by Frank James
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, one of the nation's best known political polling experts, has a noteworthy opinion piece in the New York Times today that raises the discomfiting possibility that the reason pollsters got New Hampshire's results so wrong on the Democratic side was because they didn't foresee the degree to which lower income, less educated white New Hampshirites wouldn't vote for an African-American presidential candidate.
Kohut isn't saying this is for sure what happened. It's just a theory. No one yet knows what happened in New Hampshire.
But Kohut makes a fairly interesting argument that other explanations of what may have happened don't seem likely:
First, the problem was not a general failure of polling methodology. These same pollsters did a superb job on the Republican side. Senator John McCain won by 5.5 percent. The last wave of polls found a margin of 5.3 percent. So whatever the problem was, it was specific to Mrs. Clinton versus Mr. Obama.
Second, the inaccuracies don’t seem related to the subtleties of polling methods. The pollsters who overestimated Mr. Obama’s margin ranged from CBS and Gallup (who have the most rigorous voter screens and sampling designs, and have sterling records in presidential elections) to local and computerized polling operations, whose methods are a good deal less refined. Everyone got it wrong.Third, the mistakes were not the result of a last-minute trend going Mrs. Clinton’s way. Yes, according to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls.
Fourth, some have argued that the unusually high turnout may have caused a problem for the pollsters. It’s possible, but unlikely. While participation was higher than in past New Hampshire primaries, the demographic and political profile of the vote remains largely unchanged. In particular, the mix of Democrats to independents — 54 percent to 44 percent respectively — is close to what it was in 2000, the most recent New Hampshire primary without an incumbent in the race.
To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.
Kohut suspects that low-income, lesser educated whites, who decline phone calls from pollsters at a very high rate, also are the same white voters most disinclined to vote for a black candidate.
It may have been what pollsters famously call the Bradley Effect, after one-time California politician Tom Bradley who ran as an African American to be that state's governor.
Bradley, who had been Los Angeles's popular, genial mayor, had a healthy lead in the polls, but the Democrat wound up losing in a shocker. Pollsters believe many white voters misrepresented their preferred candidate to pollsters because they didn't want to appear racist.
That phenomenon has been observed in other races. Kohut recalls seeing it in New York City in a race where he was a pollster:
Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.
I’ve experienced this myself. In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall.
Kohut's view has support. Tom Edsall has a Huffington Post piece that quotes Kohut and others on this issue.
This is from Edsall's piece:
"Anytime you've got white undecided voters pulling the lever choosing between a white and a black candidate, that is when the race issue is most important," notes Drew Westen of Emory University. "Both campaigns' internal polls showed a 10 to 12 point Obama lead; to see that evaporate into a three-point loss, when he didn't have any gaffes, that has a ring to it…"
Obama has done exponentially better than the three African Americans who sought the presidential nomination before him: Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Nonetheless, at the moment race remains the most salient of factors.
Few Democratic politicians, especially Clinton, would publicly cite Obama's race as a liability. But in brutal political terms, this unstated vulnerability may be used to persuade leaders of the party establishment and fundraising network to stick with Clinton through what is now sure to be a bruising fight until at least February 5, and perhaps all the way to the convention in August.
Again, there are those who disagree with the Bradley Effect thesis. One would be Frank Newport, editor and chief of the Gallup Poll. On his Gallup Guru blog on the USA Today website, he wrote this:
Some have also argued that white voters in New Hampshire told pollsters they were going to vote for a black candidate (Obama) but when actually in the voting booth ended up not wanting to do so. This hypothesis has been evoked over the years in elections with black candidates, but has been difficult to prove. Discrepancies between pre-election polls and the actual vote for black candidates, in fact, are certainly not the norm. This year, as an example, the pre-election polls in Iowa were very accurate in relationship to Obama's actual vote in the caucuses
But Kohut has a response to this:
Why didn’t this problem come up in Iowa? My guess is that Mr. Obama may have posed less of a threat to white voters in Iowa because he wasn’t yet the front-runner. Caucuses are also plainly different from primaries.
Future primaries will give us a chance to see if this trend continues, with polls overestimating Obama's support and low-income, less educated whites breaking largely for Clinton or Edwards.
If it does, it would mean that Obama might have difficulty winning a key constituency within the Democratic Party. And it would raise questions as to whether such voters would vote for Obama if he became the nominee, cross party lines to vote for the Republican nominee (as in Harold Washington's landmark 1983 race to become Chicago mayor) or stay home.
Comments
The pollsters who got it so wrong in NH, and the media who publicize their polls, chant in unison: "It wasn't our fault!"
Self-serving, predictable, and pathetic.
Posted by: Bruce | January 10, 2008 11:46 AM
If true, it just means it's a bad poll.
It's the pollster responsibility to get a good demographic sample. A good sample of low-income, urban white households should have shown them leaning to Clinton and been extrapolated thusly.
Posted by: converse | January 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Would we be saying that Iowa is less racist than NH?
Posted by: bill r. | January 10, 2008 12:14 PM
The same thing happens to black voters. Many blacks aren't in favor of a leader of color skin. They tend to prefer the lead of whites.
Posted by: Ed Homer | January 10, 2008 12:27 PM
I know why the pollsters got it all wrong. When John Edwards makes the comment someone shouldn't be crying if they're going to be the leader of the US...that infuriate the women...so some of the supporters that USED to support for Edward left him and vote of Hilary. Likewise, some women that were supposed to vote for Obama changed their mind. But to me that's outrageous...because first of all you don't vote for someone based on gender and color PERIOD!! If that's how you select president...then there is something seriously wrong with America.
Posted by: reptilexcq | January 10, 2008 12:29 PM
Senator Obama is rare kind. He is very very smart politician and he knows how to unite this country (he is truly amazing!!). All my family members and friends are now supporting Obama...We are thrilled to give Senator Obama the chance he deserves!!
Posted by: newmusicnme | January 10, 2008 12:30 PM
White male candidates lost more ground than Obamba... There is no evidence of a "Bradley Effect".
