Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

"Shock waves" is an overused term in the news media and politics. But that's the only way to describe Hillary's win in New Hampshire.  Just hours before voting ended, polls indicated that Obama was running as much as 10 percentage points ahead.  

What happened, especially in light of John McCain's big win in the Republican primary?  How could the polls have been so right in the GOP race, and so wrong in the Democratic primary?

They weren't.

And there are several reasons why.

The support for Obama in New Hampshire polls was soft and fluid.  Much of the large-scale movement toward Obama was a reflection of his big win in the Iowa caucuses and the tidal wave of favorable media coverage in the days that followed.  The Obama campaign in New Hampshire violated one of Abraham Lincoln's cardinal rules of politics:  don't start believing your own press clippings.

New Hampshire voters are famously irascible, and the Democrats didn't want the race to be over.  Neither did the Republicans, by the way, because they were stingy toward the GOP winner in Iowa, Huckabee.

More than ever, there is more information for voters until the very last minute.  Contrast the 24/7 cable news coverage, not to mention Internet and other communications channels.  Then compare it to elections even four or eight years ago.  Voters get more and later information.  And in this case, whatever late breaking information they absorbed about the Democrat race changed their minds.

Finally, some evidence from exit polls showed that Hillary made some good adjustments between Iowa and new Hampshire.  She attracted a greater share of female and younger voters.

New Hampshire's Democratic outcome is a good reminder of what polls are: a snapshot at a specific time.  Polls are nt a predictor of outcome in a fast-moving, dynamic election campaign where voters are getting multiple messages until decision time.

The polls were right - when they were conducted.  

On to Michigan and South Carolina!