Forecasting the New Hampshire primary
I’ve read some pundits who say that New Hampshire voters like to reject what Iowa voters do (for example, from Pat Caddell, but he’s not alone in saying it):
[Cadell] doesn’t think New Hampshire really loved Clinton [when she won there in 2008 after losing in Iowa]. Rather, given that Obama had won Iowa, New Hampshire voters were confronted with a dilemma: If we vote for Obama, essentially Obama is the winner of the entire primary. Back to back wins will make him nigh-unstoppable.
Caddell’s idea is that it wasn’t that New Hampshire was really backing Clinton, so much as it was saying “Let’s make sure this Obama is really acceptable, let’s have a longer nomination process.”
I beg to differ. I don’t think New Hampshire voters have any thought of whether they agree or disagree with Iowans, or whether they’re anointing a winner. In fact, why wouldn’t they want to anoint a winner? No, I think it’s just that Iowa and New Hampshire could hardly be more different in the composition of their Republican voting population.
For example, evangelicals make up a huge percentage of the Iowa GOP voters—well over half. Although there are some evangelicals in New Hampshire, it’s a lot smaller group than in Iowa:
Four years ago, just 22% of the state’s primary voters described themselves as evangelicals, well below the 57% in Iowa and the lowest rate among swing states. A 2013 Gallup poll ranked New Hampshire as the second least religious state in the country, behind Vermont, based on churchgoing and the importance of religion in daily life.
“Candidates definitely tone things down regarding social issues when they come to the state,” said Stephen Scaer, a 52-year-old special-education teacher who helps run a prayer vigil outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Manchester, N.H., and favors Republican Carly Fiorina. But, he said, “that’s simply pragmatic. If candidates want to win, they have to.”
The common wisdom on New Hampshire is that it’s fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and there are a lot of libertarians there, too (“Live Free or Die” is still alive in New Hampshire).
So when New Hampshirites vote, they’re not consciously thinking of being different from Iowans—they just are different from Iowans.
I also keep reading how New Hampshire is natural Trump country or Trump territory. I disagree there, as well. New Hampshire is not natural Trump territory anymore than Iowa is, but for different reasons. Historically, New Hampshire has tended to favor local New Englanders when they’re running (Romney and Henry Cabot Lodge for the GOP—and Romney came close to McCain there even in 2008; Tsongas, Dukakis, Muskie, and Kerry for the Democrats) and to favor moderate Republicans more often than conservatives (although Pat Buchanan edged out Dole there in 1996). Since there’s no New Englander this year, that would make it natural Christie country or Kasich country or Jeb country (or Rubio country, because at this point he’s considered a moderate, compared to Cruz). And indeed, those candidates have all had surges in New Hampshire polling, and some (Bush and Kasich, for example) are still doing a lot better in New Hampshire than they’re doing in most other states.
That’s not to say that Trump can’t or won’t win there; he most definitely could. But if so, it’s because of the unusually high number of other candidates splitting the remainder so many ways rather than some huge amount of New Hampshire love for Trump.
Which brings us to the post-Iowa polls in New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s primary is February 9, which is next Tuesday, but the situation in the state is still so fluid that polls seem nearly worthless—except as confirmation that indeed, the situation is very fluid.
Why do I say that? Let’s take the recent CNN/WMUR poll, a rolling poll in which 2/3 of its likely-GOP-primary-voter respondents were polled before Iowa and 1/3 after, 362 and 209 respectively. The questions were asked by landline and cellphone, and note the margin of error: plus or minus 5 for the first group, and plus or minus 6.8 for the second. That’s an enormous margin of error, and that’s not all that’s problematic in the results of the poll. We also learn that only 41% of respondents have definitely decided on a candidate, with an additional 25% only leaning and a full 34% totally undecided.
Makes me almost want to give up even looking at the poll. But hey, I’ll soldier on.