Simple math demonstrates that the N.H. democratic primary result is not an example of the “Bradley Effect”. Pollster.com tracks national polls and creates standard estimates based on the results of many different poles. Their standard estimates leading up to the vote were 36.7% for Obama, 30.4% for Clinton, 18.4% for Edwards, 5.6% for Richardson, 2.5% for Biden, and apparently 6.4% undecided or voting for minor candidates. The actual results were 36.4% for Obama (almost exactly correct), 39.1% for Clinton (up 8.7%), 17% for Edwards (down 1.4%), 5% for Richardson (down .6%), 0% for Biden (down 2.5%), and 1% for Kucinich.
The only candidates that actually lost ground on Clinton were white males (Edwards and Biden). More than likely, the massive media attention focused on her emotional explanation for why she is running and her debate performance helped her capture a slight lead among undecided voters as well as taking some votes (probable women) away from all other candidates in the race.
An additional factor may be what will be come to be know as the "Hillary Clinton Effect" - that people, in particular women, were embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they were supporting a female candidate that is unpopular in the national media. Both Obama and Clinton are perfectly electable in this day and age.
Posted by: kimbiaje | January 10, 2008 12:43 PM
It could be posssible that at the Iowa caucus, your vote was 'seen' and there is a persuasive factor due to group movement toward one candidate or another, whereas at the primary, voting in a booth is totally private. I think its destructive to keep harping on low income less educated factor as possible reason for racism. This sets up another ' ism' classism if there is such a word.
Posted by: Sandra Grasso-Boyd | January 10, 2008 12:44 PM
The basis of this racism theory is absurd. Think about it...
Imagine you are a white democratic voter with a racist streak that you wish to "hide" from a pollster. (We can fairly assume such people actually exist.)
Now the pollster asks you which candidate you plan to vote for. Because one of the three top contenders happens to be black, you believe that acknowledging your intent to vote for either the white woman (Clinton) or white man (Edwards) will reveal you to be a racist.
So you say "Barack Obama" in order to conceal your prejudice.
Come on! Use some common sense overpaid columnists and talking heads. The theory is completely untenable.
We have not yet reached a bottom in this country where voting for a white candidate in a three way race that includes a non-white directly implies racism. Thus, there is nothing for the true racist to lie about.
Posted by: john stewart | January 10, 2008 12:47 PM
The race issue will become more pronounced and debated as we see the real truth behind racial preferences among black, Latino, Asian, and other minority groups. I would venture a guess that for Latino, Asian and other non-black minority groups, the race of the top candidates will be a significant issue. A key question would be: Why should the first non-white president of the U.S. be an African-American? Why not a Latino or Asian American? Although the Iowa caucuses might suggest that white America might be color-blind, I wonder if non-white America is as color-blind, as the polls would suggest. Recall the LA street riots coming out of the Rodney King case. There was a lot of latent inter-racial tension that exploded in the streets of LA. I don't think the race issue is limited to the black v. white question. I think is it's much more complicated and multi-layered than the two-color scheme. All shades of skin color are factors in the election of the U.S. president for 2008. Beyond the black vote, the spotlight would then focus on the Latino vote, the Asian vote, etc. This election would be truly historic, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. From my own analysis, I think the women of America will decide who gets to sit in the White House. After all, American women come in all shades of skin color and political affiliations.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2008 12:47 PM
This claim is without factual or even anecdotal support. As a NH voter and Obama supporter, it is offensive. How come these pundits don't mention that Edwards' suppport was overstated too? The real explanation is clear. Clinton lead for MONTHS until Iowa. A three or four day lead for Obama is not evidence of entrenched support. This short term movement was overblown in importance. Second, the polls show that women rallied more to Clinton by 12%. Most of those obviously came from Edwards, not Obama. Many of my female friends entered the booth intending to vote for either Edwards or Obama but couldn't bring themselves to vote against the first serious woman candidate. They wanted to express solidarity with her after the press starting writing her obituary and questioned her qualifications after her emotional moment. This truly offended many women. It was support for a fellow female that lead to the results, it wasn't racism.
Posted by: mark | January 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Perhaps it was as simple as more voters in N.H. felt Ms. Clinton was the better candidate. Or would that be too simplistic? In fact, who knows how many of Edwards' voters chose Hilary over him. Why does there have to be any agendas? Why should race even be considered as a factor? Polsters, quit looking for excuses; it might even have been your methods on this one were wrong. This is a new territory in American politics. You might try a new method of exploring it.
Posted by: Dewey | January 10, 2008 12:51 PM
Idiocracy is here!!
The caucus v. primary effect is a noteworthy point that feeds into the idea that people will say one thing publicly and do another in private. It will be at very least interesting, if not horribly shocking, to see how the polls align with results throughout the process. Sadly, if this affect plays out, BHO may inadvertently end up being the worst thing to happen to race relations in America since Imus.
Posted by: I have lots of black friends | January 10, 2008 12:56 PM
the news media is responsible since cnn commemtator baited obama on foreign leaders.. there are certain news media played a play with clinton.i saw there faces where with disgust at clintons loss. now they blame poor whites. chicky news commemtators won.
Posted by: ablerealty@sbcglobal.net | January 10, 2008 12:58 PM
Kohut, should be known as KoNut. He has nothing to go on to make his absurd claim, but makes it anyway.
Exit polls found that most undecideds broke to the Queen B. There is some evidence her crying game helped. There IS NO evidence race played any role. But that won't stop the morons in the media from trying to inject race into any equation.
Hillary lead in New Hampshire most of the time in the past year, except from the Iowa caucus to Tuesday. And she barely won New Hampshire at that. That is the fact, not some dingy theory from some dingy lefty being circulated by some dingy reporter from the Trib.
Posted by: John D | January 10, 2008 1:00 PM
Why should anyone be surprised that white Liberals feel so intimidated by the PC police that they lie to the pollsters about who they voted for?
The pollsters (and the journalists who trumpet these polls as "news") are reluctant to admit that voters LIE to pollsters, because their livelihood depends on the illusion that people tell pollsters the truth.
Posted by: Bruce | January 10, 2008 1:03 PM
bruce: of course pollsters want to find a reason why their polls when there is such a large discrepency between the poll and the result that sampling error, when you look at how many different polls were taken, couldn't possibly account for it. The Bradley effect has been known about since long before this particular poll.
