The fact that Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary isn’t nearly as interesting as the fact that so many people were surprised by this. And that surprise? Well, that’s due to the same thing that’s keeping this writer’s strike going despite millions of dollars in losses. [Yes, I know, I’m making this all about me. This is a blog, after all. But seriously, it’s about me. You’ll see…]
How could this happen? Sure, Hillary had a sizable lead in New Hampshire until last week, but Iowa changed all that. Obama was polling in double digit leads right up until moments before the voting started! Today, pollsters are flummoxed, as hinted at by such stories as “Pollsters flummoxed by New Hampshire primary.”
Pollsters flummoxed by New Hampshire primary
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire’s Democratic presidential nominating contest confounded pollsters, who found themselves trying to explain how opinion polls got it so wrong.
Chastened experts said on Wednesday they would have to closely analyze their forecasts against the results of the New Hampshire primaries to learn why they were so right about resurgent John McCain’s win on the Republican side but so wrong about Clinton’s win among the Democrats…
…”It’s really a case study in the limits of momentum,” said University of New Hampshire political analyst Dante Scala…
…John Zogby, who does the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, said the 18 percent of New Hampshire voters who reported making up their minds on Tuesday “is just an unprecedented number…”
…One issue making it hard for pollsters is that this is a history-making contest with no past parallels — Obama would become the first black U.S. president, and Clinton the first female U.S. president.
Herbst said the “public-private gap,” the difference between what voters say and do, has long been tough for pollsters to gauge…
Look at all those plausible explanations up there! The press is full of pundits taking a swing at crackin’ this case, most coming down on the side of sampling error, last-minute decision-making on the part of the voters, ol’ fashioned racism, and Hillary crying.
Oh, come on, guys. You know that’s not it. The reason’s simple: We wanted the story to be about Hillary losing.
Maybe it’s because she’s “calculating,” or too “inevitable,” or maybe some of us have Conservative Clinton Revulsion Syndrome (CCRS). Mostly, though, it was that the “story” had been the same for too damn long, and talking about a Seismic Shift and Failed Strategies and getting to write Hillary’s epitaph (or at least dust it off and submit it after adding today’s date) was easier and more fun than spending a few days informing the public (now that it was paying attention) about the substantive differences between the (now) two frontrunners.
Pundit and pollster alike, this frenzy had to do with feelings and an abdication of professional objectivity (ooh, yeah! That’s media trash-talk! Abdication of objectivity, yo!). ABC’s Gary Langer manages to drive by the truth when he calls some explanations “a convenient foil for pollsters who’d rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.” Stop the car. We’re there.
Voters model. Sometimes, that’ll even change what they do in the voting booth, which is the rationale behind some of the most effective push-polling. But you don’t have to work for any particular candidate to push-poll, kids, oh no - you can just close your eyes, wish what you want real hard, and then go ask your questions.
But even that extra-hard wishing wasn’t enough to change enough voters’ minds to get the story we all wanted really, really badly, the one where an angry Hillary stomps a hole into the ground and disappears into the core of the earth. Why wouldn’t the New Hampshire voters tell us THAT story? We practically begged for it! We TOLD them in a hundred ways that we wanted THAT. And they wouldn’t give it to us. They’re so mean.
And this is where we come back around to the writers’ strike. The writers have made that small cabal of moguls mad, and now they won’t come to the table and solve this because they don’t want to give us the satisfaction and reward us for being big stupid meanie-faces.
Seriously, I wish any of this was more complicated. But the heads of the giant media conglomerates would really rather petulantly piss away millions of dollars of their shareholders’ money than give the WGA the satisfaction of thinking that their tactics worked. And the coinage isn’t completely real to them anyway - they’re going to earn millions even if they get fired for slicing millions off their companies’ bottom lines. It’s the company’s money, and so by definition the investor’s money… you know, play money. The bright orange kind with cartoon locomotives on it. The kind you can afford to throw away on a brilliant business ploy known as “a snit.”
