Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumblePollsters have a plan for Nevada: Skip it
Most say we’re too green at caucusing, too transient
Friday, Jan. 11, 2008 | 2 a.m.
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.
By comparison, New Hampshire is a state with a long history of political participation, a stable population and a history of respected surveys that have accurately gauged the preferences of the electorate. Nevertheless, the polls had Illinois Sen. Barack Obama leading New York Sen. Hillary Clinton on election day by an average margin of more than 8 percentage points.
Clinton won by 2 points.
In the world of pollsters, that’s outside the statistical margin of error a train wreck.
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.
Pollsters who do dare to try to gauge not only the preferences of Nevadans but also the likelihood they will turn out for a first-time prime-time caucus face a set of challenges.
Voters must show up at particular location at 11:30 a.m. on caucus day and publicly declare their support for a candidate in a process that could take more than an hour. In New Hampshire, voters had all day to cast a secret ballot in a voting booth a process familiar to citizens everywhere.
In polling language, a caucus is a “low incidence” event, meaning a relatively small percentage of eligible voters will show up to caucus.
Pollsters have to work harder to find a representative sample of likely caucusgoers, sometimes burning through thousands of households to find an acceptable pool of voters, at significant cost.
“It’s very tricky,” said J. Ann Selzer, whose firm contracts with the Des Moines Register newspaper to run the highly respected Iowa Poll every four years. “It should be impossible to ever get it right, even in Iowa.”
For the record, Selzer’s firm was spot on about Obama’s victory, just one point off. But that accuracy came after decades of experience. Iowa has held a high-profile caucus since 1972. Selzer knows a likely caucusgoer when she sees one.
Larry Harris, a principal with Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, one of two national firms that conduct polling for Nevada media on occasion, acknowledged the difficulty. “It requires a lot more energy than somebody pulling a lever in a secret ballot,” he said.
Nevada’s highly transient and increasingly diverse population is another complication for pollsters. New Hampshire and Iowa are on the opposite end of that spectrum, with nearly all-white populations and relatively static population numbers.
“It’s very difficult to know who to sample, in terms of likely voters,” said Glen Bolger, a respected Republican pollster who has conducted surveys in Nevada.
The Pew Research Center, a respected public policy foundation, regards the circumstances here as so foreboding that it opted to leave Nevada out of its pre-election poll in December.
“It’s an ascending chain of difficulty: general elections, primaries and caucuses,” said Scott Keeter, Pew’s director of survey research. “Caucuses burn up a lot of resources (for pollsters), and we thought our resources could be put to better use elsewhere.”
Nevada’s last poll was taken a month ago by Mason-Dixon, which says it will survey voters again before the caucus. (In the most recent poll, Clinton led in the single digits.) Infrequent polling is a problem, said Susan Pinkus, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll.
“My concern is that you really don’t know what’s going on in your state,” she said. “Everybody’s flying under the radar there. So much is predicated on speculation.”
Even so, Pinkus returned to the problem of identifying likely caucusgoers in a state that has never caucused in a significant way. “You’d have to poll up to wazoo to find these caucusgoers.”
Then there is the issue of race, which Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, raised in The New York Times on Thursday.
The New Hampshire results were thrown, in part, by race. Polls frequently overstate support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor, he wrote. Poorer, less educated whites refuse to respond to surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites and those who won’t answer tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.
The upshot: Obama’s support was overstated.
Even before the New Hampshire primary, questions arose about the accuracy of polls anywhere this election season.
In past election cycles, presidential primary voters tended to be older. This year has ushered in a wave new voters, mostly younger, Harris noted.
Those young voters are more likely to have cell phones but not land lines and pollsters prefer land lines because they connect the voter to a specific location. So gauging the sentiment of younger voters is difficult.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Lid closes on Pete's Dueling Piano Bar at Town Square (4 Comments)
Elsewhere
Vintage Vegas: rare photos of a desert boomtown
The Kats Report
Nathan Burton still cooking with new Flamingo contract, evening shows, engagement
Elsewhere
Vegas sign a tourist attraction in its own right
The Kats Report
Liza Minnelli's short, sweet show thrills LVH crowd; Dave Perrico's band at South Point a monster
Meet Las Vegas' latest racing sensation: Michael Gaughan
A bit of trickery from would-be magician Joey Fatone (1 Comment)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Good riddance!
