Why NH pollsters may be missing voters

[Breeze54]

Why NH pollsters may be missing voters

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/why_nh_pollster.html

By John Yemma January 6, 2008 03:09 PM

By Michael Kranish
Globe Staff

CONCORD, N.H. --

As New Hampshire poll results are being released in the countdown to primary day, keep in mind the story of Fergus Cullen. The 35-year-old Republican has managed to avoid being called by a pollster for months because he has no landline telephone.

Instead, he has only a cellphone -- and pollsters tend not to call cellphones.

Cullen is hardly an anonymous New Hampshirite. He is the chairman of the state's Republican Party, and few have a better sense of the pulse of the electorate. In a recent interview in his office, which is decorated with a picture of one of Cullen's heroes, former President Nixon, Cullen wondered whether the polls are missing thousands of people like him -- and whether that will have a significant impact on the polling results.

For starters, Cullen said, few of the state's thousands of college students have landlines. The same is true the Granite State's younger, non-college population. If these voters turn out in far larger number than in the past, as happened during the Iowa caucuses, then the polls could be undercounting the electorate here. Some analysts believe that is one reason Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic caucuses was larger than anticipated.

As people drop their landlines, pollsters have worried about missing segments of the population in their opinion surveys. Phone directories are rare for cell phones. And many carriers charge the answering party for each call, which makes cellphone surveys problematic.

But Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said there are fewer people in New Hampshire without landlines than in many other states. He does not think exclusion of cellphone-only voters will have a statistically significant impact on polls this time around.

Nonetheless, Cullen said that possible under-polling could affect candidates such as Representative Ron Paul of Texas. Many of Paul's voters are young and might be more likely to have only a cellphone. The difference might be small, perhaps just one percentage point in the polls. But it could be significant in a tight race. The question is whether Paul would draw equally from his opponents or take a disproportionate number from one candidate.

"A pollster would tell you that it doesn't matter if you exclude them provided they are voting in the same way as other voters are," Cullen said. "But I personally am not persuaded by that. It seems clear to me that younger voters have different preferences from other voters and that younger voters are disproportionately more likely to have given up their landline."


More...

[skipos]

1. Ron Paul hasn't been able to build upon his collection of racists and underinformed

college kids very well. I expected him to do much better in Iowa.

[Breeze54]

2. WTF? I think this article is about ALL the polls...

WTH are you referring to? :shrug:

"Paul's collection of racists and underinformed college kids"

:wtf:

It seems to me that college kids and younger (of voting age) are well informed!

That's mostly who I'm seeing on the TV in NH!

[skipos]

3. WTF yourself.

My comment pertains to this:
"Nonetheless, Cullen said that possible under-polling could affect candidates such as Representative Ron Paul of Texas."
Ron Paul won't do much better than the polls indicate in NH. That was the case in IA.

"It seems to me that college kids and younger (of voting age) are well informed!"
Not the ones supporting Ron Paul.

[Breeze54]

4. Don't get nasty, pal!

Of course Cullen is referencing repubs. He's the Repub Chair! :P