Same deal with the pollsters. And it wasn’t just loaded questions, either [as in Question #5 on yesterday’s Zogby tracking poll: “Does the Obama mania that’s sweeping the nation and capturing the imaginations of all the cool kids make you more likely to vote for our new Captain Terrific over that nasty Clinton bitch?”], it was also the effect of asking a question while wishing really hard. [And that oughta be the title of a forthcoming book on why polls often suck: “Asking a Question While Wishing Really Hard.”]
The scary thing here, to me, is not how wrong the polls got it in predicting Obama’s victory, no, it’s asking myself how much of Obama’s real bounce, the way he closed the gap between him and Hillary to just a couple of points by yesterday, really was pushed on the voters by a childish, frenzied media. I mean - yipes. But does the knowledge that we are almost certainly having a large, collective effect on voters make us more like to start reporting policy and closely monitor our rhetoric and conduct to make sure that we’re maintaining a professional, objective mien at all times?
Of course not. Just like with the AMPTP, if we all agree not to be grown-ups, nobody has to be. On to South Carolina - let’s see if we can hitch a ride on a strawberry-colored unicorn!





44 comments
Doc Nagel
January 9, 2008 at 1:59 pm
1AMPTP’s motivations don’t make a lot of sense to me, but luckily we have hardworking journalists who can report it all and help explain it to me. Oh, wait, no, we haven’t.
Obviously journalism in the corporate setting serves corporate interests. It’s not the job of a journalist to present information about candidates’ positions and cases for being the nominee. The job is to repeat what someone has told them to repeat, be it pollster, publicist, or political campaign, in a prescribed way, in order to sell advertising. “Professionalism” and “objectivity” are ideological self-presentations in the first place.
It's Pat!
January 9, 2008 at 3:05 pm
2I thought it was quite interesting that the first time I saw the correspondent from MSNBC at Clinton’s hotel ballroom had her unhappy, head down, sad face, speaking in a somber tone. Three hours later she was perky and bouncy.
John Lennon’s song “How Do You Sleep At Night” comes to mind.
I do think the shot of Clinton tearing up did have a positive impact - if the exit polls are correct - I think she really showed women that she was strong and reacting as a woman might.
Honk!
David
January 9, 2008 at 3:21 pm
3“But does the knowledge that we are almost certainly having a large, collective effect on voters make us more like to start reporting policy and closely monitor our rhetoric and conduct to make sure that we’re maintaining a professional, objective mien at all times?”
Make that conclusion “Not a snowball’s chance in hell,” Adam.
I should imagine any number of media folk are as pissed as were the sports journalists who had to throw away their stories about how Ohio State beat Florida both in football and basketball last season. People do not take kindly to having their story lines effed up, especially when the truly unexpected dope slaps the shit out of them (but usually without bringing them out of their semi-permanent trances, unfortunately).
Now if you want to see some real confusion, let John Edwards win some primaries after having been mostly written off of late.
Ann
January 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm
4Oh yes, please–let that happen!
Our local NPR station was running a call-in show this morning where the callers had to actually identify an issue they cared about and explain why a candidate’s position on said issue influenced the caller. Nothing about “insider” or “change” or “values.” Real issues.
Unfortunately, I had to go to work today and didn’t get to hear whether anyone could focus that much.
Dale
January 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm
5Can anyone recommend a nonpartisan (i.e, not paid for by anyone supporting one of the candidates) site which does a nice compare/contrast on the Democrats´ positions on the major issues, and also their records over the last decade or so?
(I thought NPR was supposed to do this but they seem to me to be as shamelessly (shamefully?) riding the pollster/strategist/soap opera bandwagon as the MSM. I would write an angry letter to the station but I have a morbid fear of becoming one of those angry old spinsters who does nothing but dote on her pets and write letters to media outlets. And I just bought a $10 doggie toothbrush set.)
itzue
January 9, 2008 at 5:49 pm
6Dale,
Sometimes the league of women voters has good information on their site… the thing I found right away was some info provided by the candidates, but is a little revealing… http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&Con tentID=10414 (I hope I did that link right, my tech boyf. isn’t home to make sure I did it right) I’ll let you know if I find anything else
hedera
January 9, 2008 at 5:51 pm
7Dale, the League of Women Voters usually has good election background data. The AARP’s Divided We Fail site has a compilation on the candidate positions, too. I was trying to give you links but Fanny didn’t like the link statements, I guess. You’ll have to look for yourself.