There is an interesting website, matter of fact, there are couple of them that scrutinize the candidates to see who is dishonest. The first is www.factcheck.org and this site shows any thing the candidates say in interviews, debates, ads, etc. for honesty and accuracy. This site is www.factcheck.org and one candidate is noticeably missing. Fred Thompson carefully chooses his words and delivers them with thoughtful intelligent diligence. Evidently the other candidates do not since most of them make permanent residence here!
The second site is http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-wa... and Senator Thompson does not make this one either.
Fred Thompson has had a long political career and, though checked as much as the other candidates have been, had no political skeletons found! He is the real deal. A true lifelong conservative! He has been criticized for not having fire in his belly and that is true. Fire in the belly is a longtime desire for something, a desire that make you do anything or say anything to get that. No, that is not Fred Thompson. His fire to win is in a much better place. It is in his heart. He has loved this great nation all his life and stepped up to bat whenever asked to. His long record of political performance can be seen on his website as can his strong stance on the problems and issues which plague our nation. His fire to serve as president comes not only from his long for his country but also from love of his children and grandchildren which spills over to his love for our children. He fears for the United States that they will inherit if changes are not made. Senator Thompson vows to make this a better, safer nation both physically and economically for future generations. Read his strong detailed "White Papers" which spell out how he will handle every issue at www.fred08.com and you will see why I support Fred Thompson, the candidate of integrity who is the consistent conservative!
Ummm.... In case you've missed it somehere along the line, Fred has been fried into a little bitty * - nothing more.
"The upshot: Obama’s support was overstated."
This theory has been proven wrong several times! Las Vegas Sun, shame on you for reprinting it.
Obama's got exactly as much support as the polls predicted -- about 37%. They UNDERESTIMATED Clinton -- she got about 10% more than was guessed by the polls. Please stop propagating these false theories about race. It is ignorant and we readers deserve better.
Without polls what will the T.V. reporters talk about? We all know that there won't be any coverage on the issues of the campaign-- so expect to see a lot more about whether Hilary Clinton shows her emotional side and whether Barack Obama is black enough for Latino voters.
BO came in much better than the pre-Iowa polls predicted where he would lose by double digits. For whatever reason the (idiot) pollsters went (wrongly) all gaagaa after Iowa. In losing by only 2-3% instead of 12-15% he performed quite well.
In the last few days he has picked up the 60,000 vote SEIU (for whatever that's worth) and John Kerry's endorsement (for whatever that's worth). No wonder they're laying off Nevada.
Their are polls, more polls, and damned lies! take your pick. This is gonna be a squeaker. A meaningless squeaker when all's said and done but a squeaker none the less. If (and I hate that word) BO loses by a few % points instead of big double digits, he's still won here.
Have you noticed that the major media outlets aren’t covering the election? Think about it, a week ago you could not turn on the TV, or read a newspaper without reading about the election. This all lead up to the squeaker in New Hampshire where Obama lost by 5,000 votes. The Big News companies proclaimed Hilary the winner, playing up her supposed “comeback”. On Wednesday the story was: “Nothing has been decided” (that’s because they already decided Hilary to be the winner). Then Thursday, practically nothing, today the headlines are about Marion Jones, or Countrywide financial. It is like they want you to forget that the primary is happening! This is the greatest struggle for power in the world right now, and they are trying to make America forget that it is happening now.
NewYorker:
I've no idea what you're watching on television, but I'm still hearing plenty about the election on MSNBC, CNN, "The Daily Show," the local network stations, LV1, LV's PBS station, and, I would imagine, will hear even more tonight when Bill Maher's "Real Time" returns to HBO. And that's not including KNPR, this very newspaper--the LV SUN--Las Vegas CityLife magazine, the Las Vegas R-J, and talk on the street.
I'm a recent (registered-to-vote-here) transplant to Vegas from the Jersey Shore. I have gone to college, worked, and lived in NYC for much of my life, and not for a New York minute do I believe that the Big Apple is devoid of media coverage--in major and minor outlets and in every format--focused on the elections.
Take heart, for even if the media were in cahoots to "make us forget the primary," they could not do so without our consent. On the contrary, I'm glad they're remembering to report all the news.
