Why polls in New Hampshire were so far off Predictions by polls, pundits of a loss by Clinton swayed many women, analysts suggest

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claps with her supporters after addressing the New Hampshire Democratic Party One Hundred Club dinner in Milford, New Hampshire January 4, 2008. Voters in New Hampshire go to the polls January 8 in the U.S. presidential primary elections. REUTERS/Mike Segar less Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claps with her supporters after addressing the New Hampshire Democratic Party One Hundred Club dinner in Milford, New Hampshire January 4, 2008. ... more Photo: MIKE SEGAR, REUTERS Photo: MIKE SEGAR, REUTERS Image 1 of / 5 Caption Close Why polls in New Hampshire were so far off 1 / 5 Back to Gallery

In the wake of a headline-grabbing win by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, the pundits and even the candidates were stunned.

But some pollsters and political insiders were not.

They suggest that along with some critical late-breaking campaign events, cultural factors might have been at work in the last-minute switch by female voters that resulted in a 39-to-36 percent victory by Clinton over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. And in some cases, they say, the analysts casting about for a reason might well look to themselves.

Garry South, a California Democratic political consultant, said that women - who proved crucial to Clinton's big win in New Hampshire - might simply have said "enough is enough" as they watched a parade of cable TV pundits, mostly male, all but pronounce Clinton's White House bid over in the final 48 hours of the campaign.

After the New York senator delivered a rare, emotional statement at a weekend campaign event, her voice nearly breaking, commentators began virtually nonstop analysis, suggesting that Clinton either was in the throes of a near-nervous breakdown or was making a shrewd bid for sympathy, he said.

"I think this is not totally a sisterhood kind of campaign, but women - whether they vill vote for her or not - know (her campaign) is a very historic thing," South said. "And to have her treated in that kind of dismissive way by a bunch of white male buffoon talking heads had women ticked off. My gut feeling is ... they stormed to the polls. Something happened here."

After barely losing the women's vote in Iowa last week, Clinton reclaimed it big-time in New Hampshire, 46 to 34 percent over Obama. Women make up more than half those who vote for Democrats across the country.

South's theory is echoed by Democratic grassroots activist Gloria Nieto, a blogger (misswildthing.blogspot.com) and president of the Silicon Valley LGBT Democratic Club, who said the blogosphere was churning after talking heads on cable TV appeared to go nonstop on Clinton's emotional event.

"Where does (MSNBC host) Chris Matthews or any of these guys come off treating her like that?" said Nieto on Wednesday. "It was played out in high-definition in front of everybody how shrill, over the top and condescending they were. It was a frat boy party - and as women, we weren't liking it. And we spoke out yesterday - just look at the numbers."

Some pollsters say they have more scientific analysis of the events of last week - and at least some clues as to why the polls were so off the mark.

Pollster Mervin Field, a dean of American polling who has been measuring public opinion for more than six decades, notes that seven public and two private polls all reported on Monday - the day before the election - that Obama was ahead of Clinton anywhere from 9 to 11 points.

Field, the founder of the California Field Poll, one of the nation's pre-eminent public opinion surveys, said that some critical events - including a major debate Saturday night in which Clinton's performance was generally given good marks - might have swayed female voters. That event and the later "humanizing moment," he said, occurred after those final polls had been taken.

Polls, he cautions, are not a predictor of any election but are simply a snapshot in time.

"Obama was ahead 48 hours, and maybe 36 hours before the voters went to the polls," he said. "But things change. And what changed? The women's vote."

Field said he has particular interest in the race-related factors in New Hampshire. He was responsible for the famed public opinion survey in 1982 that predicted a victory by Democrat Tom Bradley, an African American, over Republican George Deukmejian for the governorship of California. That poll spawned the term "the Bradley effect" after Deukmejian squeaked out a win only after absentee ballots were counted.

Field said many fail to remember that Bradley actually won at the polls on election day. "I can't see that women (in New Hampshire), all of a sudden, allowed racial bias to come to the fore," he said.

Phil Trounstine, who heads the San Jose State Survey and Policy Research Institute, agreed that "speculation about the so-called Bradley effect ... in the absence of data is totally irresponsible."

"We've never seen that in a Democratic primary - a racial falloff," he said, but "it has been seen in general elections."

But Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, said "you can't rule (race) out as an issue."

In an opinion piece published Wednesday, he said poorer, less-educated voters - many of whom resisted being interviewed in exit polls - might not have wanted to admit they wouldn't vote for a black candidate.

But pollster Mark Baldassare, who heads the Public Policy Institute of California, said he believes that "independents and late-deciders were the factor."

He notes that "clearly, the polls on the Republican side held up well - but on the Democratic side, they missed the mark."

His take: "Obama's support depended on independent voters, who in New Hampshire decided their vote would matter more for (Arizona Sen. John) McCain and the Republican party." In the final tally, independents made up 4 in 10 GOP voters, he said.

Baldassare said public opinion researchers might learn some important lessons from the early 2008 races.

"Iowa and New Hampshire have told us that this is a very fluid election season with lots of ups and downs," he said. "Independents will play an important role and will be a real challenge for the pollster."

Even former White House political guru Karl Rove - an acknowledged poll junkie - cautioned in an interview published Wednesday that this week's polling, while wrong, still has lessons.

"Let's not have Obama suffer for the mistakes of the pollsters. If you talk to political pros, you would find that there was pretty solid agreement that it's really tough to poll a primary," he said.

"And particularly a primary in a state like New Hampshire where they are not just simply voters, but active players in the drama, and they know it."

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a leading supporter of Obama, also said she doesn't believe race was a deciding factor in New Hampshire. And she said the inaccurate polls simply provide a lesson for the campaign and a cautionary tale: Take nothing for granted.

"We've come a long way since Tom Bradley," said Harris, the first African American female district attorney in California and the first Indian American district attorney in the United States. "When Tom Bradley sought office in California, there was no chance that a woman, much less an African American woman, could be the elected district attorney of one of the biggest cities in this country - and look, I just started my second term."

"I think it could be very demeaning to the campaign to suggest that race is going to be a factor. I think Americans are going to be smarter than that."