Iowa, New Hampshire, and National Polling: I was right

by: fladem

Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 17:16


(Credit goes where credit is due - promoted by Chris Bowers)

In June of this year I became increasingly frustrated by the political discussion in blogsphere.  It was all about the National Polls, and how Clinton could not be beaten.  This disappointed me - it was really no different than what you would read in the Washington Post or Time.  It also angered me, because in a way the national polling was being used as a weapon against dissent within the Democratic Party. 

But what really made me mad was that is completely wrong.  I have been involved in Democratic Politics for nearly 30 years, and the one thing I do know is that National Polls are meaningless before New Hampshire.  And yet these polls were being used to create the impression that resistance to Clinton was futile.

The point of the diary is not to say I told you so.  OK, so it isn't the ENTIRE point of this diary.  I am a strong believer that history can provide guidance about how primaries affect each other. 

fladem :: Iowa, New Hampshire, and National Polling: I was right
Here is what history teaches about the current state of the race:  it is far from over.  After the diary about Iowa and New Hampshire, I wrote another diary about how New Hampshire changed National Polling.  On average, it found that when a front-runner loses New Hampshire, there is a 33-point swing in National Polling.  Since that time I have done more detailed analysis that shows when you include GOP contests since 1980, the average is 34. 

But the data also shows something else: This bounce is reversible.  In at least three instances (1984, 1992 and 1996) the bounce from New Hampshire substantially receded about 3 weeks after New Hampshire.  The reasons for this are complex, and I will write more about this tomorrow. 

But here is the key point I want to make: This race will not be over when Obama wins NH tomorrow.  The people who are writing that are the same people who told you this summer that Clinton had the race sewn up.  In short, this is another example of a press that does NOT UNDERSTAND THE PRIMARY PROCESS. 

Back to my diary on Iowa and New Hampshire.  I wrote this diary in June, entitled how Iowa effects New Hampshire.   The key part of that diary is this table, which summarizes the bounce from Iowa to New Hampshire.

How is my prediction fairing thus far?  The table below summarizes the results (I am using the realclearpolitics average for the post Iowa number, and the average of three polls taken right before Iowa - Zogby, ARG and Suffolk).

The net swing between Clinton and Obama right now is 16.46 (my model predicted a swing of 19).  Pretty Good.  BTW, in the June diary I predicted the following if Obama won, Edwards finished second, and Clinton finished third:
Obama 35, Clinton 30.7, Edwards 20.2.
The current realclearpolitics average is Obama 36.9, Clinton 29.1, Edwards 18.8

As I mentioned above, I have conducted additional research how National Polling is effected by Iowa.  The updated table, which I will discuss tomorrow, is below:

This table summarizes how various finishes impact National Polling

This table summarizes the impact depending on whether the front-runner won or lost New Hampshire

What I found really interesting in my additional research was how similar bounces from New Hampshire for GOP candidates are to bounces for Democratic candidates out of New Hampshire.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Iowa, New Hampshire, and National Polling: I was right | 27 comments
Well, number one, you aren't the only one to say the national (0.00 / 0)
polls are/were meaningless.  Second, it IS over.  Iowa basically determines oru nominee, epecially these days of hyper-media exposure of the caucuses and the me-tooism of the electorate.

Obama is our nominee.  Get used to it.

***This is barring a meltdown of some sort or a major scandal that has been heretofore unforeseen.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

Hope my mysticism prognostication comment didn't piss you off too much (0.00 / 0)
But in any event, it means I got a great diary out of it!!

So, for the record, in this instance, yes, "you were right"!!

And there was much rejoicing!  (yaaaay...)

:)

YOU! (4.00 / 1)
Your methodology had been trumped up here and at other blogs for months. Who is this fladem guy/gal, I wondered, and what makes them think they know so damn much?

Well, you were right!! :D (so far, at least)

And additional props to Bowers for having the foresight to trust your worthy analysis!

As for the remainder of this nomination process, I can see it going any number of ways. If I had to bet, I'd bet for an Obama sweep. But that is surely only one of many possible scenarios. Exciting times, eh?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

Semi-OT: (0.00 / 0)
Is it correct that nobody has polled Nevada, California, or Florida since mid-December? That's the most recent point Pollster has anything listed.