Converse: If you read the article, you'd realize that the polls do in fact get a good demographic sample. Unfortunately, as the article points out, less educated lower-class whites who do answer calls are more likely to support a black candidate than those in the same demographic who decline to answer.
From the article: "But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews."
Posted by: tim | January 10, 2008 1:07 PM
THE POLLS DID NOT GET IT WRONG. The Clintons stole the election in N.H. This is the ONLY logical explanation as to unprecedented divergence between all the poll results, showing Obama with double digit leads over Hillary, and the election results. The Clintons have resorted to paying people to vote their way before, and it is a known fact that they bused thousands of people into New Hampshire from Massachusettes and other places, to attend Hillary's rallys and other events in N.H. Hillary was desperate. If she had lost the N.H. primary, her campaign would have really been in the toilet. I KNOW that many are thinking the way I am about this situation, and the only real surprise about this is there hasn't yet been an investigation into who voted and how the votes were counted in N.H. Perhaps there will be though. For the sake of this country, I hope so.
Posted by: Richard | January 10, 2008 1:16 PM
"MEDIA SPEAKS"
WHO LEFT US OUT? WHO DIDN'T TELL US THE VOTE WASN'T CAGED?
WHERE IS KARL ROVE? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. A WOMANS VOTE COUNTED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE? WHAT IS THAT.
WHERE IS SARA TAYLOR, A BLACK MILITARY STATIONED IN IRAQ VOTE COUNTED? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE, I THOUGHT WE SEALED THOSE VOTES AS PROVISIONAL BALLOTS. CAN SOMEONE PROVE TO ME THAT MILITARY PERSON IS STILL ALIVE.
WHO COUNTED THE VOTE? THIS IS AN OUTCRY.
CAN SOMEONE GET MONICA GOODLING ON THE PHONE NOW.
TAKE BACK THAT IMMUNITY, SOMEONE IS COUNTING VOTES.
IS KATHERINE HARRIS OUT OF AN ENSANE ASYLUM, BECAUSE SOMEONE COUNTED VOTES IN AMERICA AND THE BILL BENNETT IS UPSET AGAIN.
LIVE ON CNN!
Posted by: Roger Morris | January 10, 2008 1:19 PM
"Would we be saying that Iowa is less racist than NH?"
No, I don't think so. In the article, Kohut is quoted, "Caucuses are also plainly different from primaries." I think this is the catch - the poor whites who either don't respond to polls or lie in polls, are less likely to participate in caucuses, or are less likely to switch at the last minute if they do participate. Voting in a primary is easier and more accessible, plus the anonymity of the voting booth provides protection against having to publicly show racial preference, as in a caucus.
Posted by: Jeremy | January 10, 2008 1:25 PM
Looks like it's the Democrats who are "disinclined" to vote for a black candidate.
And on top of it, lie to pollsters that they
were going to vote for one. Democrats talk the talk but don't walk the talk. Goes with the history of the party. Maybe Obama should become a Republican. After all, George Bush has had more blacks in key positions in the government than any previous president.
Posted by: Soroya | January 10, 2008 1:27 PM
I'm a white independent in NH. I voted Republican because I was lead to believe Obama was going to win in a landslide. Had I known it was going to be close I would have voted for him.
Posted by: J in NH | January 10, 2008 1:29 PM
It is also possible that the early polls predicting a huge win for Obama kept other Obama supporters from voting later that day. No need to come out and vote for him if he is already winning.
Posted by: dl | January 10, 2008 1:31 PM
Still What happened!
As I watched Morning Joe this morning still trying to find out what what wrong with the polls it dawned on me. Barack had speeches with 1500 people at then Monday perhaps they didn't like his message! Maybe they thought he couldn't deliver on his comparison to JFK he likes to make. Perhaps they "after seeing him speak " decided he was a bag of wind and in no way could he deliver on this dream he is living. The voters of New Hampshire decided he like most all politicians, was trying to sell them a bunch of "lies"
"fairy tails""dreams" or Band Instruments for a Grand Parade" just to get elected. How about that as an explanation.
Quick Ramblings
Posted by: Rick B | January 10, 2008 1:34 PM
the one thing that gets me about new hamshire primaries is this.if at any time prior to them hillary acted as if there was no way she could loose.until after iowa she never even considered it.then in defeat she cried.the people of new hamshire and the media fell for it and played it up.her real tone returned the day after the primary.she's great when winning but cries or says rhings like "the boys are picking on me" if it gets hot.is that something great or bomething we should worry about.politics is a big boys and girls game
Posted by: damon | January 10, 2008 1:35 PM
It wasn't race that skewed the results it was voter fraud. The electronic voting system in NH are notorious for easily being tampered with. Anything that is stored on a memory card should be questioned.
Posted by: Doublespeak | January 10, 2008 1:35 PM
If the republican polls where very close to the actual outcome , then i would say the low-income white voters must be independents or democrats ???
Posted by: Marc H. | January 10, 2008 1:36 PM
Is America ready for a colored President? That should be the margin of error.
Posted by: Sajid | January 10, 2008 1:36 PM
Still What happened!
As I watched Morning Joe this morning still trying to find out what what wrong with the polls it dawned on me. Barack had speeches with 1500 people at then Monday perhaps they didn't like his message! Maybe they thought he couldn't deliver on his comparison to JFK he likes to make. Perhaps they "after seeing him speak " decided he was a bag of wind and in no way could he deliver on this dream he is living. The voters of New Hampshire decided he like most all politicians, was trying to sell them a bunch of "lies"
"fairy tails""dreams" or Band Instruments for a Grand Parade" just to get elected. How about that as an explanation.
