What New Hampshire Voters Really Said

What a kerfuffle!

The press anoints Obama in Iowa, then gets caught smirking by the re-ascendance of Queen Hillary in New Hampshire. Is the press getting its come-upance?

That's the story if you watch John Stewart lampooning Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs and any network besides Comedy Central.

That's also how Daniel Henninger's Wall Street Journal article "Thomas E. Obama" sees it, invoking the flawed announcement of Dewey's supposed defeat of Truman:

Here's a simple explanation for what happened in New Hampshire. In the 96 hours between Thursday's victory by Barack Obama in Iowa and Tuesday morning, enough election output poured over voters to fill the entire Truman-Dewey campaign of 1948. This thunder said: Barack Obama is the party nominee, a new era has dawned on American politics and the election is now about "change." Like Dewey, he can't lose. New Hampshirites did what normal people do. They pushed back.

Lesson learned: In elections yet to come in the Internet Age, it will be the habit of the media to overdo it. As is their wont, the voters will undo it.

But the "voters revolt" theme has one big flaw: the polls blew only the Democratic primary--they nailed the GOP results. Did only Democrats revolt?

What about New Hampshire residents' preferred view--their streak of stubborn independence ("we're not gonna let a bunch of corn farmers tell us how to think")? But that requires us to believe that all voters lied to the pollsters. Like most conspiracy theories, this one overstates humans' ability to organize.

Let's throw three other factors into the hopper.

One is race.

And if your nose just crinkled in a scowl at the above line, then you must go read a most thoughtful article by Shelby Steele (in Time magazine, of all places) called "The Identity Card."

It deftly explains why white and black America alike are ensnared by wishes and denials about race--and how Obama is a lightning rod for all who hope we have transcended it. A good example could be seen on George Stephanopoulos' ABC News roundtable Sunday: George introduced the race hypothesis, then instantly led the rush to distance himself from the idea--closely followed by everyone on his roundtable but Claire Shipman.

I don't know how race may have affected the vote--I'm just suspicious of the rush to deny its relevance. Race is, simply, omnipresent in America. The wishful rush to deny it is understandable, but suspicious of itself.

The second factor is Hillary's "crying." Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, the Republicans--everyone piled on immediately, staking out positions on gender, emotion, power, class.

And everyone's theory probably differed a bit from your own, personal, immediate reaction. Instantly, the pundits were telling you what to think about something very personal--not just a vote, but a feeling--and how it explained you politically.

Now add the third factor--what I'll call the Personal Heisenberg Principle. In physics, at a subatomic level, the act of measuring something can actually affect the measurement itself. At a human level--the same.

It's one thing to tell me who everyone else is voting for. Annoying? Maybe. But it's not particularly personal.

But mix in the personal. Throw in race and gender; tell people how they should feel about each.

Tell them publicly, statistically, with rhetorical flourish, from the anchorman's desk, hours before going to the polls, that their innermost psyches are predictable, categorizable, and easy to segment int politically predefined categories. All the while claiming it's about "change" and "experience."

It's one thing to tell me I'm going to vote like people in another state. It's another to claim to objectively predict my innermost feelings, unclear even to myself, about some of the more complex issues in society today--like race and gender.

Which, of course, were only on display in the Democratic primary.

I know it'd irk me. I'd go and vote for--for--well, the opposite of whatever they told me I was going to vote for. Just to piss 'em off.

When you pretend to know me, and you don't--I don't trust you.

Take that--all y'all. That's what the voters were saying.

At least, I think so.

Comments

[OhgReaTone]

Jon Stewart has take the Trash Talk of elections to a new height of humor. But his fundamental appeal is in his professional application of America's favorite past time.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/13/trash-talk-the-elixir-of-life/

[usedtowander]

Another trust issue - I just don't "get" Obama.

Why would someone go to Columbia University then HLS, and never take a real, paying job. It makes no sense to me.

And, like when I'm hiring employees, when their resume doesn't make sense, when I don't understand them, I won't hire them.

[NewAmericanCenturySucks]

Don't forget: for any of these race-based/tear-shedding/feisty NH voter/moon phase theories to explain what happened in NH last week, it must somehow account for the exit polls, which validated the pre-election polls and contradicted the official results.

This means, for example, that people must have lied to pollsters before the election AND after.

Oh, and the voters who lied both before and after voting had to live exclusively in machine-counted counties. In hand-counted counties, pre-election polls = official result = exit polls = Obama by 4-8 points. This is true of hand-counts in the largest 50% of counties AND the smallest 50%.

This collective refusal to believe the evidence staring Americans in the face - and frantic search for some other explanation - is bordering on pathological.

When & if you come out of your stupor, here's the solution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/opinion/07poundstone.html

[StephenSmoliar]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (along with its management-related cousin, the Hawthorne Effect) was the first hypothesis I took seriously last Wednesday morning:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/01/getting-out-of-echo-chamber.html

I'm glad I am not the only one who took it seriously. Of course there is also the hypothesis that those who design, implement, and interpret polls tend to live in an echo chamber!