The result of the Granite State’s primaries baffled pollsters, and prompted an assessment of existing methods.

Mario Canseco - Last Tuesday afternoon, a victory by Illinois senator Barack Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary was widely expected. An average of surveys predicted it, and the best example of the over-confidence that the collection of numbers brought to Obama’s campaign arrived after his semi-concession speech, when Stevie Wonder’s "Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours" blasted through the sound system at his rally. "Superstition" would have probably been a better choice.

In the almost five years the Angus Reid Global Monitor has been active, pre-election polls have failed on several occasions. In Costa Rica, the surveys underestimated support for leftist candidate Ottón Solís, so what was supposed to be a breeze for Óscar Arias turned into a squeaker. In Iran, Mahmoud Amadinejad went from an apparent fifth place finisher to the key player in the run-off after the surveys failed to notice him.

Still, in countries with a long-standing tradition of polling, few changes are experienced in the last seconds of a campaign—and certainly none as surprising as what we witnessed in New Hampshire. Obama went from winning by at least five points to losing by two points.

The possibility of independents deciding to take part in the GOP primary—allegedly thrown off by the apparently massive win Obama was poised to attain—is one of the main issues at play. It will be hard to assess whether an odd version of the Bandwagon Effect actually made New Hampshire residents more prone to take part in the Republican primary.

The so-called Bradley Effect—the notion that respondents to a poll would be more likely to voice support over the telephone for an African-American contender due to political correctness—has been mentioned as a possible problem. Still, the only scientific online poll that was conducted in the early stages of the national campaign—by Zogby Interactive—placed Obama as the most popular contender, defeating every single GOP rival in national head-to-head match-ups.

Online surveys allow respondents to gauge questions without the prompting of a human voice at the other end, so Obama’s high numbers on the Zogby poll would suggest that American respondents may have gone beyond the Bradley Effect already. Still, most of the polls are still conducted over the telephone, and human nature continues to play a role in responses. It is difficult to say whether this is still happening. Obama won big in Iowa, but the Hawkeye State’s returns provided data from "viable Democratic candidates" and not support for everyone in the race (as the surveys did).

Some of the final New Hampshire surveys included interviews conducted after Rodham Clinton delivered a teary-eyed plea to supporters. Some pollsters—such as Rasmussen Reports—picked a trend in favour of the New York senator, but it would have been difficult to predict that the surge in support would continue on primary day and lead to a Rodham Clinton victory.

In the end, the five-day period between Iowa’s caucus and New Hampshire’s primary proved tougher for the Democrats than the Republicans for a simple reason. Arizona senator John McCain was already leading in most of the surveys conducted in New Hampshire before Iowans attended their caucus, and the tide did not shift after the polls were correct in predicting the first place finish for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. In other words, no major changes were expected post-Iowa, and none took place.

Obama’s victory, and the second-place showing of former North Carolina senator John Edwards, changed the dynamics of the New Hampshire race immediately. The Granite State seemed poised for a coronation, particularly with the positive reviews for Obama’s victory, its historical resonance, and his engaging victory speech. But, as Edwards pointed out, only two states have expressed their views on the Democrats (and three for the Republicans). The race is still young, and—as some predicted months ago—Feb. 5 looks like the actual deciding day for both parties.

When Americans are asked about the way their presidential nominees are chosen, many are quick to resent the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire and call for changes to allow a rotating primary system. Amending the existing guidelines seems unlikely, despite the many proposals that have been discussed in the past. The main lesson of the New Hampshire polling exercise seems to be about time, and not about content. Five days seemed not nearly enough to allow Rodham Clinton to counter the perceived Obama tide. It also was not nearly enough to gauge the sentiments of New Hampshire’s Democratic voters in the most accurate fashion.

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.