I'm maybe a little surprised we have such big gaps in our information about per-state trends outside of NH/IA. And why do we have so much more polling information about SC than NV?

Since I think Nevada (4.00 / 2)
is essentially make or break for both Clinton and Edwards given the leads Obama has built in SC, it is surprising that we have no polling from there. 

That may be a sign the press isn't much interested in the event - which is not good news for Clinton or Edwards. 

[ Parent ]
Are the Nevada caucuses (4.00 / 1)
open to independents? Or have on site registration like Iowa?
[ Parent ]
Dems Only (4.00 / 1)
But with on site registration available if you're not on the rolls.  Repubs closed theirs 30 days out.
[ Parent ]
That is the same (4.00 / 1)
as in Iowa.
[ Parent ]
Always (4.00 / 3)
I always believed you and passed on the wisdom pre-Iowa.  Problem is, friends and relatives don't neccessarily buy it.  However, the morning of the caucuses I knew it was all over.

So, the bigger question becomes, do we want Iowa and only Iowa selecting our party's nominee and if not, what will we do to change things.  I see only two reasonable solutions for change.  We can hold Iowa and New Hampshire primaries on the same day (I have never participated in a caucus but I believe they should be left for the 19th century).  This will make it far more likely that we will have a split verdict which will produce a narrowed field with real input by the other 48.  The other possibility is a national primary.

I like a rotating system (4.00 / 1)
Let different states have a turn every cycle. Iowa and NH can go last for a few decades.

A national primary seems like it will ensure the most well-known and well-funded candidate will win. If we had a national primary on the day of the Iowa caucus, Hillary would be our nominee today. The other candidates would never have had a chance.


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
No, we don't (0.00 / 0)
to give Iowa and NH this much power, which is why it is not a coincidence that a Floridian was interested in this subject.

My hope is that as people understand the power of these to events, we can discuss how to reform the primary schedule. 

[ Parent ]
Using google to determine whether to use effect or affect (4.00 / 1)
Your usage of effect should be affect. For instance "is effected by" has 1,990,000 google hits whereas "is affected by" has 6,220,000 hits. Indeed when you type "is effected by" into google they ask if you mean "is affected by".

Your other use of effect is less clear via google. "Iowa effects New Hampshire" has two hits while affects has 6.

Jeff Wegerson

Yea (0.00 / 0)
I debated that question.  I should use affect. 

But since the first diary used effect, I was kind of stuck with it. 

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
You used both, so you got it correct!

[ Parent ]
Affect is a verb. Effect is a noun. (0.00 / 0)
Something affects something else and leaves behind effects.
[ Parent ]
Effect is also a verb (4.00 / 1)
"to effect change", for example.
[ Parent ]
Yes, but as a general rule, the above is safer (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
I know (0.00 / 0)
just noting. That xkcd comic was actually the first thing I thought of. :)
[ Parent ]
Nothing's over yet (0.00 / 0)
Obama isn't any more inevitable today than Hillary was two months ago. The worst thing his campaign can do is believe the hype -- there's A LOT of work to be done.

  Just to refresh everyone's memory...in 2000, John McCain was the insurgent Republican candidate, with a strong grassroots following, while George W. Bush was the establishment choice. McCain started strong in primary season, and kicked Bush's ass in New Hampshire, leading his adherents and many in the media to pronounce him, if not quite inevitable, very much in the drivers' seat.

  You all recall what happened to McCain after that.

  It's VERY tough to take down a candidate with full establishment, insider support. If anyone can do it, it's Obama, but there are still 49 states to go...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Well, McCain ran out of money, (0.00 / 0)
getting drowned by the first campaign to every reject public financing, and got hit by one of the nastiest smear campaigns ever. 

I just can't see Clinton going as negative against Obama as Bush did against McCain, and they don't have the same money differential that those campaigns had in 2000.

And McCain didn't win Iowa

[ Parent ]
Obama isn't inevitable (4.00 / 1)
To say that it is far from over is accurate.  It isn't the momentum or the bounce that will cause Obama to win. 

It will be because he is simply just so much better at campaigning.

