|
...are very different from the national polls.
I'm in Iowa, and we had so many national polls declaring that Hillary was ahead--or that it
was a tight race, with Obama, Clinton and Edwards pretty even.
You had to be in Iowa, but it was apparent that this was not the reality on the ground.
I kept saying on DU---the national polls are useless if you're trying to gage how well a candidate
is faring in a particular state, where there is a vigorous campaign happening.
The state polls are more accurate. However, they are not totally reliable. If CNN does a poll
in Iowa, and randomly calls Iowans and asks them, "Are you likely to caucus?" "Who are you supporting?"
"How certain are you?" you get a sampling better reflect what is happening in the state. However, people
want to believe that they'll be involved. They're more likely to say they'll caucus/vote--because they
don't want to appear apathetic or unintelligent. The results get skewed, because many of these
people don't show up or they really could care less.
The truth is--the internal polls from the campaigns---which directly poll registered voters who have
voted in past elections--are the most accurate polling data. These people are engaged and most likely
to turn out. A couple of high-level Iowa Dem operatives talked about how Hillary's people were worried,
a week prior to the caucuses, because her numbers were not well and she was significantly trending downward.
The wider your sample--the more Hillary's name recognition and "inevitability" meme carries
over into the poll result. Those wider samples diluted reality--or what real, serious voters would
actually do on caucus night.
If you look at Iowa---and focus on Iowans who were politically engaged--her "inevitability" went right out the window,
because there were clearly other good candidates in the field. Many were attending their events, listening to them
and asking them tough questions. All of a sudden "inevitability" didn't make much sense any more. Also, the power
of her "name recognition" evaporated. No one cared what her pedigree was, they saw her and judged her as a candidate.
You can see this happening in NH as we speak. Obama was behind before Iowa, one day post-Iowa--he's ahead by a few
points. The latest polls have him ahead 8-10 points. Once this train rolls through a voting state---this campaign
changes EVERYTHING.
As you said, I think we'll continue to see the "Obama surprises". However, it's due to the national trends being
completely converted once voters meet, hear, test and question these candidates.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