Trump gets 29%, Rubio 18% (that’s a marked improvement over pre-Iowa polls), Cruz 13%, Kasich 12%, Bush 10%, Christie 4%, Fiorina 4%, and Carson 2%. Trump’s “would NOT vote for under any circumstances” numbers are far higher than anyone else’s, 37% for Trump to Cruz’s 13%, Jeb’s 7%, Rubio’s 5%, Carson’s 3%, and Christie’s 3%.
Another recent New Hampshire poll was taken by UMassLowell/WMUR, which also contains both pre-Iowa and post-Iowa results. In that poll, 2/3 were interviewed after Iowa, and there were only 487 likely GOP primary voters, with a margin of error set at plus minus 4.87, not as high as the previous poll but still fairly high.
This poll also shows a post-Iowa uptick for Rubio, but not as strongly as the other one. For respondents polled on 2/4 (the final day of the poll) it shows Trump leading by 34 to Rubio’s 15 to Cruz’s 13. But once again, there are a lot of undecideds, with 41% of all respondents saying they could change their minds. The highest “could change mind” responses were for Rubio, Bush, Christie, and Carson, but even Trump (whose voters generally seem to be most dug in) had 28% who could change their minds.
So it seems to me that the most valid things these polls reveal are (1) Trump is leading right now, in a race where the vote is split many ways; and (2) so many people are still undecided that it’s anybody’s race.
And if you think that’s a ridiculous amount of number-crunching just to get to those conclusions, you might be right.
[ADDENDUM: I just noticed this Politico article that’s all about New Hampshire’s late deciders and how often the polls in the state are just plain wrong:
“These people really are volatile,” added Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray. “They really are undecided. Even if they pick a candidate today or tomorrow, they can change their mind.”
New Hampshire’s closeness in time to Iowa presents problems, too, because a bounce right after Iowa doesn’t necessarily last till the voting in New Hampshire. What’s more, in NH Independents can vote in either primary, and there are a lot of Independents. In addition, voters are so heavily surveyed that they get tired of answering polls and that can skew the population of respondents.]
Neo:
Another recent New Hampshire poll was taken by UMassLowell/WMUR, which also contains both pre-Iowa and post-Iowa results.
In Many times Neo very uncomfortable with polls specially when it comes to different subjects…But now she is very confident with polls?
Is there change in mind or something els?
And Iowa is very, very different than Nebraska. Trust me.
I’m wondering how low Bush will poll. I say he gets less than 5% and drops out.
Though I’m utterly uninterested in opinion polling as such, here’s more of it concerning an issue I find completely unacceptable: namely, using opinion polling to exclude an important candidate from Saturday’s debate only three days prior to the primary vote itself. It’s not simply unconscionable, it’s contrary to the interests of New Hampshire primary voters, for whom, after all, the whole apparatus exists.
Kemberlee Kaye, College Insurrection: What if GOP Candidates escorted Carly Fiorina onto debate stage?
Cruz has an opportunity to use his constitutionalism as assurance that individual liberty (Live free or die) is among his highest principles because ‘free will’ is a God ordained gift to all Americans… and because liberty and free will are inseparable.
That “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are our “unalienable” rights because they are ‘rights’ granted to all mankind by a creator that stands above mankind’s various opinions.
Which is why he can honestly assure NH voters and all Americans that his evangelism is a personal issue and not something he seeks to impose on others. That his faith, in proclaiming that God is the source of mankind’s free will, forbids the imposition of personal belief upon others.
It’s potentially a ‘teaching moment’ for Cruz, demonstrating why Lincoln proclaimed that, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties”.
Cruz needs to stand behind the premise that a return to fidelity to our Constitution is the only path to American prosperity and honor.
If it must be a teaching moment, it might be a good idea to at least mention Thomas Hobbes in passing — in the interests of full disclosure, that is. Better however, with Hobbes, to remain silent about Hobbes’ predecessor-collaborator Nicolo M., since there are prudential considerations for discretion with that story. So, stress the Englishman, ignore the Italian.
