Why National Polls Don't Matter (A History)

by: fladem

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 16:13

(Great data - promoted by Chris Bowers)

"MONDALE LEAD OVER NEAREST RIVAL IN POLL SETS NONINCUMBENT RECORD"

NYT front page story, February 28th, 1984

"Hart leads Mondale 38-31"
CBS NYT Poll, March 5th -8th 1984

I have been following politics for over 25 years. In that time I have been consistently amazed at how few people actually understand how the nomination process works. What this diary is going to demonstrate is that National Polls are mostly meaningless. It's going to do this by reviewing the last 30 years of primary history.

And at the end of this diary you should ask why people get paid to write detailed analysis of meaningless national polls

fladem :: Why National Polls Don't Matter (A History)

The first table summarizes the impact of the New Hampshire Results on National Polling. I did this by comparing the last national poll before Iowa and the first National Poll after New Hampshire. Since 1980 there have been four races with more than two candidates: 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2004. In those four races the winner of the New Hampshire Primary has received a 25 point bounce in the week after the New Hampshire Primary.

The numbers in this table were arrived at by comparing the last National Poll before Iowa with the first National Poll after New Hampshire. For example, in 1984 Hart won NH, and went up 36 points (from 2% before New Hampshire to 38% after New Hampshire. What I am trying to show is the combined effect Iowa and New Hampshire have on the National Race.

To some extent, though, this table fails to highlight the impact on front runners. So the table below shows the impact on front runners of New Hampshire. On average New Hampshire causes a 33 point swing between the top-two candidates!!! For example, going into Iowa, Dean was the front runner. After the results in New Hampshire, he lost 11 points in the National Race while Kerry went up by 37 points.

What this data also shows is the folly of states moving close to New Hampshire. Given the speed of the effect that NH has on National polling, states following New Hampshire closely will do little more than ratify the NH result.

It is possible using this data to predict what the impact would be of one of the current candidates winning. This table shows what the national polls will look like given a certain order of finish:

For people in interested in the data, I have posted it here:
http://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key= pxS63gptPDw_a-DF65krweg&hl=en_US

The data for 1984, 1992 and 2004 are post below:

Tags: National Polling, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Why National Polls Don't Matter (A History) | 8 comments

Excellent analysis. (4.00 / 2)

Most folks do not make up their minds now. The polls may be interesting at times, but there can be extremely misleading.

by: Tom Wells @ Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 15:29:58 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I completely agree (0.00 / 0)

they are the equivelent of political junk food.

Now Iowa polling is a completely different story...

by: fladem @ Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 15:39:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What's an apple, and what's an orange? (0.00 / 0)

As in, let's not compare apples and oranges.

One way this primary season is different from all the others is the well-documented fact that a lot more people are paying attention a lot earlier than in previous years.

Another way it's different, at least for Democrats, is that more people are more happy with the choice of candidates than I can ever remember. Closest you might come to that in the 1980-present era would be 2000, where (IIRC) both Gore and Bradley looked pretty good to actual Democrats, as opposed to supposedly (but not really) left-of-center pundits.

I think these things are important because (a) if you've thought more about a decision, you're less likely to change your mind, and (b) if you're happier with a decision, you're less likely to change your mind.

That reserve of support will be important, as will the candidates' respective reserves of money. Clinton and Obama both have lots of money, so they'll have organizations in a lot of states; they can take a few second- and third-place finishes, and still fight back. Edwards can't, unless his fortunes go up before Iowa. He really has to put together an early string of firsts and seconds, or he's out.

That's not to say Iowa and NH will have no effect; they certainly will. But I'd expect a less-than-average effect of those states' votes.

by: low-tech cyclist @ Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 16:52:20 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

My guess, based on 2004 (0.00 / 0)

is that the impact of New Hampshire and Iowa will go up, not down. The power of these two states is directly related to the amount of media attention they get. In my view the New Media actually increases the attention that these two states get, which will in turn magnify their effect.

But then, I have never been that impressed with the power of money during the primaries anyway. Maybe the front loading will make money and organization matter more in this cycle, but I tend to doubt it.

by: fladem @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:54:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You got it. (0.00 / 0)

I've been arguing this as well, although I think that because of the dynamics this time, whoever wins in IA will get the biggest bump and get the nomination- just like in 2004.

by: Mike Lux @ Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 16:53:08 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

depends on the winning margin, I think (0.00 / 0)

And on the order of the candidates. Let's say Hillary finishes second in Iowa. I don't think the media will be hungry to take her down like they piled on to Dean in 2004.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 00:07:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

My guess (0.00 / 0)

is that the impact on Hillary from a second place finish will be minimal in New Hampshire.

The problem is that her main opponent will likely get a huge boost in NH. As I have written in another diary, the average bounce out of Iowa in New Hampshire is about 14 points. However, I think the candidate who beats Hillary may be looking at a larger bounce, which will make New Hampshire close.

by: fladem @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 07:49:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]