Quick Ramblings
Posted by: Rick B | January 10, 2008 1:37 PM
Why do we have to go down this same old road? People vote for the candidates that provide them with information and a comfort zone for the future. Perhaps this is a time in America for atonement and a strong direction with strong candidates in the Democratic Party. Polls and reporters need to stop directing people to think according to "their" perceived outcomes. Let the candidates do their job and provide us with the information that we need to make an informed decision between them. The people in NH made their decision because Clinton was emotional and women came out in record numbers for her. Now we are trying to be convenced that perhaps it was a racial thing. Give us a break and let's move on to the candidates' positions and strategies on the economy, health care, peace, education, living wage jobs in America, etc. Please FOCUS on what we Americans really need to know, policy and strategies, to make informed decisions.
Posted by: Paulette | January 10, 2008 1:40 PM
Why is the mainstream media not looking at the Diebold machines?
The NH ballots were counted in secret. The machines are easily manipulated. The exit poles were right on for all the candidates except Clinton and Obama. What is that all about? Shall we let another election be stolen while the national media sits back without comment?
Posted by: Jamie Vanderberg | January 10, 2008 1:40 PM
i guess the bottom line that if the media had not play that tear jerk at least 20 times every 30 minutes then the pollsters probably did have it right
Posted by: damon | January 10, 2008 1:43 PM
Regretful is the name based my feelings after reading this ridiculous article.
Its articles like this which bring race up as an issue and turn many voters off!
Take a look at your three choices for "black" presidents:
Chisholm - Who?
Jackson - Basically a well known preacher/hypocrite.
and Sharpton? To quote Clinton; "Give me a break!"
What has Sharpton done except stir the pot and cause more race tension than even the KKK in recent history.
Maybe people like Obama because he gives hope. He seems honest and does not throw out the same rhetoric that all the other candidates spew forth.
There are those out there who will vote soley on race, but I think those are way less than you put forth in this article.
Posted by: Regretful | January 10, 2008 1:49 PM
If I lived in New Hampshire, I'd be rather incensed at the accusations levelled here. In a broad sweep they are being called racists, even going as far as to label Hillary's supporters as "uneducated and poor". How about people made their decisions in the last 24 hours between two similar candidates? How about Hillary simply did better than Obama? Why must the pundits take this away from Hillary Clinton by maligning the voters in New Hampshire? Perhaps voters get tired of the media 'inevitability' and popularity contests.
Posted by: Diana | January 10, 2008 1:53 PM
Funny how none of us care to at a minimum, "acknowledge" the possibility that race did in fact, play a role in the HUGE discrepancies in the polling numbers. As stated by numerous media outlets, the polls have been historically accurate, well within the margin of error. So, it should not be dismissed, that in NH, race may in fact, have reared its ugly head in its results. An issue that will certainly rear its ugly head again in the general election should Mr Obama win the nomination.
Posted by: Keith M. | January 10, 2008 2:00 PM
I'll admit that race was lingering in my mind to explain the discrepancy in polling but I'm not sure if race was the proven factor of white voters in New Hampshire who changed their vote at the last minute from Obama to Clinton. However, I'll admit that Frank James presents something I think is very compelling and I'm not ready to disprove his explanation. I will continue to watch these primaries to see if his explanation becomes a trend very, very closely.
Posted by: Louis | January 10, 2008 2:00 PM
i cant believe this, stupid white people of new hampshire are going to put a witch in power...theyre going to ruin this country for another four years cuz they dont want to vote for obama..im white...so?
obama is white too..hes mostly irish and scottish and was raised by his white mom...
Posted by: steve myers | January 10, 2008 2:03 PM
the pollsters did a mis service to obama. They removed a lot of new young voters from the rolls by constantly reporting that obama was ahead by so much. Why should new people vote if the pollsters pound your opponent is so far ahead. Remember Obama supporters-your vote does count.Do not give up the just fight.
Posted by: jack | January 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Interesting theory.
Does this, perhaps, indicate that the "Party of Lincoln" still is the better choice for black America?
Posted by: Bob Karl | January 10, 2008 2:05 PM
Let this be a lesson to everyone that white people in Amercia still feel that African Americans have little value to them, and that racism is alive and well in the Good Ole US of A. Don't blame it on the pollsters, blame it on the closet racist who still does have the strength of will to speak their mind.
Posted by: Perefecto | January 10, 2008 2:06 PM
There is also the possibility of last minute changes of heart. When a candidate is campaigning, the media is all over their every move. Perhaps one or both of the candidates said or did something to please or displease the voters.
This is why I take polls with a grain of salt and wait for the actual vote to take place. At this point, I think polls have only one real value and thats providing jobs.
Posted by: Melbel | January 10, 2008 2:07 PM
The idea that Obama didn't win simply because whites are racist is ridiculous. By that same argument any man that didn't vote for Hillary is sexist, any woman that didn't vote for Edwards or Obama is sexist as well, and any minority that did not vote for Hillary or Edwards is a racist.
Is it a possibility that the people of New Hampshire believe public speaking skills should not be a president's only qualification?
Posted by: Joe | January 10, 2008 2:14 PM
This primary will give us enough data about the effect of racial voting on Obama one way or the other.
Frank James, thanks!
Posted by: Dusacre | January 10, 2008 2:16 PM
Let us assume this scenario:
President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez is running for reelection and his opponent is leading by two digits in pols. The day of the election all exit pols indicate his opponent is winning. But the final results declare Hugo Chavez the winner by two percentage points.
What will the US government reaction be?
Answer: Chavez rigged the election or election tampering.
My question why is it that possibility does not exist in this scenario?
Posted by: Jephta Ngu | January 10, 2008 2:19 PM
No, the pollsters did not get it wrong. Obama won in all of the hand counted districts. He lost in the Diebold counted districts. The racial effect is not that diversified in New Hampshire to account for this difference. These are the same machines that were hacked in Ohio and have been proven to be very easy to hack. More information at www.bradlog.com. American must demand an accurate accounting of votes. This cannot continue to be politics as usual.
Posted by: Juanita Ervin | January 10, 2008 2:24 PM
I think people are just nervous about a women becoming president. But, what I say is F*%& them.. Go Hillary. You're gonna do it! Don't give up. We love you. We know all the good you have done in New York.. and all the good you will do as the President of the United States!
Posted by: Erica | January 10, 2008 2:25 PM
Racist???????
