Results in! Predictions were out!

Clinton has trumped Obama, defying all best guesses. But this post on Obama and the Bradley effect gives one strong reason why not just the advance polls but the exit polls got it wrong.

Lots more debate about this in the blogosphere. Some good thoughts here and here.

Comments

[Richard]

Compare and contrast (as we inevitably must...) to the general election of 1992. The most convincing argument then seemed to be that people actually had a problem admitted to anyone - including the pollsters - that they might vote Conservative. The party was that embarrassing - and yet in the midst of a recession, people seemed to decide in the polling booths that they were better with the devil they knew, rather than a reformed (reforming) Labour party.

Could the same be true of Hillary? Substitute the "political establishment" for the Conservative party, an acceptable candidate of colour for an acceptable party of the left and the Iraq war for the recession and it kind of stands up.

[ron]

Everyone likes to go with the winner,so if you publish that the loser is actually winning,a lot of votes get purloined.Pollsters and the media are not above trying to fix an election.

[Tomáš Ruta]

Apologies, just a short comment on your article in today's printed edition - btw I think you had already used the intro story on the blog!:)

Basically, I disagree that the conservatives should "change" and "occupy the center ground"; instead they need to re-adjust the issues they focus on while staying faithful to their values. George Lakoff's "Thinking Points" (Chapter 2 - Biconceptualism) explains how it works. Have a look!

[Kip]

Don't overestimate the racial factor - it's gender much more than race that swung this. I admit that I did get a shock when I saw the overall numbers, and I instantly thought that white people had lied to pollsters. But it's worth pointing out that Obama beat Clinton by 11% among men (which in New Hampshire equals white men). A battle of the sexes isn't pretty, but it could be worse.

[Candadai Tirumalai]

In New Hampshire a larger proportion of women and the young voted for Hillary than in Iowa (proportion, not absolute numbers). Those without a college degree and earning less than $50,000 a year favoured Hillary over Barack, the latter being the clear favourite of those with post-graduate education. Through her performance in the last day or two, Hillary was able to contain the tidal wave generated by Obama. Quite remarkable that.

[ola]

I belive what went wrong in Obama campign was the Media going on about how much he was in the lead and spurred unusual intrests in the votes in Hampshire still a long way to go

[Joanna Davis]

Clinton has been compared with the Conservatives in 1992, but you neglect to mention the fact that Barrack has considerably more centrist policies, making Clinton somewhat left wing by way of comparison. And an unfashionable choice? Then I'm relieved that New Hampshire is out of vogue.

[Muriel Cundiff]

They just don't get it do they? Men just can't tolerate strong intelligent women like Hillary can they? I think the country will be making a grave mistake if they don't vote for her. We've had a few men try it and look what a mess things are in. Give her a chance will you. She's been my choice from way back when.

[William Hallowell]

Interesting post. After Sen. Clinton’s unforeseen NH victory, many people are questioning the pollsters. There is so much to consider when exploring what goes into political polling. Predicting elections is one of the most difficult challenges in survey work. Generally speaking, election surveys actually do work fairly well (it's worth remembering that the polling on the Republican side in New Hampshire was pretty accurate). For all their flaws, surveys are still one of the best available tools for figuring out what the public wants. Check out our Public Agenda blog at http://publicagenda.org/headlines/headlines_blog.cfm for more on this!