SBen is incorrect regarding factcheck.org and Fred Thompson. From their website:
Thompson's Curved Abortion Scores
Thompson cited his "100 percent pro-life voting record" as the reason for his endorsements from pro-life groups:
Thompson: I compiled 100 percent pro-life voting record during that time. And that's why the National Right to Life folks and the South Carolina Right to Life folks have endorsed me in my candidacy here.
Thompson is correct that both the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and its South Carolina chapter endorsed him. But he is wrong to imply that these endorsements are based upon his having been awarded a 100 percent pro-life voting record. In fact, the NRLC's Federal Scorecard for 1997-1998 showed Thompson with an 86 percent pro-life rating. In the 1998-1999 session he scored even lower, with 77 percent. In both cases, these scores were due to Thompson's votes in favor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, which the NRLC opposed because of its provisions regarding issue ads.
It is true that Thompson did not vote counter to NRLC's positions on any bills that specifically dealt with abortion, and the NRLC obviously feels that Thompson best represents its stance. But it's misleading for Thompson to unilaterally round his C+ score to 100 percent.
Seriously, How can anyone vote for this: http://www.xpress4me.com/images/08/01/09...
If Hillary and those other cowardly Democrats hadn't voted for the war,4000 families would not have lost their son,daughter,brother,sister,wife husband,and thousands of soldiers would not be in the hospital,some without their limbs!!
Those billions of dollars that are spent on the war each month,could have been to fix schools,help people with their insurance,help kids with their college education and to help people hold on to their home.
Other cowardly Democrats? Do you mean Edwards, he voted for the war? Obama, was the only candidate that spoke out against it. And now, ironically, he's the only candidate speaking sensibly about how to get out. Did you see how Bill Clinton tried to claim he was against the war from the beginning when he was all over the media supporting it. "Failure is an orphan, and victory has a 1,000 fathers"
Seriously UnionGRL,
How could anyone be stupid enough to use a still frame, chosen to be unflattering, as a reason to not vote for a candidate?
ADR--Obama was NOT in the Senate at that time.
To All Hillary voters:
If Hillary wins,and you have a daughter,I hope she does NOT work as an intern in the whitehouse.
How does Andrew Kohut know the New Hampshire polling results were skewed by race? He took a poll! The pollsters are just making excuses for their crummy methodology. Blame it on the poor white trash, nobody cares about them! Look, Obama will be a great President, someday, when he grows up. When he cuts the Martin Luther King act and becomes his own man then he can seriously claim to be ready to lead. New Hampshire voters saw through his thin resume and his contrived political persona and opted for Clinton's safer and more experienced set of hands. I think Nevada will do the same.
Thompson voted for McCain-Feingold, an interference by the feds on free speech, so he does not qualify as a conservative.
Regarding Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq, think about that vote for a minute. Like almost all Democrats in the Senate, she voted to give Bush the authority to put together a coalition and he abused it. But Barrack, with literally no knowledge of national and international affairs, a man still green behind the ears with little more than an agenda, said he would have been against the war. Based on his history of voting in our state senate (130 PRESENTS), that means he probably would have voted PRESENT. Leaders of Change Don’t Vote “Present” Think about that. This self-proposed man of conviction, this man who does not believe in “politics as usual”, voted PRESENT on issues that were critical to the lives of Illinois citizens throughout our state. He voted PRESENT instead of an up or down YES or NO because it was the politically expedient thing for him to do.
Is this the voting pattern of a man of conviction – a man devoted to change? I don’t think so. In fact, I think Senator Obama’s voting record may well represent a man without a social backbone, a man whose conviction to social change can only be described as tepid at best. But I could be wrong. However, in the past 8 months, the U.S. Senate has voted on issues critical to our country’s well-being more than 260 times and of these 260 opportunities to vote for change, our Senator failed to vote on more than 160 occasions. Personally, I am willing to cut him some slack regarding his poor voting record as the junior Senator because he has only been in office two years, and half of that time he has been on the campaign trail. We all know it is difficult to learn when you are not in school. And while this is based largely on his inexperience in leadership, in my opinion, he has the weakest resume of most, if not all, of the candidates – Democrat or Republican. But my biggest concern is his lack of commitment on issues of vital interest. When we will need strength, when we will need leadership, when we will need to re-direct our country’s direction, would a then President Obama simply answer “PRESENT”?
