Politico posts article giving pollsters (and itself) wiggle room if Coakley wins

[Jersey Devil]

Interesting how this article suddenly appeared out of nowhere at the last minute:

Pollsters uneasy about Massachusetts

Republican Scott Brown’s dramatic rise in polls taken on the eve of Election Day in Massachusetts has some pollsters worried about whether they have another New Hampshire on their hands.

Brown has gone from a relative unknown to a frontrunner in only a matter of weeks and special elections – especially in states like Massachusetts that rarely get polled by most national firms – are notoriously hard to predict. And while pollsters are fairly confident of their own analysis, that combination of factors has them worried that Massachusetts results tonight could be a shocker.

“If the polls in Massachusetts are as accurate as they typically are in a fall general election, than the odds are very, very long” that Democrat Martha Coakley will win, said Mark Blumenthal, editor of Pollster.com. “But this isn’t a fall general election and there is a lot that is very odd about this race.”

-snip -

Like other pollsters who spoke to POLITICO, Blumenthal said Coakley’s position heading into Election Day is similar to the one Hillary Clinton held just before the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire in 2008 – where she rose from the political dead to upset Barack Obama and stun the political world.

More - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31666.html

[SunsetDreams]

1. Gee wonder why they are doing that? nt

[Dinger]

11. Gee, I Wonder

Hee hee. Preparing for a Coakley win if you ask me.

[KingFlorez]

2. They are definitely give themselves some insurance here

This makes me feel better about what the results tonight.

[Jersey Devil]

10. Another clue? Politico now calls turnout in MA "Explosive"

That's the new headling on their site.

Explosive turnout and charges in Mass.

[Kdillard]

14. Hopefully this is good news for Martha. I would love it for the media to

Have to eat their words. The way they have been attackinng Martha and the Prez is unbelievable while cheeeading some teabagger.

[Clio the Leo]

3. Martha is no Hillary is the problem ....

.... and she didn't do anything sympathetic in the 11th hour like Hillary did in NH.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Yup; Hillary fought her ass off (as usual), which made her episode all the more effective

Coakley had to drawn out into the public by shitty polls.

[Phx_Dem]

13. Aside from the tears, I don't see a huge diff between Martha now and

HIllary in Iowa. They both took it for granted that they'd win so they didn't exert themselves. For Martha, the realization that she was in trouble set in when she started tanking in the polls. For Hillary, it was when she lost Iowa.

Hopefully, the trend of these two women will continue and Martha will win tonight like Hill did in NH.

[leftynyc]

16. Hillary never stopped campaigning

Her mistake was thinking it would all be over with on Super Tuesday. She never considered the caucus system important and that was a big mistake. But she never disappeared the way Coakley did during the holidays. I'm keeping fingers and toes crossed that MA will do Teddy proud today.

[Phx_Dem]

23. Yeah, but that was a whole different problem. When you lose, it's time to stop.

But the likeness was at the beginnings of their campaigns. Both thought they were shoe-ins and took their positions for granted so they bided their time and got a rude awakening. Luckily for HIllary, it was a primary campaign with alot more to come so she was able to wake up in time to start her campaign. Martha only got one chance so by the time she woke up, it was too late.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Well, Hillary also has natural campaigning skills which this candidate lacks

All the more reason why she should have tried harder. That said, I, too, am hoping Mass. doesn't deliver a nasty blow to Obama with Teddy's seat. It's all too fucked up for words.

[Kdillard]

4. I am guessing they may be concerned that things are going the Dems way and

They don't want to end up with egg on their faces. This heartens me. Hopefully we got it done.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Zogby predicted a one point victory by Coakley

He is basing it on GOTV.

[DrToast]

6. Suddenly? Pollsters have been saying that for a while

The race is too close to call, although Brown is probably the favorite.

I don't know many pollsters that guaranteed a victory for anyone.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Hmm? Almost the entire media has been reporting it as a done deal

for a Brown win for several days. Maybe the pollsters themselves didn't guarantee anything, but the media sure reported it that way. Now at the last minute suddenly an article appears on Politico, one of the most egregious offenders in calling this race in advance, suggesting the pollsters could be wrong and you don't want to ask why?

[Igel]

21. The media billed it one way because they're ignoramuses.

Look, it's simple. You make some phone calls. It's likely that the random sample--if it is random--that you get making some phone calls is going to match the sample of people that goes to the poll on election day.

That means your numbers are absolutely unrelated to the poll results. At least at that point.

What you need is some way to say, "Ah -- we have all this demographic and geographic information. Let's see if we can rectify our data so that *our* sample matches, for demographics and geographic, the voters that will actually vote. That's how to relate our numbers to the poll results. Then we'll have a good prediction."

Then they scratch their rumps and say, "So, what's going to be the demographics and geographic distribution of the people who actually go to the polls?" And reliability goes downhill. Not because the stats' calculated error is wrong, but because error that can't be accounted for and calculated is unknown. You do your best. Which is simply another way of saying, "You often screw up."

It's why all those relying on exit polls rely on an exceedingly thin and sharp reed. They don't doubt the relationship the pollsters posit between the not-really-random sample and the final poll results, because if they even doubted that a little they'd have no basis for their iron-clad, nay, fervent faith in the exit poll results.

So if the polls are wrong, they're wrong.

[Cha]

7. If I remember right..

there were a lot of women who came out and voted for Hillary in New Hampshire at the eleventh hour.

[Parker CA]

12. Clearly hedging their bets. The tone is definitely beginning to shift slowly.

[Grand Taurean]

19. Where are you hearing the tone shift?

Besides politico.

[Parker CA]

20. I was speaking only of the politico article. Lots of outlets tend to follow them

on a wide array of issues, so I'll be curious to see if the overa tine begins to shift.

Politico is the last source I'd imagine hedging unless they felt a real need to do so.

[Betty Karlson]

22. I call that shifting a good sign.

May Ms Coakley share Mrs Clinton's come-back ability.

[butterfly77]

15. Just what I was thinking..

they must see something with the turnout and it may be a blowout with Coakley winning..

[Grand Taurean]

18. Hedging their bets.