Huseen Obama is a MUSLIM , wake up people , He wants change to the Koran, give tax dollars to terrorist,
Posted by: steven | January 10, 2008 2:25 PM
C'mon if some guy on the phone asks mu opinion on who I am going to vote foe. Either I will be completly honest or "play" with him. I could care less what the pollster thinks of me personally. i.e. prejudise, racist or what ever....
Posted by: Leonard Horcajo | January 10, 2008 2:32 PM
Obama is smart, Harvard educated, who is is public life for 10+ years. He has not taken money from big-policy-influencer's. He wants better health care for all, improve security and image of our country. Willing to work hard and he is smart to hire smarter people to work for him.
If people do not want to vote because he is black! Then the real loosers are all of us, who cannot see past the color of the skin. I hope this theory is wrong and is proven in other states.
Posted by: Majeed Arni | January 10, 2008 2:37 PM
This story has some truth in it.First Iowa is a caucaus while NH is a primary.Voting is private here in NH. Its shameful what happened here.
Im gonna advice my friends to talk to their old folks about the ills of racism.Obama is such a leader that the whole world respects.We heard how UK,German newspapers were already calling him Bobby Kennedy.This makes us proud as a nation.These poor folks needs help.Racism is not the cure
Posted by: EE | January 10, 2008 2:41 PM
Right before the primary, polls showed Obama with a large lead and McCain leading the Republicans narrowly. Could it be that many of the Obama Independents decided at the last minute to vote for McCain in the more interesting Republican race and that they now regret it?
Posted by: bob taylor | January 10, 2008 2:47 PM
This whole issue is not race, it's integrity, honesty and capability. Let's show that we the American people can vote for the person, not the party or race.
Posted by: Annette Kusluski | January 10, 2008 2:49 PM
I posted the exact same hypothesis as this article posits on my blog at the Barack Obama website the night of the primary. No one who is thoughtful and truthful can deny the distinct possibility and truth contained in this article. It's been proven over and over again from the time the phenomenon was first noted as the "Bradley effect" that this type of subsconscious voting choice happens based on race. And it's a factor I know the Obama camp has to be considering. Sorry, but our country is not a "Rainbow" coalition and this is not yet the "Star Trek" world of the 23rd century. Someday, maybe and hopefully. Today, sadly not.
Posted by: Pierre Clark | January 10, 2008 2:51 PM
Well...to those who responded that this seems like an absurd theory because a racist white person would claim to support Obama in order to hide their racism...ummm...you missed the point. The point was that as a rule LOWER INCOME LESS EDUCATED WHITES are less likely to be polled period...racist or not. They are more likely to simply refuse to be polled. it is then assumed (probably correctly) that such persons are also less likely to support a Black candidate. The postulate isn't that these people are attempting to hide their racism so much as they are not being counted in the first place...
Posted by: Bernard Brock | January 10, 2008 3:02 PM
Pierre Clark...Please explainthen, why did this
"phenomenon" not fool them in Iowa?
Posted by: bill r. | January 10, 2008 3:05 PM
I might think some of the Bradley effect happened in New Hampshire except for the fact that Obama carried the Democratic male vote by the same percentage that Clinton carried the female vote. So what's the theory, that only White women won't vote for a Black man? Preposterous.
Just as likely is that women didn't want to vote for Clinton in public in Iowa - especially if their husbands were Obama or Edwards supporters.
I'll be interested to see how the Nevada caucus goes - will it be only the Democratic widows that Clinton carries again?
Posted by: Mary Pearlman | January 10, 2008 3:19 PM
I support Hillary because of her strong characters, strong leadership and inteligent. She is something, she is tought, but she is also a human being. We need a leader who have this kind of characters.
I think people are just nervous about a women becoming president because of the huge glass celling covered on all women's head. Think about our history, we have 43 male presidents already, not many of them are as good as Hillary. Go Hillary. You're gonna do it! Don't give up. You will make a great president in our history becasue you deeply care our country, care American people. We love you. As a woman I am so proud of you to have this kind of encouragement and capability to carry on the challenges. We know all the good you have done in New York.. and all the good you will do as the President of the United States!
Posted by: Jing Li | January 10, 2008 3:23 PM
Yeah but look at this Hillary Clinton 'new' message:
“Will you help me carry our winning message of change, opportunity, and achievement to every corner of this country?” Clinton writes in the same campaign e-mail.
A simple Google search for the terms “change,” “opportunity” and “achievement” quickly turns up Obama’s announcement of his presidential bid almost a year ago. Those were the three central themes of his speech in Springfield, Ill.
- Ken Bazinet and James Meek
Unbelievable. She has been riding her entire campaign on Obama's messages. She is really a trying-to-be Obama in a different package!
Posted by: RuthieM | January 10, 2008 3:23 PM
Of course race is a factor. I want to see America's first Black president in my lifetime. Of course gender is a factor. I want to see the first female American president in my lifetime. Ditto for Bill Richardson, as the first Hispanic. The Governor simply can't compete in the ares of gravitas and perceived competence. Edwards was/is totally acceptable, but history cries out for a ground breaking decision in 2008. So, betwee two candidate I really want to vote for, I choose Hillary Clinton. Maybe a lot of other Democrats and Independents think as I do.
Posted by: Norm | January 10, 2008 3:32 PM
Nobody seem to be saying what Clinton said as she sobed, she some sort of called on the people to look what they are trying to do, "you are making a mistake" by voting for this guy. Look at him!
Was she to an extend reminding the people of NH that this guy is black???
Posted by: Julius | January 10, 2008 3:33 PM
You liberals in the media need to get over your screw up with your polling and commentary. You were hell bent on humilating Hillary with your prejudices and it backfire with real voters in New Hampshire. As a black american who worked with Hillary in the 1976 Carter for President (not working in her campaign) I am happy to see that she is showing the side of herself that others are unaware of.
Posted by: bill jenkins | January 10, 2008 3:42 PM
Wow, this is amazing, the article stated what has been known in America for decades. Poll results don't win elections, AND you shouldn't run the country by poll results either.
