Does the Tail Wag the Dog? Early Presidential Nomination Polling in New Hampshire and the U.S.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2008.28.0.401-424Abstract
The authors examine whether early state polls, particularly New Hampshire, have been more accurate in predicting the eventual presidential nominees. The authors conclude that New Hampshire poll results have become better bellwethers and propose that the more informed nature of the state’s electorate may be a reason for the accuracy of the results.References
Adams, William. 1987. As New Hampshire Goes . . . In Media and Momentum, ed. Gary R. Olsen and Nelson W. Polsby. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Adkins, Randall, and Andrew Dowdle. 2000. Break out the Mint Juleps in New Hampshire: A Forecasting Model of the Presidential Primaries. American Politics Quarterly 28:251-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X00028002006
Adkins, Randall, and Andrew Dowdle. 2001. How Important are Iowa and New Hampshire to Winning Post-Reform Presidential Nominations? Political Research Quarterly 54:431-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400210
Aldrich, John. 1980. A Dynamic Model of Presidential Nomination Campaigns. American Political Science Review 74:651-669. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958148
Bartels, Larry. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bishop, George. 2005. The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Crespi, Irving. 1988. Pre-Election Polling: Sources of Accuracy and Error. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dimock, Michael, Scott Keeter, and Mark Schulman. 2001. Screening for Likely Voters in Pre-Election Surveys: A Voter Validation Experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 2001, Montreal.
Erickson, Robert, Costas Panagopoulos, and Christopher Wlezien. 2004. Likely and Unlikely Voters and the Assessment of Campaign Dynamics. Public Opinion Quarterly 68:589-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh041
John, Kenneth. 1989. The Polls–A Report: 1980-1988 New Hampshire Presidential Primary Polls. Public Opinion Quarterly 53:590-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269173
Keeter, Scott, and Cliff Zukin. 1984. Uninformed Choice: The Failure of the New Presidential Nominating System. New York: Praeger.
Lichter, S. Robert, Daniel Amundson, and Richard Noyes. 1988. The Video Campaign: Network Coverage of the 1988 Primaries. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Marshall, Thomas. 1983. Evaluating Presidential Nominees: Opinion Polls, Issues, and Personalities. Western Political Quarterly 36:450-659. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448591
Mayer, William. 1996. Forecasting Presidential Nominations. In In the Pursuit of the White House 2000, ed. William Mayer. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Mayer, William 2004. The Basic Dynamics of the Contemporary Nomination Process: An Expanded View. In The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004, ed. William Mayer. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
McDermott, Monica, and Kathleen Francovic. 2003. Horserace Polling and Survey Method Effects: An Analysis of the 2000 Campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly 67:245-264.
Miller, Joanne, and John Krosnick. 1998. The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly 62:291-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/297848
Morris, Dick. 2007. National vs. Local Trends. www.TheHill.com, May 30, 2007.
Norrander, Barbara. 1986. Correlates of Vote Choice in the 1980 Presidential Primaries. Journal of Politics 38:156-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130931
Patterson, Thomas. 2005. Of Polls, Mountains: U.S. Journalists and Their Use of Election Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 69:716-724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi065
Perry, Paul. 1973. A Comparison of the Voting Preferences of Likely Voters and Likely Non-Voters. Public Opinion Quarterly 37:99-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268063
Perry, Paul 1979. Certain Problems in Election Survey Methodology. Public Opinion Quarterly 43:312-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268524
Rademacher, Eric, Andrew Smith, Thomas Shaw, and Alfred Tuchfarber. 2001. Ballot Order and Candidate Preference in Pre-Election Telephone Surveys. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 2001, Montreal.
Smith, Andrew. 2004. The Perils of Polling in New Hampshire. In The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004, ed. William Mayer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Steger, Wayne. 2002. A Quarter Century of Network News Coverage of Candidates in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Journal of Political Marketing 1:91-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J199v01n01_06
Taylor, Humphrey, John Brenner, Cary Overmeyer, Jonathan Siegel, and George Terhanian. 2001. Touchdown!: Online Polling Scores Big in November 2006. Public Perspective 12(2):38-39.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
