It’s hard for me to remember an election where the trend of polling and the final poll results so failed to predict the actual vote. Certainly, there’s no example I can remember of it happening in such a high profile contest. In the next couple days we’ll probably get a better sense of what happened. My hunch is that the polls were not ‘wrong’, that they were right in showing a big bounce for Obama, but that there was a late swing in Hillary’s direction.
That, however, is just a hunch. And it’s undermined, at least to a degree, by the fact that, as far as I can remember, none of the polls showed any slackening of Obama’s lead, even though I believe the pollsters were still surveying as late as Monday evening.
Perhaps we’ll know more once the numbers are more closely examined. But it will probably remain undetermined to a significant degree.
What’s exciting about this, just speaking for myself, is that we’re now on to a solid month of campaigning before the big cluster of contests on February 5th. Both candidates have had a riveting win. We’ve got a real battle on our hands. And I do not think that any of Clinton’s critics can say that she won this one by overpowering Obama with money or mobilizing a dominating political machine or by expectations of inevitability and certainly not with the help of a friendly press. However you slice it this was a real victory under pressure. And if she’s the nominee she’ll be a much better one for it.
I’ve read a lot of reader emails tonight. And there’s one line I’ve heard a fair amount of that I’d like to take some gentle exception to. A lot of people say that the pollsters and pundits have something to answer for or that they tried to put this away for Obama or close the book on Hillary. The character of reporting is another matter. But polls are usually right. Not always and not exactly. But by and large they have a very good record. It’s silly to think that we — whether ‘we’ is reporters or political junkies or ordinary voters — are going to ignore the information that’s right in front of us. And why should we?
It’s true I guess that in an abstracted reality we could simply listen to the candidates, ignore all probabilistic data available, go to the polls with no idea of the result and learn the outcome the following morning. But that’s not the world we live in nor do I think it’s one I’d want to live in.
This result doesn’t make me second guess polling and (if you can separate out the reporting that assumed Hillary was headed for defeat from that which engaged in various psychobabble about her) it doesn’t make me second guess the reportage either. This is simply an upset, a dramatic, unexpected result. I suspect it came about because of some mix of the Saturday debate and Hillary’s moment of unvarnished emotion yesterday. But it might as easily be the case that the Obama surge was just ephemeral and dissipated on its own.
I certainly didn’t suspect this outcome for a moment and I strongly suspect that very few in the Clinton campaign did either.
Why that should produce disgust or leave people disenchanted about the incorrect expectations that made it an upset is something I really don’t understand. This is just a matter of the fact that no outcome is certain before the votes are cast. And to me, it’s one of the exciting and wonderful things about the democratic process.
Both sides have now had transcendent moments. Both sides can plot credible paths to the nomination. And both campaigns have found arguments that appear to resonate with sizable constituencies. It’s game on. And as someone who likes politics and loves his country I can’t see any reason not to be pleased with that result.
In case you’ve forgotten, here’s what I think was her key moment from the debate …
And here’s the moment from yesterday …