As a black man, I am personally shocked at how Obama is being likened to JFK. If you listen to him speak he sounds more like MLK. I personally don't want or need a preacher in the White House. True, he sounds good... maybe even a breath of fresh air, but he is a fake. If you go beyond his great oratory skills, you will find just another politican. His agenda is actually bad for the country and would set us back. ( Hint: his position on illegal immigration ) His foreign policy is a joke, and would make us weaker in the world stage. I think it is wrong for black people to vote for Obama just because he is black, just like it is wrong for women to vote for Clinton because she is a woman.
As a registered Democrat,... if Obama is the nominee, I have to vote for the Republican guy, whoever that may be. Reason being, the media is once again telling Joe/Joan public who to vote for based on phone calls and poll info, regardless of what that candidates' position is on the issues. After all, when you enter the voting booth you are suppose to vote for the best candidate, not the poll winner.
Posted by: ALex | January 10, 2008 3:45 PM
Clinton campaign operatives tampered with the votes !! This is the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION for the way things turned out in N.H. Hillary knew she HAD TO WIN N.H. or her campaign was going down the toilet. There has GOT to be an investigation into this. For the sake of our country, the Clintons cannot be allowed to steal and lie their way back into the White House.
Posted by: Richard | January 10, 2008 3:47 PM
VOTER FRAUD. VOTING MACHINES TAMPERED WITH BY CLINTON CAMPAIGN OPERATIVES. These should be the headlines in the press right now, NOT the ridiculous theories being put out there are the reason for the sudden and completely unexpected HUGE discrepancy between the polls and the election results.
Posted by: Richard | January 10, 2008 3:49 PM
I am black, an African just like Obama, but I will not vote for him because of his liberal stands. What does that make me ?
I think it is time we stop attributing racism to every issue. Yes, there is racism out there, but no everyone is a racist.
I will never vote for Hillary Clinton either, that does not mean I am a Sexist. I just don't agree with a Political Philosophy
Posted by: Tai | January 10, 2008 3:49 PM
"...because first of all you don't vote for someone based on gender and color PERIOD!! If that's how you select president...then there is something seriously wrong with America."
That, in fact, is what is going on. I don't think racism is only rampant among uneducated people.
All whites have never been racist, just some. It shall be that way till the end of time. I can't explain it. Perhaps some people just have to hate somebody. Hate isn't just a desease of Whites, other nationalities, including Blacks, know how to hate as well. Problem is, most Haters, prefer to hate Blacks. It is safe to hate Blacks because almost everybody else does. Almost everyone believes that Blacks are the worse people that God made and that anything Blacks do is worse than anyone else who does the same thing.
I will never understand racists or racism. I do know that God made us all and Blacks are still here because it's God's Will. Perhaps it is God's way of showing man's inhumanity to man. Maybe like Paul (New Testament) Blacks serve as the thorn in the sides of our tormentors.
Posted by: Eleanor | January 10, 2008 3:50 PM
Wake up America lets move forward ..Whatever you feel just tell the truth..Racism is alive but we can defeat it.........
Posted by: Jeffrey Bordeaux | January 10, 2008 3:51 PM
I am just curious on why the Clinton's past have not been an issue. What about Whitewater, Has anyone looked at the former Presidents pardons? The fake tears, the total infidelity, and now they are all about their "marriage" please its just a way for two people who can barely stand each other to make more money
Posted by: susan | January 10, 2008 3:52 PM
The media should be ashame of the constant discount of Hilary Clinton and the breast feeding of Barack Obama. It's very obvious that no matter what Hilary does, its wrong and its not going to work. As for Obama, he lack any real substance. Yes, he can give a great speech but he is unable to debate the issue's and his background. Now, the media is so desperate that the suggestion of racism is an issue. What about the "black" voter? Is it ok for them to vote for Obama because he is black? I applaud all the women in NH who voted for Hilary.
Posted by: Edward Dumancas | January 10, 2008 3:54 PM
According to the logic behind this article, the pollsters were aware of a Bradley effect before this primary. They chose to ignore it.
Assume you were Microsoft and you asked this same group to do a poll on whether the public would buy a new piece of software. A couple of million to do the poll.
The results come back from the poll and the results are overwhelming that your product will outsell the competition. So you spend the millions to develop the new software and take it to market.
When you get to the market, the competition then outsells your product by a huge margin.
When you question the pollsters, they tell you, "Oh yeah. That's because the XXX effect skewed the results. We knew about that, but we just didn't tell you about it."
Seems to me I remember a bunch of TV stations projecting winners in races, based on exit polls, that turned out not to be true. Appears that these stations haven't learned their lesson yet.
They keep doing it and no one will listen to them.
Posted by: dogjudge | January 10, 2008 3:57 PM
Plain and simple- the polls had the independent voter thinking Obama was safe here so too many of us voted for McCain in case Clinton managed to get the nomination.- Such is our dislike of Clinton that we needed to do all we could to have the only decent republican to vote for in case the democratic option ends up being her. I do wish the media would publisize the fact that Obama actually got more delegates than Clinton did though. I understand she won the popular vote but they tied for voter delegates and Obama won one more than she did on demographics.Region by region she lost for the most part
Posted by: Candy | January 10, 2008 4:00 PM
It so simple, why is everyone making such a big deal about it? Time is of the essence and the culprit. The polls are not taken the day of the vote. Voters simply change their minds. In this case, the ex first lady´s sob, sob, self pitying remarks changed people´s minds. Simple as that.
Posted by: geoffrey ellis aronson | January 10, 2008 4:04 PM
If Obama becomes president, will his new residence be called the Black House??
Posted by: Matt | January 10, 2008 4:05 PM
We need more explanation. Perhaps we need a true investigation.
Posted by: truth | January 10, 2008 4:09 PM
The people of US know that frm. pres. Clinton is still famous and popular amoung the American people. He became popular during his two-term in office and people love him because of his sucessful worked in office. Therefore, there is a saying that goes behind every sucessful man there is good woman. My question is that, if Bill was sucessful and popular what makes Hill bad? I am a black male and have view Hill records over the past ten years, and she has performed excellent then any other canditates.