Japan:
Why don’t you try actually reading what I say in the post before you make nonsensical comments like that.
“Very confident with polls” is just a bizarre way to characterize this post and what it says.
I am pretty sure English is not your first language, but you need to understand it before you can comment thoughtfully on something written in it.
Now that’s raaaaacist!
Japan’s faking it. How do I know? Japan’s got no problem with writing the “R.”
Assuming Trump’s numbers hold through NH, and SC and he gets momentum, then the only way to stop him is to cut the field and fast. The “splitter” strategy isn’t working. If it came down to a 3 man race, I suspect the supporters of the likes of Kasich would gravitate towards Rubio or Cruz, not Trump.
Since Trump may have hit his ceiling. I’d prefer the support go to Cruz. As this blogger notes, Rubio is unqualified for the job:
The GOPe and the 39th POTUS have already decided Trump is malleable. Cruz is their nightmare.
GB,
I agree, the NH debate is a great venue for Cruz to begin smoothing the feathers of those who are leery of an evangelical in high office.
BTW,
I read you prep blog and think it is comprehensive advice for preparedness.
Re Rubio, a man my instincts have told me to distrust:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/marco-rubios-7-top-achievements-u-s-senate/
Re NH primary: Next Tuesday is Mardi Gras! In my part of the country, anyway.
Frog,
Thanks for the link, I knew Rubio was an opportunist, now I know he’s a rat. A veritable litany of betrayal and a record that every democrat must envy.
“A single term 45-year-old Senator with no executive experience, no legislative accomplishments, four kids, no accumulated wealth or financial security, and he is qualified to be president of the United States because he has, well, ‘potential‘.”
This, except for the lack of wealth, describes another Senator who ran successfully for President – John F. Kennedy.
I blame Kennedy and TV for the presidential elections becoming popularity contests that awards the most photogenic and charismatic with high office.
Should he get the nomination, Rubio, much like G. W. Bush and JFK, would need to add some gravitas to the ticket by selecting an experienced, older man to the Veep slot.
Rubio might be inexperienced, but he does have, according to the Heritage Foundation, the fourth most conservative voting record in the Senate. That indicates that he trends conservative and could be amenable to conservative solutions to the country’s problems.
JFK was not a terrible President, especially for a democrat. It was his VP, LBJ, who wreaked so much leftist damage on the nation.
I happily predict fewer mischief-making crossover voters in this New Hampshire primary. The Dems have a real race on their hands so I consider it less likely that left-leaning “independents” will choose Republican ballots just to mess with the race. Last primary there was nothing happening on the Dem ballot (it was Obama) so there were lots of crossovers. I speak as a ballot clerk in a medium-small NH town. People have actually told me to my face they were doing that … and seemed proud of it and amused with themselves!
I also predict lots of last-minute decision making. There are too many Republican candidates, still. Many of us are trying to figure out where our vote will do the most good. I think the debate tonight will be important for late deciders. Snow is predicated and may affect turnout for the less motivated.
I really don’t think Trump is going to do as well as he has been polling here. If he wins it will be because Bush, Kasich, and Christie (and Fiorina, and Carson I guess) are still in the race.
I don’t dislike Bush but it is obviously not going to happen for him, so I wish he would stop tearing down other Republicans with his money and mouth. (Of course I feel that way about Trump too. And Christie has unleashed a mean streak of late.) I have gotten more mailers from Jeb (or Jeb’s PAC) than anyone else. Next time someone complains that money buys elections, I will point to Jeb!
And yes we are sick of polling phone calls here in NH! I personally have never, ever answered a poll and I don’t know anyone who has – and we all talk about how we don’t know anyone who has. So, we will have to wait till Tuesday to know who the poll-silent majority likes!
J.J. — Kennedy had been a PT Boat commander in World War II, something that still mattered in 1960, and he and his brother Robert had become national figures while on the Senate Rackets Committee. He was head and shoulders above where Rubio is now.