2020 New Hampshire Primary: How did my polling averages fare?

Given the extremely volatile polling for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination following the start of primary and caucus voting, I will not provide global monthly updates for the next few months. Instead, I will focus on the first handful of primaries and caucuses: Iowa on February 3, New Hampshire on February 11, Nevada on February 22, South Carolina on February 20, the 14 Super Tuesday contests on March 3, and so forth.

Also: I now weight higher polls conducted partially (1.33 or 1.67) or entirely (2.00) after February 3, 2020, than polls conducted entirely before February 4, 2020. I similarly weight higher polls conducted partially (2.33 or 2.67) or entirely (3.00) after Feb 11, 2020.

Unlike the molasses-slow pace it took for results from the 2020 Iowa Caucuses to be released—ultimately leading to the resignation of Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price—95+% of the results from the 2020 New Hampshire Primary were tabulated and released within five hours of the final poll closings at 8 pm EST on February 11, 2020.

This improvement is undoubtedly due to the two “sharing size” bags of M&M’s—one plain, one peanut—I purchased at our local CVS after dropping our eldest daughter at her swim team workout. These candies have long been a staple of our election night watch parties, yet I neglected to buy some for the Iowa Caucuses the previous week.

Scan0046

Earlier that day, meanwhile, I had published my final New Hampshire Primary WAPA (weighted-adjusted polling average) for the 11 then-declared Democratic presidential candidates, calculated five different ways (Table 1):

  • 71 since January 1, 2019
  • 57 since the 1st Democratic debate on June 26, 2019
  • 35 since the 5th Democratic debate on November 19, 2019
  • 27 since the 7th Democratic debate on January 14, 2020
  • 15 since the Iowa Caucuses on February 3, 2020
    • 14 starting February 4 or later
    • 1 (Monmouth University) on February 3

Table 1: Final New Hampshire Primary WAPA for declared 2020 Democratic presidential nomination candidates

Candidate All Polls Since 1st Debate Since 5th Debate Since 7th Debate Since

Iowa

Sanders 23.0 23.1 24.8 25.5 26.4
Buttigieg 16.7 17.0 18.8 19.4 21.4
Biden 15.8 15.3 14.0 13.0 12.2
Warren 14.3 14.7 12.9 12.6 13.1
Klobuchar 7.0 7.2 8.6 9.3 9.7
Gabbard 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.2
Yang 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.2
Steyer 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6
Bennet 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6
Bloomberg 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1
Patrick 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
DK/Other 13.1 12.2 9.6 9.2 7.1

Based solely on these numbers, one could reasonably draw the following conclusions:

  • United States Senator (“Senator”) from Vermont Bernie Sanders; former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar were rising in the polls heading into the Iowa Caucuses.
  • Former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren were declining in the polls.
  • No other candidate was moving in the polls one way or the other.

Comparing WAPA to results. Table 2 lists the results of the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Primary as of 2 am EST on February 13, 2020:

Table 2: Percentage of vote received in 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Primary

Candidate % Vote
Sanders 25.8
Buttigieg 24.5
Klobuchar 19.9
Warren 9.3
Biden 8.4
Steyer 3.6
Gabbard 3.3
Yang 2.8
Write-in votes (including Bloomberg) 1.4
Patrick 0.4
Bennet 0.3
All others 0.4

Table 3 lists the arithmetic differences between each candidate’s final Iowa Caucuses WAPA and each of the three reported measures; positive values indicate better performance in the Caucuses than in the polls.

Table 3: Arithmetic difference between Vote % and WAPA, 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Primary

Candidate All

Polls

Since 1st Debate Since 5th Debate Since 7th Debate Since

 Iowa

Mean

Differnce

Sanders 2.8 2.7 1.0 0.3 -0.6 1.2
Buttigieg 7.8 7.5 5.7 5.1 3.1 5.8
Biden -7.4 -6.9 -5.6 -4.6 -3.8 -5.7
Warren -5.1 -5.5 -3.7 -3.4 -3.9 -4.3
Klobuchar 12.9 12.7 11.3 10.6 10.2 11.5
Gabbard -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.2 0.1 -0.2
Yang -0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.5
Steyer 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9
Bennet -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2
Bloomberg 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4
Patrick 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Two candidates—Buttigieg and Klobuchar—strongly outperformed their final New Hampshire Primary WAPA, by an average of 5.8 and 11.5 percentage points (“points”), respectively. The polling momentum they appeared to have coming out of the Iowa Caucuses was apparent in the final results, especially given that the polls conducted in the following week were the least inaccurate.

Sanders narrowly edged Buttigieg, 25.8% to 24.5%, to win the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Primary, finishing an average 1.2 points higher than his WAPA; again WAPA was more accurate the closer in time it was calculated. Businessman Tom Steyer also finished nearly one point better in the voting (3.6%) than his average WAPA, which differed little in accuracy by time of calculation.