Posted by: Hubbard, Zobon | January 10, 2008 4:10 PM
The answer to this debate about why the pollster got it wrong is very simple. 1. There are a lot of racists folks in American today and those folks will never elect any person of color to the highest office in American. So, I agree with the fact that skin color came into play with the NH voters. 2. The media is the driving force in bringing the "color of skin" issue to the general public by always saying that Obama is a black candidate - the media needs to report that Obama is a "white and black candidate"!!!
Posted by: Laurence R Manuelito | January 10, 2008 4:10 PM
The NH issue is not of race but of Media. the media is contineously allowing the past president Bill Clinton to mischaracterise Obama to win vote for his wife. Obama's camp has never done that. In the true spirit of politics, the Media, Bill clinton and anyother should allow the candidates to present to the American people what they can offer. And let all camps speak of what they can offer, because that is the essence of this eletion
Posted by: Francis Neniel | January 10, 2008 4:13 PM
As a NH Voter I am personally insulted that we are accused of racism just because we didn’t choose a black candidate. We looked at all the candidates and made our choice based on a variety of criteria.
Obama lost the election here in NH for one simple reason, we saw through the facade and found not a lot of substance behind it.
Hillary Clinton gave speeches all over NH, when she finished speaking she took questions for at least an hour. I saw her handle the tough questions with strength and integrity.
When Obama spoke, he refused to take any questions from the audience. We started to see that all his speaking engagements were the same format and he gave the same speech at every stop. We lost a lot of respect for him when it became clear that he thought he could sail through without responding to any of the questions we had of him.
We in NH don’t give our votes easily, a candidate has to earn them.
Because he lost, the old charge of racism comes out in force, we knew it was only a matter of time before we heard this line. If he can't take the heat without crying racism, he shouldn't be in the race.
Posted by: Nora Spencer | January 10, 2008 4:14 PM
Two primaries,One black person won and One white person won. Get a life! You all are making much to do about nothing. You must have too much time on your hands. Why does everything in America have to come down to racial bias. Why are we fighting among ourselves? Re-channel that negative energy! We need a strong and wise candidate as our president. I don't care if my president is black or white I want the best leader to win. I am black...I am sick to death of all of this talk about race! What are you trying to do? Are you trying to start a racial war? We have very serious wars brewing in other countries. Americans....all Americans will have to work together and win the war that threatens our country. The USA is our country. Spout your anger and poison towards our real problems. All of you negative troube makers make me sick! GET A LIFE PEOPLE! ALL OF THIS NEGATIVE CRAP SOUNDS STUPID! CHECK YOURSELVES! ALL OF YOU! Then ask God to forgive you for being so mean spirited towards other Americans who are willing to fight for our country! Too much time on your hands...Join our soldiers who are fighting for us while you sit around on your hynies making trouble!
Posted by: PORSHA | January 10, 2008 4:15 PM
So, am I understanding correctly? The NH voters who did not vote for Obama, but instead voted for Hillary would be considered rascists. Would then the people who did vote for Obama and not for Hillary be considered sexists? Give me a break. The NH voters voted for their candidate, and that's the bottom line.
Posted by: M. PEREZ | January 10, 2008 4:16 PM
YES, and THANK YOU. As a white woman, I'm not at all surprised to see the negative response to your suggestion that race and racism MAY be a factor in the polling outcomes in the NH (and upcoming) primary. This form of "modern" racism has long been researched, documented and sadly, proven by action over and over again. I so regret that my fellow white citizens continue to proclaim denial and be so guarded and defensive as to say that your "theory" has no merit. I also regret that more white people don't stand up and speak out about this denial and the everyday occurrences of racism, especially the subtle and unintentional kinds that we are involved with, including the most liberal and progressive of us. thank you, and peace.
Posted by: Angela Giudice | January 10, 2008 4:18 PM
Truly race should not be an issue. I won't deny that I am a Clinton supporter but will tell you that if Maya Angelou ran for office I would vote for her in a heartbeat and suspect that Hillary Clinton would as well. She is a true woman of courage and moral fiber. The problem with Obama is that he is an opportunistic sham. He claims to hail from the black sector of society when convenient to press his case with black Americans though he has no connection to them by lineage or virtue of the opportunities that were afforded him by his white ancestors. He is a closet bigot and hypocrit who would have done much better to come out on day one saying, I am trans-racial. I've seen the best and the worst of what befalls all and I want to eliminate the negative while accentuating the positive. BUT he doesn't do that. He tries to press the case of his poor old grandmother from Kenya who lives in a hut while denying that anyone who makes six figures and has the power of being a US Senator darn well should be able to assist their dear old Grandma. Then again - the Truth!! She is not his grandmother but his STEP grandmother so in the end he must not feel it is his responsibility since he's truly only related to her by marriage.
Posted by: sjbj2322 | January 10, 2008 4:19 PM
Here we go again. The print and electronic media trying to blame race for their failure to predict the outcome of the NH primary election. Racism is not to blame but the viceral hatred of the media for Senator Hillary Clinton. They were so blinded by their hatred that they all try to falsify their results in order to influence the outcome of the election.
Not everyone is stupid enough to fall for the various unfounded reasons why they got it wrong. I have been here for the past thirty years and I am amazed and saddened over how people who called themselves Christian can be so hateful. The media only tried to borrow a page from the Religious Right and it is so sad.
The media should stop this nonsense and try as much as possible to remain impartial and objective in their dealing with all the candidates. American people are a lot smarter than what the media think we are.
Posted by: omonoda | January 10, 2008 4:35 PM
Obama's message (not Obama himself) is a naive fairy tale. However the "Bradley Effect does exist to an extent(I'm Black), but Richard is way off base, as no one stole the election--only the GOP has the resources to pull that off.
Posted by: Brandon H. | January 10, 2008 4:36 PM
It's "Hussein". At least spell it right. And no, Mr. Obama is a practicing Christian, at least according a brief Google search.
