Pollsters have a plan for Nevada: Skip it

[Renew Deal]

National public opinion pollsters, fresh off a glaring failure to pick the winner in New Hampshire’s presidential primary, are now violently queasy about trying to predict a winner in Nevada.

In fact, for a variety of reasons, major news organizations are taking a pass on polling before Nevada’s Jan. 19 caucus.

The concerns stem from the New Hampshire mistake and from knowledge that Nevada has a large transient population not familiar with the workings of a big-time caucus.
<snip>
The disparity in New Hampshire added to the anxiety of pollsters already uneasy about Nevada. Even NBC, whose cable news network, MSNBC, will broadcast Tuesday’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, has no plans to poll Nevada, said Peter Hart, the Washington, D.C.-based pollster whose firm typically conducts the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll.
<snip>

And lots more:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/11/pollsters-have-plan-nevada-skip-it/

[ClassWarrior]

1. Now that's dangerous. I don't like that one bit.

NGU.

[Anouka]

3. I don't think the polls were wrong in NH.

And I don't think polls should skip Nevada just because of New Hampshire. If anything, I think they should go in there to see if there is a pattern.... if Iowa was the anomaly or if New Hampshire was the anomaly.

If New Hampshire was the norm, then I think the American people need to know it, and deal with it as a people. We need to confront ourselves, not pretend certain issues don't exist... if they do indeed exist.

[CoffeeCat]

5. I would say that Iowa...

...was the most legitimate--because it's pretty difficult to steal a caucus.

After everyone votes, out in the open, the results are printed on paper and those
results are posted in public---for everyone to see. The counts are right there.

I took pictures of our counts.

I'm sickened that we have to deal with these questions about vote hacking and
fraudulent elections, on our own side of the fence. Completely sickened.

[Anouka]

9. You're lucky

we're having a caucus on Super Tuesday. It sounds like a lot of fun.

as for Iowa, the knock against it was that they didn't check IDs -- and that is a legitimate knock. also, charges of bullying 'failing' candidates to support other candidates. that's not cool; changing mind yes, making people your number two, yes -- but not bullying.

New Hampshire, however, was a different beast entirely. People's walk didn't match their talk, and that was unnerving, particularly after Iowa.

[Little Star]

10. I agree, except if you live in IL.

[CoffeeCat]

2. Why do I get the distinct feeling....

...that there is a campaign to nullify ALL political polls?

We're so ready to toss polling out the window but those hackable machines
can remain?

Is America really that fucking stupid?

[Anouka]

4. I believe they think we are that stupid.

But I don't think we are that stupid.


And why nullify for Nevada.......... but not South Carolina?
What's about to go down in Nevada that isn't expected in South Carolina?

[MadBadger]

6. The last polls taken were in early December

If this is true, we will go into Nevada knowing absolutely nothing.

[suston96]

7. Why do people refuse to understand that polls do NOT predict election outcomes....

They are snapshots in time. People can change their minds in the polling booth based on things as simple as their breakfast or lunch was crappy. And they can lie like hell on the way in and on the way out.

Sorry, but caucuses like Iowa and Nevada are undemocratic in that they are not secret ballots and that they exclude those who cannot physically attend.

But they are nominating elections so I guess voting rights laws do not apply.

[Anouka]

8. I don't think anyone would care as much if

there wasn't such a huge difference between poll results heading into New Hampshire, and poll results after the primary. Then you have folks talking about hand counts between different from electronic counts; and folks saying the original exit polls were different from the final exit polls..... New Hampshire was a mess, when it didn't need to be.

But it all started, with the huge difference between those poll results pre- and post-primary.

[suston96]

11. That's been discussed all over.....

We need to know the polling discipline used, for example - how long were the voters coming out really polled? Did the pollsters stop when they thought they had "enough data"?

Did the people coming out and being polled uh, lie? Did they lie going in?

As to the actual counts? Why hasn't the Obama campaign demanded a recount? Does the campaign know how silly it would be to rig an election with paper ballots and maybe say: ferget it?

[Anouka]

12. Obama wants to unite, not divide.

And that's why he's not asking for a recount. A recount jeopardizes the party, and it ESPECIALLY jeopardizes himself for asking for it.

It's politically expedient NOT to ask for that recount and to just accept it. Kerry, Gore, and Nixon (if he were alive, particularly since he was the victim of the Daley machine) would know about that. It's the one thing I understand about, in regards to 2000.

Kucinich is able to ask for that recount (and considering that he may have been one of the victims of a false count, with someone here reporting watching the vote counts change against his favor several times, he has the right) because his presidential run will not be jeopardized by asking for it.

Obama knows what he's doing - just as he knew what he was doing by running a positive campaign instead of running an 'Angry Black Man' campaign like so many wanted him to, to satisfy their own cravings for hellfire and brimstone and righteous vengeance, within the liberal blogosphere. He succeeds by allowing New Hampshire to stand, and accepting it as the will of the people. There are better fights to choose to have. This one isn't it for him.

At least, that's how I'm looking at all this.

[moondust]

13. Jeez, take it easy.

Iowa polls were very close, some almost exactly correct for both sides. There were a lot of independents and undecideds there, too.

NH polls were very close except for one candidate.

That does not warrant giving up.