Congratulations (0.00 / 0)
I have been waiting for the opportunity to congratulate you. It was a beautiful thing. It unfolded like clockwork. Both you and Chris called it months ago. You deserve to take a bow. You both deserve a lot of credit.

On an aside, Obama is giving some of his NH field staffers Wednesday and maybe even Thursday off before they head to South Carolina. (I just got a call to say they wouldn't be passing through Baltimore as soon as expected!) There is no sense of entitlement among the pros. Its the supporters and maybe the media who are getting carried away. Obama has a professional ground game that will do what it has to do in NV, SC and super Tuesday, if it comes to that. No worries.

It's ok to give the field staff (4.00 / 1)
time off, but his press people better not be taking time off.

When I worked for Hart, we rode the upside of the mountain for about 10 days.  And then the press turned - as its going to turn for Obama.  Obama's ability to win the nomination will depend on how he handles the questions that will come.

Hart did not do a good job answering seemingly simple things like how he signed his name. I know Hart veterans who believed this happened because we were all so damned tired and bewildered we couldn't think.  But the minor mistakes allowed the media to develop a narrative that caused us to lose momentum about 3 days before we could put the nomination away.

And it was that close.  We were literally 3 days from going 9 for 9.  We still should have won, but we made another minor mistake in Illinois that caused us to lose a 12 point lead in 3 days.

Here is the thing:  I think about the 4 weeks between New Hampshire and Illinois at last once a week.  You can go a lifetime in politics and only be where Hart and Obama are once.

It is Obama's nomination to lose, but he is in for a tough 15 days.  And he and his supporters will have the rest of their lives to live with the results.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the warning (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the warning but remember I worked for Hart as well. This is not all that similar.

1. Obama is not Gary Hart. There are no wandering eyes. No character flaws. No 'open' marriages.

2. This is not 1984. The primary fast track means everything will be over in 4 weeks. (personally I think it will end prior to Feb. 4th, but I may be wrong) In 1984 Mondale had months to generate and distribute his message against Hart.

3. The Hart staff were kids getting on the job training. Obama has clearly done his homework and internalized all previous dem campaign mistakes. He seems to be able to  anticipate problems. It is one of the best professionally run campaigns that I have ever seen. Their use of technology, and follow through, to organize the grass roots is magnificent. Combine that with his message, charisma, intellect, and rhetorical skills and we have a winner.

4. The press will not collectively abandon him. Not only are some of them caught up in the movement, frankly they are also ready for a change. However, I agree the heat will get turned up. But if Obama wins NV and SC--it won't get turned up too high.

5. As an Edwards supporter you have provided excellent non-biased analysis--however I am not sure you appreciate the incredibly quality of the Obama ground game. But then again, maybe you do.

6. Its an historic moment, electing a black man and throwing out all those bums that voted for the war. You should consider signing up.

[ Parent ]
The press will turn in an instant. On anyone. (4.00 / 1)
Kerry was a media darling until the Edwards campaign folded.  Dean was getting at least balanced coverage until the scream.  Obama isn't going to keep on getting 90% positive coverage.  He's been really smart with the press so far, but they will start getting more critical,a nd I'm really curious to see how he will respond to that.

He's never even faced a competitive statewide race against republicans.  If he gets the nomination, I hope he's ready to face the full on assault of the Republican machine.

[ Parent ]
disagree! (0.00 / 0)
The press generally disliked Dean, a lot, if you look back at those "positive stories" there are pretty much all in regards to his fundraising and the movement, not about him or his candidacy.

Meanwhile they were very quick to leap upon his "gaffes" and "blunders", even when said gaffes and blunders eventually morphed into conventional wisdom later.

Obama has had a much easier go of it then Dean.

He's also run a better campaign, but it's one that personally I don't feel involved in.

-C.

[ Parent ]
I think one key difference (0.00 / 0)
is money.

Money mattered in '84 only in one meaningful way: we did have the resources after New Hampshire to deal with the press effectively.  As you say, we were kids.

Obama has tons, and the experience that money can buy.

But I disagree with you about the schedule compression.  Explaining why would take more time than I have here.

[ Parent ]
Iowa, New Hampshire, and National Polling: I was right | 27 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox