Posted: January 9, 2008 12:05 AM
What Happened to Obama's Double-Digit Lead in Polls?
 Email This
With Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., narrowly scoring a New Hampshire victory after polls and pundits had predicted a solid win for Iowa caucus victor Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., political pundits and news junkies are left to wonder: How could the polls have been so wrong?
Even in the early hours of New Hampshire voting, reporters were citing a Washington Post/ABC poll claiming that Obama had “surged” to a 4 point lead over Clinton. Polls in the months leading up to the vote sometimes put Clinton and sometimes put Obama at the head of the pack. But just a day before the Granite State primary, CNN cited a poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire that claimed that Obama had opened up a double-digit lead on Clinton, but they interviewed only 341 people.
The NewsHour is tackling some of these issues in Wednesday’s program, talking with experts and analysts about the topic of how the polls compared with what reporters were seeing on the ground, among other issues.
-- By , NewsHour with Jim Lehrer | Comments | Link
|
Vote 2008 Subscriptions 
I guess the folks over in Diebold might know. Do they do exit polling now too?
As David Brooks was very surprised as the numbers started coming in. It didn't match with his experience in NH.
Found this site: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0801/S00057.htm
Two things that may have caused the apparent "change of heart" voting for the Democratic candidates are the possibility (as blogers sugest) that people lied to the pollsters. One is, of course, race did affect voters and, more likely, is that the young college students who were strong supporters of Obama, felt that polls assured his win, so they didn't bother to vote. In Iowa, he wasn't the poll leader, so they turned out in large numbers.
Meghann Farnsworth is totally wrong when she says who can really fault pollsters for being wrong on Clinton losing? Well,I do.Either a whole lot of stupid polling was done or big time lying to pollsters was going on!!!Why trust pollsters after this election???
Not only did the polls get it wrong but even the News Hour reporters on Monday night talked as if the race was an Obama cinch. No one told us of the tiny population that was surveyed! Objective reporting??
I feel Obama will never be the underdog. Dennis Kucinch has been that-he speaks the truth. His alliance is for Obama and that is where I will put all my efforts. I do not vote for gender, relgion or race like a 3rd of this country does. That is why we are heading to becoming a 3rd world country!
Do you think Hilary and Bill's comments re. Obama in NH will hurt them in SC? A lot of African-Americans like myself were rubbed the wrong way. It reminds us of their Sister Soulja political tactics and their lack of political courage to stand behind Lani Guinier when they nominated her @ Justice while they chose to stand behind Dick Morris, among other things. Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the NY Times yesterday suggesting gender issues trump racial equality in importance as a reason to support Sen. Clinton infuriated those of us that read it. I am sure this is the message they were sending to women in NH to get out the vote, and I (an over-40 woman myself) am infuriated. For many in the Af-Am community, it highlights the true uneasiness with Sen. Clinton - not that people don't like her (until now) or think she's qualified, but that she'll do what is politically expedient - often at our expense - to get re-elected in 2012 if we elect her to office and lacks political courage. She'll pursue short-term tactical strategies rather than broad change. An investigation re. how this will play out - is Bill Clinton no longer the 1st Black President but just another white man -- would be interesting. Love your show.
I definitely was not a Hillary fan, was not at all influenced by the tears on Monday, or the fact that she is a woman. I was really impressed, though, by her answers in the Sat night primary about what she would do in case of an attack on the US. She was very specific and it occurred to me that, yes, she would have it under control, and yes, she already has the knowledge of access to the best possible people for her cabinet and advisors. I'm still undecided, but Obama will have to show me more specifics as time goes on.
David Brooks was so disbelieving of the numbers as they started coming in. He kept mentioning the crowds of people streaming to hear Obama and the relatively low numbers going to hear Clinton talk as evidence that there must be more votes out there that would turn things around for Obama. Well, that didn't happen. Why not?
Brooks was making a faulty assumption that crowds equal votes. Obama is a celebrity. People go to see celebrities. Obama is also a relatively new face on the national political scene so people want to see him in person to decide what they think of him. Clinton was a familiar face that almost everyone in this country feels that they know (rightly or wrongly). Voters might cross the street to go to a Clinton rally, but that does not mean that they will not vote for her!
Also both Shields and Brooks seemed to be ignoring that the women's vote won this for Clinton. Why? Perhaps because when Clinton talks about uniting the country women get the feeling that she is including EVERYONE regardless of ethnicity and gender--based on who she is and her track record in the Senate. However, when Obama talks about uniting the country and says "you" to the audience, women may not be feeling that he's aware of their needs, If he isn't aware (and so far he hasn't shown me that he is), then when he says "you" he isn't talking to "me." If he thinks that enlisting Oprah on his side is what he needs to attract the female vote, then he's clueless about female voters.
I personally want more substance, more action, to go along with Obama's inspirational rhetoric about change and hope.
Also, in his reply to Clinton ("You're likable enough, Hilary") during the ABC debate, his body language was begrudging, humorless, and petulant. He could have said the same thing with a smile and chuckle. If he had, he would have appeared strong and self-assured instead of petty.
The above comment comes from someone who has read both of Obama's books and was excited to have him enter the race. If he wants my vote, he will have to earn it though. At the moment, Clinton has my vote because she has been through the crucible of public scrutiny and constant criticism and has come out stronger--like tempered steel. This isn't the Clinton of the past. This is the Clinton of the future. That's change!
How incredible - the polls on the Republicans were right on, yet the Obama/Clinton polls - nine of them - were wrong. This is a replay of the 2000 presidential election. And,as in those elections, the ballots were counted by Diebold optical scanner machines that have been proven to be hackable, allowing mass flipping of votes. We need hand counted paper ballots so election fraud can be exposed. Now we know why the Democratic powers did not move on this issue - they plan to use it to their advantage.
I forgot this in my last posting - to read coverage on election fraud see:
http://www.bradblog.com/
KEEP ME ON TO THE LATEST
well i thinck hlllary clitton is a good canditate to be recon with though with te back up from her husband, but am never her fan she is a woman awoman is always the weaker vessel when time come she will definately portray that. thae question we need to ask our self IS AMERICAN READY FOR A WOMAN PRESENT? in this time when enemis surround it like vulture hoping to see fall.
I can see by the NH. results, that no matter what some Americans say in public, It does not, and never has reflected their true views. When will this come to an end?