YLlama
January 9, 2008 at 7:11 pm
8I would adore any media outlet that starts asking hard questions about the credentials of the individuals designing the polls. Being married to a statistician provides some entertaining frustration when the study design of most (all?) political polls occasionally comes to light. I would adore a medium moreso if poll results stopped being reported as news, and were relegated to the “lifestyle” section alongside the astrology feature.
Zee Man
January 9, 2008 at 7:13 pm
9I was just watching a few minutes of Dan Abrams’ show on MSNBC and one of the reporters on his panel said that the consensus among the reporters is that Hillary’s campaign is more elitist, unhelpful, & self important than all the other campaigns. That the corporate ambiance of her workers is chilling and the response to the reporters questions often consists of snark-filled slap-downs. That, plus the Clinton campaign no longer sets out free beer and those cute little bite sized hotdogs for the press at the campaign events and, not only that, they served the Vichysoisse boiling hot, burned the tongues of the unsuspecting journalists, and many of the TV and radio newshounds were forced to abandon their reporting duties for the bulk of the NH Primary. So, some of the election day “Hillary is Doomed” stories, in part, came about from the press’ hate-fueled willing of bad mojo and karma upon the Senator from New York. Apparently, Hillary really is a bitch.
Dave von Ebers
January 9, 2008 at 7:19 pm
10Adam, now you know how I feel when all those bastards who hold themselves out as football “experts” constantly nag me about how my Illini don’t belong in the Rose Bowl; how USC is gonna run roughshod over my buncha overachievers; how LSU’s gonna stomp Ohio State; how the Big Ten is overrated and doesn’t deserve to have to BCS bowl bids …
Oh, wait. You mean those goddam experts were right?
Well, screw me. It’s even worse when the bastards are proven right.
gillian
January 9, 2008 at 7:44 pm
11Harsh, Zee Man. I see it more like this - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_ main.html?name=Toles&date=01092008&type=c
B.D.
January 10, 2008 at 5:00 am
12Another story that the media really like to use is the one where they tear down a front runner and resurrect his/her career after writing him/her off. The come back story is a classic. Yesterday, the talking heads were all running with the come back story, be it McCain or Clinton. While they’ll pretend a muddled field is problematic, it also gives those paid talking heads something to discuss through February 5th as opposed to anointing a pair of candidates. Maybe that was what they were really after?
sharon
January 10, 2008 at 10:23 am
13I, too, would like to see an Edwards “comeback.” I think the final counts for Clinton and Obama were so close as to be not very significant. What was significant is how many more people voted in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary, but those NH independents are tough ones to figure.
sharon
January 10, 2008 at 10:24 am
14Oh, and by the way, 1 year and 9 days to go. Plenty of time to begin impeachment hearings.
Just Jay
January 10, 2008 at 1:04 pm
15Hi Dale,
I can’t seem to find it on their web site, but The Seattle Times had a front page story on New Year’s Day profiling all of the candidates. You may be able to find something in a library.
Obscure movie reference of the week, I’m really hoping that Bush/Cheney are held accountable because otherwise “…the son of a b***h gets away with it.”
Jay
sasquatch
January 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm
16Adam, you forgot to mention that YOU CALLED IT!
