and that turned it for her. Kudos to her.

But the idea that this is some kind of upset is absurd. At Thanksgiving she was 20 plus points ahead. She eeks out a 2-3 pt. win and that's an upset? More like hanging on by her teeth.

[Blackhatjack]

8. If I paid for a national poll and they were off by this much I would ask some pretty tough questions

I will be the first to admit that polling is always an inexact science.

But the disparity here is way beyond any kind of MOE or other convenient explanation, and what makes it even more concerning is that the disparity showed up 'across the board' and against the expected results predicted by multiple polls.

You can bet that these results will be studied very carefully to try and figure out what happened.

[Samantha]

10. Mark Penn owns his own private polling entity

Read the entire article from which this is quoted:

"In the four months since Clinton officially became a candidate, Penn has consolidated his power, according to advisers close to the campaign, taking increasing control of the operation. Armed with voluminous data that he collects through his private polling firm, Penn has become involved in virtually every move Clinton makes, with the result that the campaign reflects the chief strategist as much as the candidate."

Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661_pf.html

This article gives one a very well-rounded look at Penn -- and that's why it's worth reading in its entirety.

I just cannot understand how a person such as Penn could have missed a call like the one we are told was missed tonight. There are only so many explanations:

- He was simply wrong (but this is his profession?)

- He had an accurate read on the situation from day 1 and we were misled by all the other erroneous pollsters (I am not thinking the public was misled)

- Some "adjustments" were made based on the accurate reading of Penn's polling. I do not suggest those adjustments were illegal. I think of the phrase we have heard so often during this campaign about the "Clinton machine" and am now in the process of researching the players. I think there is more on this story which will come out -- what that "more" is, I do not know. But if one has a candidate who will compete against Hillary Clinton, one needs to understand how her campaign works from the inside out. That is, if one is truly vested in his or her candidate.

You might be able to think of other options I have overlooked.

It's clear that many of the Clinton connections are deeply imbued in the power of the female vote. As a female, I am deeply disturbed that voters would vote on gender alone. It seems so superficial. I am also disturbed that one might vote on race alone. That as well is superficial. I have always voted on the issues. In this race, I have no candidate. But I just cannot accept this was a mere upset. The span of the Obama lead was earlier projected to span from 5 to 10 points. Those pollsters who had the outside high margin were off by 13 to 14 points. A bit difficult to swallow, don't you think?

Thoughts?

[Blackhatjack]

11. MSNBC just said exit polling did not indicate a massive movement to Hillary in last 3 days..

They just admitted "We don't know what happened"

The comment was that for voters who made up their minds in the last 3 days before the election, Obama actually polled 1 point higher than Hillary. That on issues there was not a major movement to Hillary.

The ended up saying it must have been something 'personal or connected to leadership' but then admitted they don't know.

This just keeps getting more strange the deeper you dig into it.

[Blackhatjack]

13. KO just reported BO internal poll had him winning by 14%, HRC internal poll had BO by 11%...

Folks this is one of the most surprising errors by BOTH CANDIDATES in Primary History.

Candidates poll, read polls, conduct internal polls, read other polls, and rinse and repeat ... EVERY DAY UNTIL THE ELECTION.

Here BOTH CANDIDATES are saying they were categorically WRONG???

The attempted explanations for this disparity are falling apart...

[Justice Is Comin]

15. I believe you answered your own question.

That and the emotional well-up that played on channel after channel after channel. Women took her back into the flock.