No Polls for Nevada Caucuses
Errors in New Hampshire Primary Force Pollsters to Reevaluate Nevada
Reeling from the humiliation of the New Hampshire primary pre-election polling missteps, US pollsters are forgoing surveying January 19th's Nevada Democratic Caucus.
The American media is asking what happened with the predictions made by multiple polling organizations. Forecasts of an Obama win in New Hampshire were consistent between all journalistic outlets. Answers are starting to surface but pollsters are still gun-shy. Brian Eckhouse and Michael Mishak wrote in Friday’s Las Vegas Sun, “…major news organizations are taking a pass on polling before Nevada’s Jan. 19 caucus….The concerns stem from the New Hampshire mistake...”
Pollster Problems
Nevada, the 36th state of the union, has little history in Presidential primary caucus elections for pollsters. The Nevada Caucus, an informational directory, says: “The Nevada Caucus has had no significance in the past due to its later date and its size…. With the caucus date being moved up, it means candidates will be traveling to the state of Nevada to campaign….But its importance is undeniable….Nevada's diversity makes it the first true ‘bell-weather’ state.”
- Importance: Nevada’s over-night importance is a problem for pollsters. Eckhouse and Mishak wrote: “In polling language, a caucus is a ‘low incidence’ event, meaning a relatively small percentage of eligible voters will show up to caucus.” Dr. J. Ann Selzer of Selzer & Company - Des Moines Iowa, said; “It [polling] is very tricky.... It should be impossible to ever get it right….” “It’s very difficult to know who to sample, in terms of likely voters,” said Republican pollster Glen Bolger in the Sun.
- Population: Nevada’s diverse and transient population also contributes to the problems for pollsters. Unlike the homogeneous and stable citizens in Iowa, Nevada has two of the fastest growing cities in the nation - Las Vegas and Henderson according to The Nevada Caucus. “The south has seen a huge influx of Hispanics… conversely, the north is very Republican… such as Idaho, Wyoming [and the] Dakotas.” Mishak wrote, “…Iowa [is] on the opposite end of that spectrum, with nearly all-white populations and relatively static population numbers.”
- History: states like Iowa have played a significant part in the presidential candidate selection process for decades and therefore, polling there has developed to a fine art. Large databases are known and the stability of the citizenry makes pollsters jobs easier. In Nevada neither the database nor stable populations exist, hence caucus polling takes a lot of time and money. “Caucuses burn up a lot of resources (for pollsters), and we thought our resources could be put to better use elsewhere,” said Scott Keeter director of survey research for the Pew Research Center.
- Old polls: made before January 2008, are still available. Eckhouse, in a related Sun article wrote: “Nevada voters were last polled one month ago.” “Infrequent polling is a problem,” said Susan Pinkus, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll. “My concern is that you really don’t know what’s going on in your state [Nevada],” she said to the Sun reporter. “Everybody’s flying under the radar there. So much is predicated on speculation.”
With such new information and the embarrassment of the recent NH debacle; pollsters have decided to simply skip Nevada. Whether the reasons to bypass Nevada are the caucus polling problems, diversity, state size, changing demographics, previous polling errors or all the above; one thing is certain. The results of the Nevada Caucuses will be known only when the caucus goers complete their work. Some voters may feel this is a good thing!
