So why don't they re-poll? (0.00 / 0)

I was asking this over at pollster.com.  Why don't they re-survey the same people they polled before the election, and ask them how they in fact voted?  Whether the results match the election or the pre-election poll, either way that would shed a lot of light on the source of the error.  Why don't people do this?

---

by: Lester @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 21:01:45 PM CST

it's called a panel-back (0.00 / 0)

Pollsters do run panel-backs, but it is expensive and there are privacy issues. I saw some public outfit had run a panel-back recently but I don't remember who it was. Private groups use panel-backs more often, they are a more precise than trends for measuring what contacts are effective.

I'm sure the campaigns have reviewed their repeat voter-ids, and probably done a follow up on a sample, to see where the motion was. They probably have a pretty clear idea of where the public polls messed up by now, but they have little incentive to share their work.

---

by: souvarine @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 22:46:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A couple of thoughts (0.00 / 0)

What about the undecideds?  What were these numbers in each of these polls?  With McCain (2000), Bradley and Clinton (2008), the bigger number that changed was a gain, so if undecideds broke in favor of that candidate, that isn't really any error in the previous polls, that would be simply people shifting from the "nobody" category to that particular candidate.

Also, what's the margin of error on these polls?  When the polls are published, they tell you that there is a chance that the poll could be off by such and such amount.  Maybe the problem wasn't with the polls, but with the way that pundits interpreted them.

I'm sure there were other factors, but these two strike me as pretty plausible.

http://flaprogressives.org

---

by: T Rex @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 22:51:04 PM CST

The problem with this analysis... (0.00 / 0)

is that the coalitions in NH represent the coalitions overall.

As Jay Cost notes, not only is this unlikely, but it's directly contradicted by the Iowa vote.  So only looking at NH and trying to extrapolate out to the country writ large seems flawed; it doesn't take into account Hispanics, it doesn't take into account African-Americans, and it doesn't take into regional cultural differences.

There's no reason to assume that, say, union and lower-income voters resemble culturally or in their political taste similar demographic voters in the mid-west.  The fact that Obama was raised by Kansan grandparents could have given him a distinctly mid-western appeal that worked in Iowa but didn't translate to NH.  Having lived in NH for 4 years, I can say with some level of confidence that they don't have much love for the mid-west up there. 

Cost's take on comparing cross-tabs for the two elections we've had so far:

The bottom line: Iowa and New Hampshire diverged in the fullest sense of the word. Not only did Iowa vote Obama and New Hampshire vote Clinton - identical demographic groups broke in opposite directions! This implies that the nomination contest is very much up in the air. The big question is who can put together more of the traditional Democratic voting coalition. Obama did in Iowa. Clinton did in New Hampshire.

---

by: mopper8 @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:38:31 AM CST

Oh sorry! (0.00 / 0)

I posted this in the wrong thread!  My bad.

Will re-post in other thread, ignore here.

---

by: mopper8 @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:39:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]