By contrast, Biden (-5.7 points) and Warren (-4.3 points) strongly underperformed their WAPA, with the more recent estimates again the least inaccurate.

One immediate consequence of these results is that three candidates, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and entrepreneur Andrew Yang, ended their presidential campaigns. As with the 15 former candidates who preceded them, all three men did so with grace and class. One other candidate, United States House of Representatives member from Hawaii Tulsi Gabbard, finished 7th in New Hampshire, barely registered in Iowa and is not close to making any future debates, so her status in this race is somewhat shaky.

Bottom line. To evaluate these comparisons globally, I calculated two difference measures for each of the five WAPA, excluding “DK/Other” (Table 4):

  1. Means of the absolute value of each candidate’s value in Table 3
  2. Sums of the squared differences (“SSE”) between each of the five WAPA value and the results value.

Table 4: Global differences between WAPA and results, 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Primary

Polling period Mean AV Difference SSE
All Polls 3.5 317.4
Since 1st Debate only 3.4 304.2
Since 5th Debate only 2.7 207.7
Since 7th Debate only 2.4 172.4
Since Iowa Caucuses only 2.3 145.3

All five versions of WAPA were quite accurate, despite sharp late movement by Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren, missing by between 2.3 and 3.5 points in either direction, on average. Not surprisingly, the older the collection of polls used to calculate WAPA, the higher the average “miss.”

As with the Iowa Caucuses, meanwhile, and despite newer polls greatly outweighing older polls: the older the set of polls used to calculate New Hampshire Democratic Primary WAPA values, the less predictive they were of the actual results. And, again, the older-polls WAPA may shift too slowly to capture significant late movement.

Given this consistency over the first two contests, I will continue to use this template to assess WAPA.

Now, on to the Nevada Caucuses on February 22, 2020!

Until next time…

2020 New Hampshire Primary: Final Polling Update

[This poll was updated at 4:15 EST on February 11, 2020 to account for a Change Research poll (C) conducted February 8-9, 2020.]

At just after midnight EST on February 11, 2020, a total of 27 Democratic voters gathered in the small New Hampshire hamlets of Dixville Notch, Hart’s Location and Millsfield to cast the first votes in the 2020 New Hampshire Presidential Primary. Here are the tallies from those early votes (which, while fun to watch, have historically shown little relationship to the way the statewide electorate votes); I jotted them down as they were being broadcast live on MSNBC:

Table 1: 2020 New Hampshire Presidential Primary votes from three towns voting just after midnight

Candidate Dixville Notch Hart’s Location Millsfield Total
Klobuchar 0 6 2 8
Sanders 1 2 1 4
Warren 0 4 0 4
Yang 0 3 0 3
Biden 0 1 1 2
Buttigieg 1 0 1 2
Bloomberg 2 0 0 2
Steyer 0 1 0 1
Gabbard 0 1 0 1
TOTAL 4 18 5 27

The perhaps-surprising winner in these early returns is United States Senator (“Senator”) from Minnesota Amy Klobuchar, who had a very well-received debate performance in Manchester, New Hampshire on February 7; as the data in Table 2 suggest, she may have some momentum from that performance. Also, the name of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg does not appear on the either the Democratic or Republican New Hampshire Primary ballot; these votes, as well as the only Republican vote cast in Dixville Notch, are write-in votes.[1]

To learn how I calculate candidate WAPA (weighted-adjusted polling average), please see here. I weight polls conducted partially (1.33 or 1.67) or wholly (2.00) after the Iowa Caucuses higher than prior polls.

Here is a photograph of a now-defunct ice cream parlor in scenic Portsmouth, New Hampshire in early September 2005; I was never the owner of this establishment:

Scan0046

**********

As of 2 a.m. EST on February 11, 2020, here is a breakdown of publicly-available New Hampshire Primary polls:

  • 72 since January 1, 2019
  • 58 since the 1st Democratic debate on June 26, 2019
  • 36 since the 5th Democratic debate on November 19, 2019
  • 28 since the 7th Democratic debate on January 14, 2020
  • 16 since the Iowa Caucuses on February 3, 2020
    • 15 starting February 4 or later
    • 1 (Monmouth University) on February 3

The final two tracking polls by Emerson College and the University of New Hampshire overlapped in time with each organization’s prior tracking polls, so I only used the most recent ones.

Table 2: Final New Hampshire WAPA for declared 2020 Democratic presidential nomination candidates

Candidate All Polls Since 1st Debate Since 5th Debate Since 7th Debate Since

Iowa

Sanders 23.0 23.1 25.0 25.7 26.6
Buttigieg 16.7 17.0 18.8 19.4 21.4
Biden 15.7 15.2 13.9 12.9 12.1
Warren 14.0 14.2 12.8 12.5 12.7
Klobuchar 7.0 7.2 8.5 9.3 9.6
Gabbard 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.3
Yang 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.3
Steyer 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6
Bennet 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bloomberg 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1
Patrick 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5
DK/Other 13.4 12.6 9.4 9.2 7.3

Besides Klouchar, the top two finishers in the Iowa Caucuses—Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg—also appear to have momentum going into New Hampshire. The likelihood is that Sanders will win the primary—though not by anywhere close to his 2016 winning margin of 60% to 38% over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—perhaps followed by Buttigieg.

