Interesting new detail emerging on the theory that a fair number of voters in New Hampshire told pollsters they would vote for Obama but, once in the privacy of the voting booth (unlike the very public caucuses in Iowa), they could not pull the trigger. It's been said that there was simply a very late surge for Hillary and voters simply changed their minds. However, some EXIT surveys apparently show that even coming out of the polls, voters gave Obama a 5% bulge -- if they were being honest. Where did those votes go? Maybe he never had them to start with -- and it was, as Bill Clinton might have put it, only a "fairy tale." Or maybe not. I have a full piece up on this at E&P tonight:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003694676
7 comments:
Wait, let me get this right: Democrats are bigots? After all these years of Northeastern liberals tagging Republicans and conservatives as harboring racist beliefs. After all these charges that people like Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are "house slaves." It turns out that it was all a case of projection?!
You could cut the irony with a chainsaw.
It does not logically follow that because Obama's percentage was the same that all the undecideds went to Clinton. For many people, it is a close call between Obama and Clinton so when Clinton showed the warmth that many people have suspected she has but rarely seen she drew some of those people back.
Your depction of Bill Clinton's remark is a slur on Bill. Bill was speaking our of frustration because Obama was getting all those votes because the media was portraying Obama was a fairy tale prince.
Both are good candidates but they are essentially joined at the hip because if they offend the other's supporters too badly the 'publican party (hey, if they can drop a syllable off my party's name I can drop one of there) will sneak into office with less than majority support again.
I think you're reaching here -- it's pretty simple. There were a lot of folks who were undecided going into primary day and many of those folks voted for Hillary.
And I will also say this: I'm a NH Democrat, and I find it exceedingly insulting that anyone would question my motives in casting my vote. I am neither a bigot nor a misogynist.
I vote for the person I feel is the best person for the job, and that's that. And I believe this is equally true, especially amongst my fellow dems, who are far less likely to display xenophobia or bigotry.
You've put forth a theory that has no merit whatsoever if you factor in the large numbers of undecideds.
You must be a "journalist."
Is there a single documented case of the so-called Bradley effect in which it takes place in a Democratic primary?
Every case I've ever heard mentioned were cases in which there was a black Democrat running against a troglodyte Republican. Some people were clearly embarrassed to admit they were voting for the troglodyte. Is it plausible that any Democrat would be embarrassed to admit they are voting for Hillary -- as a woman a breakthrough candidate in any case -- and felt they must say they were voting for Obama instead?
In the end, explanations of the discrepancy have to pass common sense tests like this. Pollsters simply may not have the competence to call some races correctly, and may systematically get things wrong in certain cases. They think they have a real science and they don't -- witness the discrepancies in the 2004 Presidential exit polls which are still not understood in a way that all can agree on.
A little humility in pollsters, should, I'd think, be the order of the day, given their obvious failure.
Blaming these anomalies on race is simply cheap scapegoating of their own inadequacies as scientists.
There is a BIG glaring problem with this theory. EVERY ONE of those candidates sited in your story were DEMOCRATS nominated by democrats.
This was a DEM primary. If race were a strong factor and the "Bradley effect" was the reason, wouldn't Bradley, Wilder, etc. NOT have received the DEM endorsement in the first place?
The real cause of this problem was reporters reading the polls the way they wanted them to be. The huge undecided plus the 30% plus who said they could change their mind was NOT reported. Look closely at everyone of those single polls and you will find both numbers prominently part of the analysis.
Please don't buy into this spin. Candidate surrogates are getting out of hand.
Are there people who will NOT vote for a candidate based soley on race? YES
Are there people who will NOT vote for a candidate based soley on sex? YES
Are there people who will NOT vote for a candidate based soley on religion? YES
Is this a new phenomenon? NO
When is it brought up as being unfair? Only when supporters for the person who did NOT get the votes want to find an excuse to blame the outcome.
It is hypocritical to spin the results in NH as less authentic and legitimate due to percesived racism when there has been so much sexism, religious discrimination, agesim, and other forms of irrational bias so far.
It's so obvious. Hackers are at work again manipulation the electronic voting machines. Pollsters may be wrong to some degree, but not to this amount.
Post a Comment