The New Hampshire Polls Weren't Wrong, the Media Was
The Real Clear Politics (RCP) pre-election polling averages had for 01/05 to 01/07 was:
Obama: 38.3
Clinton: 30.0
Edwards: 18.3
Richardson 5.7
(unassigned 7.7)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html
First, in the polling average there is only one figure (Clinton's) out of four that is outside an expected margin of error. Obama, Edwards and Richardson were within a reasonable margin of error. So how is that "completely" messing up? It's not.
Next, how do the numbers in the poll add up? 38.3+30.0+18.3+5.7= 92.3 leaving 7.7 unassigned going to either "undecided" or Kucinich or other candidates like write-ins.
Compared to the poll, the results showed that Kucinich got 1% leaving 6.7% unaccounted for. Those 6.7 added to the poll's 30.0 for Hillary gives 36.7% for Clinton. Then add the 1.3 from Obama and 1.3 from Edwards and the 0.7 from Richardson's (all three were within the margin of error but they went to Clinton) for 3.3 and then subtract the 1% not assigned and you have 39% which is the actual result.
So, the polls weren't wrong at all for Obama and Edwards, it was only that of the 7.7% of the "undecided" and "other" most of it went to Clinton and none to Obama, Edwards, or Richardson.. That is not a big mix up in the polls.That is a jump to a conclusion by the MSM reporters who don't know how to read polls.
If the media had analyzed the polls correctly instead of focusing on the number that Obama appeared to be ahead, they would have focused on the 7.7% of unassigned voters. Has that large number of 7.7% been correctly reported there would have been speculation about which candidate would get it. Even if people speculated that it would all go to Obama, or be evenly distributed, the only surprise compared to the polling is that this number went all to Clinton.
But under no circumstances if the polling was read correctly, should the media have reported that this 7.7% was a lock for any of the candidates and it should have been reported that the 7.7% was the wild card that meant the election could go any direction.
But because the MSM wanted a story, it created its own narrative of a big swing to Obama in the polls and totally ignored the 7.7% that was unaccounted for. By ignoring that 7.7% the media created the story instead of reporting it.
Now, the media and pundits of the MSM are once again creating a story, this time that the polls were wrong, when in fact it was not the polls that were wrong but only their mistaken interpretation of the polls.
Alternatively some pundits like Tim Russert are creating a story that the polls weren't wrong and instead the Clinton "victory" was stunning. This is just as mistaken and results in saying such absurdities as this.
No, Mr. Russert, this was not at all an upset, much less "one of the greatest upsets in American political history."
The New Hampshire polls weren't wrong. It was just that the Mainstream Media (MSM) didn't know how to read them.
Let's analyze rather than blindly follow the MSM make believe fallacies.
The results of the election were:
Clinton 39%
Obama 37%
Edwards 17%
Richardson 5%
Kucinich 1%
(unassigned 1%)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH
Obama: 38.3
Clinton: 30.0
Edwards: 18.3
Richardson 5.7
(unassigned 7.7)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html
First, in the polling average there is only one figure (Clinton's) out of four that is outside an expected margin of error. Obama, Edwards and Richardson were within a reasonable margin of error. So how is that "completely" messing up? It's not.
Next, how do the numbers in the poll add up? 38.3+30.0+18.3+5.7= 92.3 leaving 7.7 unassigned going to either "undecided" or Kucinich or other candidates like write-ins.
Compared to the poll, the results showed that Kucinich got 1% leaving 6.7% unaccounted for. Those 6.7 added to the poll's 30.0 for Hillary gives 36.7% for Clinton. Then add the 1.3 from Obama and 1.3 from Edwards and the 0.7 from Richardson's (all three were within the margin of error but they went to Clinton) for 3.3 and then subtract the 1% not assigned and you have 39% which is the actual result.
So, the polls weren't wrong at all for Obama and Edwards, it was only that of the 7.7% of the "undecided" and "other" most of it went to Clinton and none to Obama, Edwards, or Richardson.. That is not a big mix up in the polls.That is a jump to a conclusion by the MSM reporters who don't know how to read polls.
If the media had analyzed the polls correctly instead of focusing on the number that Obama appeared to be ahead, they would have focused on the 7.7% of unassigned voters. Has that large number of 7.7% been correctly reported there would have been speculation about which candidate would get it. Even if people speculated that it would all go to Obama, or be evenly distributed, the only surprise compared to the polling is that this number went all to Clinton.
But under no circumstances if the polling was read correctly, should the media have reported that this 7.7% was a lock for any of the candidates and it should have been reported that the 7.7% was the wild card that meant the election could go any direction.
But because the MSM wanted a story, it created its own narrative of a big swing to Obama in the polls and totally ignored the 7.7% that was unaccounted for. By ignoring that 7.7% the media created the story instead of reporting it.
Now, the media and pundits of the MSM are once again creating a story, this time that the polls were wrong, when in fact it was not the polls that were wrong but only their mistaken interpretation of the polls.
Alternatively some pundits like Tim Russert are creating a story that the polls weren't wrong and instead the Clinton "victory" was stunning. This is just as mistaken and results in saying such absurdities as this.
NBC’s Tim Russert, subdued for most of the night, resumed some of his post-Iowa-caucus exuberance shortly after Clinton’s victory speech. “One of the greatest upsets in American political history. Underscored,” he said on MSNBC. “This is the political equivalent of Ali-Frazier.”
No, Mr. Russert, this was not at all an upset, much less "one of the greatest upsets in American political history."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