By contrast, former Vice President Joe Biden and, to a lesser extent, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren appear to be fading somewhat. United States of House of Representatives member Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and businessman Tom Steyer remain clustered around 2.5-3.7 percentage points, while Colorado Senator Michael Bennet and former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick appear to be non-factors at this point.

We shall see.

Until next time…

[1] President Donald Trump received 15 votes in Hart’s Location and 16 votes in Millsfield, while former Massachusetts Governor William Weld received 4 votes and 1 vote, respectively. Mary Maxwell received 1 vote in Hart’s Location.

Organizing by themes I: American politics

This site benefits/suffers/both from consisting of posts about a wide range of topics, all linked under the amorphous heading “data-driven storytelling.”

In an attempt to impose some coherent structure, I am organizing related posts both chronologically and thematically.

Given that I have multiple degrees in political science, with an emphasis on American politics, it is not surprising that I have written a few dozen posts in that field…and that is where I begin.

I Voted sticker

**********

I started by writing about the 2016 elections, many based on my own state-partisanship metric (which I validate here).

The absurdity of the Democratic “blue wall” in the Electoral College

Hillary Clinton’s performance in five key states (IA, MI, OH, PA, WI)

Why Democrats should look to the south (east and west)

How having (or not) a college degree impacted voting

An alternative argument about gerrymandering

An early foray into what I call “Clinton derangement”

The only statistic from 2016 that really matters

**********

Here are a few posts about presidential polling (before FiveThirtyEight jumped on the bandwagon)…

Be careful interpreting President Trump’s approval polls

…and the 2017 special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District (GA-6)

Ossoff and the future of the Democratic Party

Using GA-6 polls to discuss statistical significance testing (spoiler: I am not a fan)

**********

And then I started looking ahead to 2018…first to control of the United States House of Representatives (“House”). Note that posts are often cross-generic…

An alternative argument about gerrymandering

The impact of voting to repeal (and not replace) Obamacare (May 2017)

I debut my simple forecast model (June 2017)

Making more points about polls and probability

A March 2018 update

A followup March 2018 update (after which I stopped writing about the 2018 House elections)

…then the United States Senate

The view from May 2017

What it meant that the Senate voted NOT to repeal Obamacare in July 2017

The view from December 2017

…and, finally, races for governor in 2017 AND 2018.

The view from June 2017

A tangentially-related post may be found here.

**********

After Labor Day 2018, I developed models (based on “fundamentals” and polls) to “forecast” the Senate elections…

September 4

September 13

October 23

…and those for governor (the October 23 post addressed both sets of races)

September 16

These culminated in…

My Election Day cheat sheet

And my own assessment of how I did (spoiler: not half bad)

Speaking of assessments, I took a long look at my partisan lean measure here.

And I carefully examined some polling aggregation assumptions here.

**********

Beginning in April 2019, I turned my attention to the 2020 elections.

First came a wicked early look at the relative standings of the dozens of women and men actually or potentially seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination:

April 2019

Then came a wicked early look at the 2020 presidential election itself.

April 2019

And, of course, a wicked early look at races for Senate (2020) and governor (2019-20).

With a post-Labor-Day update. Which I followed with an October update.

With the first of regular updates to both the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and the 2020 presidential election in May 2019

This post both set up the first Democratic debates and had good news for Democrats looking ahead to 2020.

This post set up the second Democratic debates and drew some conclusions about who “won” and “lost” the first debates.

This post updated the data for August 2019 and drew some conclusions about who “won” and “lost” the second debates.

Ditto for September 2019, October 2019, November 2019,  December 2019, January 2020

Once voting commenced in the 2020 Democratic presidentil nomination process, I wrote posts specific to the

As for the 2020 general election:

On November 17, 2020, I wrote a comprehensive summary of the elections, including assessing my own projections.

I also weighed into the question of who former Vice President Joe Biden should name as his vice-presidential running mate.

And three assessments of Emerson College polls (one, two, three).

And one comparison of Emerson polling to that of Quinnipiac University.

**********

Finally, there are other politics posts that defy easy categorization.

I indulged in some speculative alternative history about the presidential elections of 1948 and 2000.

I delineated issue differences between Democrats and Republicans.

I got a bit personal here and here, concluding with the fact that, despite overlapping in the same residential college at Yale for two years, I did NOT know Associate Justice Brett Kavanagh at all.

I argued for the abolition of the Electoral College…then observed the advantage Republicans have.

Until next time…