Posted by: Hussein | January 10, 2008 4:37 PM
I am surprised that a Chicago paper like the Tribune would not cite the same theory or observation from a book titled "Freakonomics". this book is co-written by Steven Levitt a University of Chicago Professor of Economics. Iowa was different because it's a caucus. If Obama wins most of the caucuses and loses on most of the primaries then the racist theory might hold. From what I understood caucuses are not anonymous while voting booths for primaries are. Oh by the way, Douglas Wilder the former governor of Virginia was not mentioned as another African American who ran for President, who incidentally was supposed to win the governorship by a landslide according to the polls, but barely won
Posted by: Chit Arcibal | January 10, 2008 4:38 PM
What happened in NH, I think, is that a host of independents who were choosing between Obama and McCain believed the polls. Figuring Obama was going to win by double-digits without them, they voted strategically for their favorite Republican. (That's the trouble with polls. They influence behavior.)
We also know that Hillary had an incredibly strong Democratic machine in NH –- the state with the largest legislature per capita in the nation, where the most vocal Democratic state reps are pro-Hillary women. Including the governor. They know how to get out the vote. Beyond that, the thought of another Clinton loss, given the candidate's highly publicized emotional fragility, surely tipped toward Clinton some of the young women voters who'd been teetering on the fence. (Another instance in which polls influenced behavior -- of the candidate as well as her voters.)
In terms of race, though a lot of people won't admit it, there are Democratic voters who -- even if they claim not to care about race -- think other voters are too racist to elect a "black man" president. (Call it "projected racism.") What they don't realize is that many Americans see Hillary Clinton as a divisive figure -- that if she's the nominee, we'll end up with the same red state/blue state split we've had in the past two general elections.
Only Obama can fix that trend. His message has a lot of cross-over appeal. It's convincing voters of that appeal that will win Obama the nomination.
In terms of the pollsters, the best test would be to see what happens when they keep their results quiet until after an election. Which won't happen, but might make for a great fairy tale.
Posted by: Michelle Markus | January 10, 2008 4:39 PM
Can you say fraud? How about voting machine manipulation? The polls weren't wrong, the votes were stolen. That's the way it's done now in Amerika. get used to it. The establishment wants Hillary so that's what we'll get, unless we can get Ron Paul in.
Posted by: Chris Noth | January 10, 2008 4:40 PM
Maybe Obama's victory in in Iowa (where the votes are public) and Deval Patrick's win in MA dispelled notions of "The Bradley Effect." Then again, when I consider Doug Wilder, David Dinkins, Harvey Gant, Ron Kirk, Harold Ford, K. Mfume, Michael Steele, and numerous others, I wonder whether the former two were just exceptions to the rule.
Posted by: Carl McGowan | January 10, 2008 4:42 PM
"Give me a break, all this is a fairy tale", remember who said thos words? Since he was angry what he meant was it is a fairy tale that you whites thinks a black man can be president in America. They can talk about change, surely they can't change the essence of who they are.....
Posted by: Veritas Veritas | January 10, 2008 4:43 PM
This racist argument is Bogus! Suggesting that poor, white people in New Hampshire are racist is BS!
All of the polls weren't wrong. The statistical possibility of that happening is near impossible.
It was clearly voter fraud with the Diebold voting machines. This theory is more plausible than a bunch of closet racist scurrying about and voting for the elitist white Hillary over a black man. The entire system is corrupt. Wake-up America!
Posted by: Keith Breitbach | January 10, 2008 4:44 PM
Regarding the polling errors, I had no preconceived idea why they were off, but after reading these blogs I believe the bloggers who did the actual detailed math breakdowns are more than likely correct. Obamas polling estimates were close to actual outcomes, his campaign expected it would be a close run. The differentials not easily predicted for Clinton occurred due to a cross/sharing in the smaller per centages of voters previously polled for the other candidates. I advise pollsters to not assume anything, as in the poverty stricken "white" vs financially secure "white voters assumptions. Important also to note is that most intelligent "black" voters do not vote for a candidate because they are "black". That is key information here.This is an expressed concern among some who assume that should Obama succeed and become the Democratic candidate for the presidency or should he become elected as President of the USA, it is nevitable there will be an attempt to assassinate him because of his race. It is a doom and gloom viewpoint that has been expressed to me multiple times by my close 'black' friends who themselves are not voting for him. I say to them, as I believe Barack Obama would say "no change or improvement would ever occur if fear were the deciding factor" it is better to be courageous than to do nothing about an inherant problem. We are the "home of the free because of the brave".... let us not forget this. The greatest 'freedom fighters' in our nation were black americans.
Posted by: Jeanne Michele | January 10, 2008 4:49 PM
I am surprised that a Chicago paper like the Tribune would not cite the same theory or observation from a book titled "Freakonomics". this book is co-written by Steven Levitt a University of Chicago Professor of Economics. Iowa was different because it's a caucus. If Obama wins most of the caucuses and loses on most of the primaries then the racist theory might hold. From what I understood caucuses are not anonymous while voting booths for primaries are. Oh by the way, Douglas Wilder the former governor of Virginia was not mentioned as another African American who ran for President, who incidentally was supposed to win the governorship by a landslide according to the polls, but barely won
Posted by: Chit A | January 10, 2008 4:54 PM
Among Obama, Clinton; and on the otherside,Huckabee, and Papa John McCain who is also well admired by many (including my humble self).
I like McCain best.It is not easy to do they things he is doing at 71(he is not a kid like Obama, or the "comeback kids Clinton/s").
However i am begining to review my impression of him, especially in having him become the next US president.
McCain, a vietnam war veteran and former prisoner of war who in a debate sunday said he "knew how to get Osama bin Laden" and vowed to do so if elected.
I am very concerned about this: why would any one in the world who knows how to catch Osama Bin Laden waits unitil he or she becomes elected into the oval office?
Expecting and asking for a cow before you catch and hand in a much wanted bad chicken shows no patrotism.
Good leadership starts with genuine patrotism, and selfless service.
Posted by: Mike Udorly | January 10, 2008 4:55 PM
Could it be possible that New Hampshire voters really want a Republican President. Polls show that in a national election Mrs. Clinton will lose to nearly every potential Republican candidate. The reverse is true for Mr. Obama. The only potential Republican opponent that polling shows he would have a tough time beating is John McCain.
Folks in New Hampshire seem to be very methodical in their madness. After all, the only other explanation is