Zee Man
January 10, 2008 at 6:55 pm
17gillian, I guess I was being somewhat unfair to Ms. Clinton…maybe. When you live just outside the beltway and work in civil service inside the beltway, one tends to become cynical and hardened. And those are the good hearted, charitable human beings. The rest of us devolve into grizzled, bloodless bureaucrats. Remember that the next time you approach a government employee needing assistance.
margaret
January 10, 2008 at 7:54 pm
18As for NH Primary Day results…I’m warming to the theory (mine) that we Granite Staters were seeking some means of keeping the media and politicos and the general population talking (and speculating) about us. And enable us to continue talking and speculating about ourselves.
madbard
January 11, 2008 at 12:46 am
19I tried posting a few of quiz websites that match you up to a candidate but I think the spam blocker is catching me. I’ll try again; take out spaces as appropriate
www. wqad. com/Global/link.asp?L=259460 — fairly generic, only 11 questions
www. selectsmart. com/ president/ 2008.html
www . dehp . net/candidate/
www . politicalcompass . org — for a European perspective.
Dale
January 11, 2008 at 6:29 am
20Thanks for the tips everybody. Any of you also want to do all the research and then report back to me on who I would vote for if I had done it myself?
David
January 11, 2008 at 8:43 am
21Either John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, Dale. Did I help?
Landis
January 11, 2008 at 9:41 am
22Dale, not exactly what you were looking for, but give this one a try: http://glassbooth.org/
I found out that I’m fairly close to Kucinich.
Landis
January 11, 2008 at 9:48 am
23Wait - this time it’s Gravel with Kucinich a close second. Edwards is pulling up in third but he and I don’t see eye-to-eye on gay rights. But his wife might help me to change his mind.
SeattleDan
January 11, 2008 at 10:53 am
24There’s a full-page ad in the NYT today announcing the return of Bill Maher to the airwaves. Is he going to ad-libbing the show?
Iona Trailer
January 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm
25If Hilary’s bounce had anything to do with her fakey tearing up because someone asked her a question, then all she’ll have to do to cinch the election is complain about a hot flash, for Christ’s sake.
Sign me,
Clinton Leaves Iona Tepid (CLIT)
Joe Park
January 11, 2008 at 3:31 pm
26Iona, we should get married.
Miss Ogeny
January 11, 2008 at 3:41 pm
27I hope Iona marries somebody, cuz I’m her thinly disguised daughter.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
January 11, 2008 at 5:58 pm
28You know, I was wondering when someone would allude to a *female* version of Clenis.
I figured we would first be exposed (sorry) to Clagina, but I was hoping for Clovary ’cause Hillary certainly has a pair. Of course I mean that in the complimentary sense.
Be careful Iona, I’m the one who is supposed to be keeper of the acronyms.
Sincerely,
Acronym Jim
It's Pat!
January 11, 2008 at 6:37 pm
29I don’t buy that argument. I think Hillary was being genuine, and I think women in NH recognized that, and voted for her. I don’t think it will give her momentum, however.
All I know is that the Dems have a strong field to pick from. I really don’t see a bad one in the bunch.
The repubs however - whew!
David
January 11, 2008 at 8:30 pm
30I’m with you on this one, It’s Pat!
Jim, acronymal patron sainthood is not out of the question. Benny 16, being a fan of FA, might be amenable. I’m a heathen, so there’s not much I can do.
What with a woman tearing up and all, can Clisteria be far behind? And if it occurs in South Carolina, it can be Clisteria among the wisteria.
Harold
January 11, 2008 at 9:10 pm
31New TV show idea: “America’s Next Top Voter Model”! We’ll see that around Week 18 of the strike…how long has it been so far?
Say, I’m wondering: every time Giuli9/11any mentions 9/11, does he also express remorse for his failure to develop during his time in office a coherent method for emergency responders to communicate with each other between departments , thereby avoiding numerous needless death of emergency responders…?
No, I suppose that would be like Bush admitting that the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. happened on his watch. And how can that be spun into an election-winning positive?
By the way, Adam: HONK!
Jim (OJNTNJ)
January 11, 2008 at 10:01 pm
32David,
Clisteria, wisteria, whatever works for the red-state civilians. As long as it’s not hysteria. they like flowers, but not a riotous over-abundunce of cross-pollinated-vegetation.
Because that looks like every episode of sci-fi that deals with the fall of man.
SeattleDan
January 12, 2008 at 12:02 am
33Very well said, Harold. Honk, honk to Adam.
