Upset

Not since 1948 has there been a presidential-election upset like Tuesday's Clinton victory in New Hampshire. How did so many pollsters get it wrong? One theory is that HRC's showing of emotion, and the subsequent a-hole mockery by the likes of a-hole Chris Matthews motivated female voters to come out strong for Hillary. But wouldn't the daily tracking polls at least have picked up a "bump" in Clinton's support prior to Tuesday's primary? The daily tracking polls found no such "bump," but instead a constant decline.

To me, a more plausible theory is that the polls' "likely voter" filters fundamentally under-counted HRC's support. If you could pigeonhole this under-counted support into a demographic, it would be self-identified Democratic and Democratic-leaning working-class women, who vote in general elections, but rarely in primaries. One of the ways pollsters hone their "likely voter" models is to ask whether and how often respondents have participated in previous primary elections. I bet these new primary voters were left out of the likely voter calculation.

Short of one of the candidates announcing on national television that she/he enjoys eating babies for breakfast, I simply cannot believe a double-digit point swing can happen during the 24 hours prior to an election. The simpler explanation is that the polls' likely voter models were fundamentally flawed.

It's further worth noting how a primary, as opposed to a caucus, would allow more of the working-class Democratic women demographic to participate. Primaries allow a 12-hour window of time to vote. Caucuses require the ability to arrive at a set time in the evening, and spend, at the very least, 45 minutes. Women working the second shift, or needing to take care of their children in the evening, won't be able to make the caucus. The time-flexibility of a primary allows for someone to find a moment during the day or evening to go to the voting booth. Moreover, absentee voting (an option likely more popular with senior citizens) is not an option for caucusing. Caucuses also tend to be "clubby" affairs of party regulars and oh, shall we say, "strong personalities." If you don't think of yourself as part of "the club," you're less likely to show up for a caucus. I bet a lot of working-class women (often correctly) don't think of themselves as members of "the club."

HRC's "emotional moment" and subsequent victory make for a nice narrative. Too nice of a narrative. It may have strengthened her support, but I think she had more support prior to the "moment" that the pollsters were not identifying.

At any rate, an amazing turn of events.

PS: Open Left has some exit poll numbers broken-down by income and education showing that HRC won the working class. While the Open Left post buys into "the narrative," I still think the simpler explanation for HRC's win is the overriding factor of under-counting "likely voters." Oh well. It's hard to stop a nifty narrative.