No one benefits for a race that is over before it really begins. It was not looking very interesting if the Votemaster was to be believed this morning:
Barring something very unexpected, Barack Obama is heading towards a huge win and John McCain is heading towards a solid win. The main question is how many of the independents vote in the Democratic race and how many choose to vote in the Republican race. They are allowed to pick either one.So it is good to note that while the polls over the last few days had Obama ahead by a mile, with a little under 30% of the polls in his 8-10% lead is a now a 3-5% deficit. I really have no strong opinion about who wins any race so much as I want a long race.
So, unlike Ben who poured something Scots for McCain, I am having my first nip of Woodford Reserve bourbon...batch 2, number 06706 if you must know...for the race. I don't know about the candidates but I am in this one until Montana and South Dakota, "the lands where they let others decide some time ago".TM
Comments
James Bow - January 9, 2008 12:10 AM
The answer to your title is perhaps no. The exceptionally good weather in New Hampshire could have brought out more of the older voters, and the older voters broke more for Clinton than Obama. There is a definite generation gap developing, here.
David Janes - January 9, 2008 7:23 AM
The most likely explanation (for me) is that the people showing up to vote are an abnormal population, in a statistical sense. In particular, I think the DailyKos people had it right a couple of years ago when they said "fuck the youth vote". A small politically charged group, say politically passionate youth, can skew a local race but don't represent anything but themselves. And because they're youth and seeing that Obama had it in the bag, they may have stayed home to drink beer or attend a box social or whatever the devil it is kids do these days.
Alan - January 9, 2008 8:45 AM
It is not unlike that man who screamed four years ago, isn't it. Will the Obama voters vote for the Democrat candidate if it isn't Obama? I think they will as there is a pent up desire for a not-Republican. Yet, McCain is the not-Republican's Republican...or the Republican's not-Republican...
David Janes - January 9, 2008 8:57 AM
Yes, but McCain's a big big government conservative; my political views would prefer Obama in the presidency strongly opposed by a Republican congress than a RINO.
Thomas - January 10, 2008 1:05 PM
Polling has been off for a while it really didn't surprise me any. The methodology has been suspect for a while. Only one polling group predicted Republicans taking of Congress in 94. Add in telemarketers and people using answering machines to screen unknown callers and you get a skewed base measure.
Alan - January 10, 2008 5:00 PM
The Votemaster points out that there was not so much a problem with the methodology but that things moved too fast:<blockquote class="smalltext">How could the polls have gotten it so wrong in New Hampshire? Pollster John Zogby has a couple of explanations over at Huffington Post. First, 18% of the voters didn't decide how to vote until primary day. This is an extremely large number. Second, The voters don't like coronations. When Hillary Clinton was the favorite going into Iowa, the voters said Whoa!. Then when Obama looked like the favorite going into New Hampshire, they again said Whoa! Third, The period between the two elections was too short for the usual bounce to take effect. Fourth, Clinton began gaining Sunday evening, but the rolling average polls weighted the earlier days too heavily. Fifth, there was a large turnout of older women, who are very pro-Clinton. Sixth, many independents thought that the Democratic race was a done deal for Obama, so they chose to vote in the Republican primary for McCain. He added that her debate remark that electing a woman represented a huge change for the country may have motivated many women to support her.
Frank Newport of the Gallup poll has a different story. He says that there are two reasons polls can be wrong. First, the pollsters screwed up on methodology--they didn't interview enough high-income black women or interviewed too many young left-wing evangelicals or otherwise didn't have a good random sample. It's sloppy, but it happens some time. He doesn't think that was the case because all the polls said the same thing. Maybe Gallup fouled up, but how would that explain ARG, Zogby, Rasmussen, and the University of Hampshire having virtually identical numbers? Everybody forgot to call elderly women? Unlikely. Besides, everybody got the Republican primary right on the nose. If some major demographic group was missed, surely that would have wreaked havoc with the Republican polls too, no? The second possible explanation is that many voters did not decide until Monday or Tuesday and were possibly influenced by the debate Saturday and Hillary's almost crying Monday. Some women may have thought "Maybe she's human after all."
Charles Franklin at Pollster.com has some nice graphs showing how much the pollsters missed by and in which direction. What is interesting is that the scores for Obama were right on. What all the polls missed was a sudden last-minute spurt by Hillary Clinton.
We tend to agree with Newport and Franklin. The Iowa polls were right on the dot and the Republican primary in New Hampshire was accurately predicted and the Obama scores were on target. The only plausible explanation is that a lot of voters didn't decide which ballot to take (D or R) and who they were going to vote for until Monday or Tuesday and these late deciders were women who went strongly for Hillary Clinton.</blockquote>