Acronym, we may be down your way in a couple of weeks, in our eternal search for the right piece of property. We’ll be in touch with you and the other Northwest Felbernauts for a get togehter.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
January 12, 2008 at 9:49 am
34I’m looking forward to it SeattleDan and Tammy.
Dave von Ebers
January 12, 2008 at 10:12 am
35Harold, I believe the proper spelling is “9iu11iani,” a la Wonkette.
Always glad to help.
Dave von Ebers
January 12, 2008 at 10:13 am
36Oh, and every time 9iu11iani mentions 9/11, a kitten dies.
cooper
January 12, 2008 at 2:56 pm
37Dave, as our old pal, Pete in van Diemenland, would cheerfully chime in - “every time 9iu11iani mentions 9/11, Dick Cheney skins a puppy”. I really miss that guy. Come back, Pete IVDL.
Harold, good point about Giuliani and the …needless death of emergency responders…? I wonder why no reporter and none of the moderators in the debates have raised that very question with him?
Zee Man
January 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm
38madbard, I went to your “selectsmart” site and took the test. They said even though he was dead, I should vote for Millard Fillmore. Hmmm….
Boomer
January 12, 2008 at 4:10 pm
39For those who would like a quick visual of where our highly vaunted Health Care system really stands as compared to “socialized” medicine. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/a-health-care-system-to-di e-for/
just plain Jack
January 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm
40So. Speaking of the primary results in New Hampshire, anyone heard news on Dennis Kucinich’s request for a recount? Seems Hillary got most of the votes in precincts that used electronic voting machines, while Obama won in the precincts that were hand counted. “Election experts, however, said there is no evidence of tampering or error.” Yeah. OK. I wonder what these same experts had to say about the Ohio presidential vote in 2004. I say “Good on you, Mr Kucinich”!
C. Frank
January 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm
41Long time reader; first time writer. Maybe this will turn out to be something to Honk!!! about, Adam. (Can I call you “Adam”, sir?)
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/12/strike-update-more-side-deals-awar d-shows-and-the-dga/
Jim (OJNTNJ)
January 12, 2008 at 9:38 pm
42“Election experts, however, said there is no evidence of tampering or error.”
Jack, with the exceptance of easily manipulated, unverifiable electronic data, then no evidence exists.
Hence, that’s why we need to insist on a verifiable vote trail. If the electronic voter machine manufacturers are in the slightest interested in the transparant voting process, at the very least, they need to provide the option of allowing us to send a record of our own vote to our own e-mail account.
Of course, this option only works for people who can afford internet access. Therefore a paper record needs to exist in order to ensure that all votes are verifiable.
As it stands, there is no way to get a verifiable recount of votes submitted in electronic format.
I have no idea if the Diebold effect was used in New Hampshire, but if we could effectively vet the votes, then no question would exist.
David
January 13, 2008 at 7:31 pm
43Acronym Jim,
That’s precisely why I opposed the electronic machines without paper trail from the get go. The argument by any number of people that these were state of the art and completely reliable was really the point. I don’t care if the machines work relatively flawlessly (although we’ve since learned that they don’t, and that they can be tampered with in any number of ways). The essential point is that those votes can be vetted. And that matters a great deal for voter confidence, which in my mind is even more important than consumer confidence, even if we are apparently becoming consumers first and citizens second.
Cotton Mather
January 13, 2008 at 8:09 pm
44Pops once predicted that the Second Coming of Christ wouldst finally occur on his birthday in 1723. It was in all the papers. Of course, it didn’t happen and afterwards several of the Congregational ministers in Boston denounceth him and suggesteth that vile demons hath indeed possessed him. They all offered to whipeth the demons out of him and we did have to turneth away several of the more enthusiastic volunteers from our front door and one volunteer that we found climbing up the rain downspout at 3:00 in the morning. The doctors were summoned and, being the scholars that they were, employed the more reasoned and scientific method. They bled him. Pops died in August of that year. At the end, he wast not himself.
So, the predictions of great things happening ist no better in the 21th Century? I’ll just stay here in the 18th Century. The air is cleaner.