Rose....A serious reality check is needed. Don't let your daughter be an intern in if Hillary Clinton gets elected? George Washington died of VD - Martha didn't have VD. Marylin Monroe and Kennedy - remember? Oh for heaven sake, I don't have enough room to go over how many Presidents had a mistress. I do NOT agree with what Bill did...but he wasn't the first and he certainly will NOT be the last. Should Obama win the primary, you will have McCain or Romney ruining this country further....with a mistress on the side.
Men have ruled this country with the head below their belts LONG before our time and will continue to do so long after. This country needs Hillary to clean up after Bill's mess....
Do not give up and vote for Hillary as the status quo. Do not hope that Obama can beat the Republican nominee. The media blitz for these two candidates has been playing into the Republicans hopes of retaining the White House for another four years. Nevada can make the difference this year!!
John Edwards has consistently shown that he has the biggest statistical advantage over all of the Republican candidates. John Edwards can win the national election, ensuring that this will not be a repeat of elections of 2000 and 2004. Do not inject doubt into the election by nominating an barely electable national candidate.
Caucus for John Edwards this Saturday and make him the front runner!
For those Republicans who do indeed plan on caucasing this saturday, I encourage you to research Dr. Ron Paul (www.ronpaul2008.com). I believe he is about to shock the world by how he does in Nevada. He's a man with consistent views and his voting record proves it. They call him Dr. No, because he votes against anything that violates the Constitution. He is a defender of personal liberty and individual freedom, as were the founding fathers. In addition, the man has sound economic principles (he espouses the same principles taught by my economics professors) and has published several novels on foreign policy.
Oh8 - OBAMA! Make us proud Nevada!
Please go caucus for Obama and tell everyone about Clintons and their record.
Anyone who wants to see the true Hillary, ask her or her supporters why she waffled after initially supporting NY GOV. Spitzer's plan to grant Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens in NY State; remember that terrible debate answer and then the aftermath in which she received a lot of negative airplay. The former President Bill Clinton asked the Governor to pull his plan so Hillary would not have to answer any more questions about it to get her off the hook. Look it up. That is the big supporter of Latinos.
Please call out Obama on his comments in the debate and check with any relatives or anyone else you know in Chicago to see if he has that kind of record there of saying anything to win the moment and move on with your vote to the next audience.
The Clintons record in the White House is they never stayed around to fight for us. They caved in on Affirmative Action and Welfare Reform, and most importantly, their Crime Bill that they brag put so many more officers on the street is also singularly responsible for a generation of historically high incarceration rates for black and brown people in this country. We also have the Clinton years to thank for the mandatory sentencing guidelines, eliminating the discretion of judges, and the disparity in sentencing between crack/cocaine sentences.
We Democrats mobilized to rally around them in 1998 and defend them from attacks, and that was entirely appropriate then. But they are the attackers now, attacking our Union and Obama just to make some kind of triumphant return to the White House; and we have to let them know that we love them but we need bolder, bigger cajones this time around. We need a homerun to sweep in majorities in both Houses of Congress with a message of hope and unity; and then we can claim a mandate to enact sweeping changes in legislation.
The truth that everyone reading this knows in his/her heart is that:
1. Any of our three Democratic candidates CAN win in November.
2. Only one could just as easily lose. (HRC is the only candidate with higher negative ratings than favorable one among all DEM and REP candidates)
3. And only one could win HUGE. (Obama has the biggest margin between favorable and negative ratings among all DEM and REP candidates)
We gotta go for it! This is why the female Senator McCaskill from MO and Gov. Napolitano from AZ along with Native American Sen. Nelson of Nebraska all endorsed Obama last week. No one wants the name Clinton on top of the ballot in their state, except the Republicans.
So please don't stay home. Everyone must go out Saturday and share your views with your neighbors. Go For It. And Ba-Rock the Vote!!!
Obama is much more progressive than Clinton, and yet he still appeals to many more Independents and Republicans than Clinton. If we want to get things done in DC, the right way, Obama is the one who has a history of creating the working majority necessary to accomplish it -- be it social security, medicare, a meaningful energy policy, enhanced natl security to real health care and a vibrant economy. Clinton's campaign continues to spread ridiculous and misleading information about Obama, which is just a signal that the old guard is threatened and is fighting for the position it feels entitled to. Long time loyalties to the family from Arkansas should give way to a true movement of change that isn't based on partisan politics. Vote your conscience. Vote Obama.