“Double Digit Lead”
Is Obama the latest victim of the Bradley effect?
UPDATE : Probably not. As Matt Yglesias pointed out in this graph, the polling numbers for Obama and Edwards were pretty accurate. The only big surprise was Hillary’s last minute surge in support.
6 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I saw that too. The polls were pretty accurate on the GOP side too, they only really missed on Hillary, and that’s probably because she got a lot of undecideds…
Comment by Mr Furious — January 9, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
…or Republicans who want her to get the nomination. Remember, it was an open primary.
Comment by Doobie — January 10, 2008 @ 1:54 am
or Republicans who want her to get the nomination. Remember, it was an open primary.
Highly doubtful in NH - the Republicans would be worried about who would be getting their own nomination. They wouldn’t want Clinton to get the nod and then have Huckabee turn around and get the nomination - they’d want her to be up against McCain (who’s the only one that polls even show a glimmer of her being beaten by).
I don’t think this was monkeywrenching - I think it is EXACTLY what it looks like. Voters who couldn’t decide until the last minute who to support defaulted to Clinton in the voting booth. She has the name recognition and is the known quantity and is exactly the type of candidate that last minute decision makers default to.
Comment by NonyNony — January 10, 2008 @ 5:48 am
Senator Clintons last minute surge has peaked interest in the accuracy of the pre-election polls,and doubts concerning the honerty,and integrity of the primary election process. “There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.”
- Gary Langer director of polling at ABC News. And from BlackBoxVoteing.org: A youtube video concerning the company LHS Associates which programs the Diebolt voteing machines which were used in this primary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs According to James Pindell writing in the Boston Globe, Senator Obama’s campaign volonteers “have been kicked out of precincts from Concord to Swanzey”,and “In general elections it is standard practice to have poll workers sitting behind the registration table and scratching off names as people sign in. Periodically they take those lists and the campaign gets in contact with those who have not voted yet.
“But, that is for general elections and everyone who does this a) has to live reasonably nearby (read: state residents) and b.) have letters from the state party to be an “observer”.” ……. There seems to be more than a little distrust concerning this years N.H. primary election.After the “election” of George Bush it seems natural to scutinize any primary or general election result.A rigged election is a coup,a treasonous act,let us hope that the Bush regime’s long success at avoiding prosecution,has not encouraged others to subvert this basic principle of American democracy.
Comment by pogo — January 10, 2008 @ 10:47 am
At first I thought it was a weird disparity, but then I thought it just seems more likely that most of the undecideds finally decided (for whatever reason) to go for Hillary.
Comment by Uncle Mike — January 13, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
an interesting set of statistics. in a similar vain, all should check out this website which has a novel take on this presidential race and Obama’s prospects of winning. http://www.WhyTheDemocratsWillWinIn2008.com
Comment by Daniel Bruno — January 17, 2008 @ 12:16 pm