After getting the New Hampshire polls and predictions so wrong, presidential polls seem to be plumbing new depths in confusing, contradictory figures. The New York Times touts part of a poll that it co-commisioned with CBS showing Barack Obama surging in terms of electability - whether voters believe he can win - while the same polls seems to show no change in terms of actual support. Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey of the blog Captain's Quarters finds another problem with the poll, in which he asks, Why Publish it?
And how did the NYT and CBS partnership determine these trends? They surveyed a grand total of 504 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide. That at least might pass the smell test, although it makes for suspect predictive value. For the Republicans, they managed only 282 likely primary voters, one of the worst efforts since the Los Angeles Times couldn't find 180 registered Republicans for its polling late last month -- and predicted that Romney had overcome Huckabee's Iowa surge.
The Washington Post however, finds Obama's support now within striking distance of Hillary Clinton. (The full details of the poll can be found here.)
As NPR's On the Media says, for the pundits, the waiting is the hardest part. And Brian Williams of NBC News said after the New Hampshire debacle, the media (and their pollsters) will "live to screw up another day".
Blog posts and articles that caught my eye:
• Bill Press calls on Chris Matthews to apologise for saying that the only reason Hillary Clinton won her Senate seat is because "her husband messed around".
• Matthew Yglesias of Atlantic.com calls the Clinton strategy Rovian of attacking Barack Obama's position on Iraq.
• Karl Rove deconstructs New Hampshire and says that primary polling is like reading "chicken entrails".
• Michael Medved ponders the question: Who is the weakest GOP candidate?
Technorati Tags: US elections
