Obama, Polls, and Race

It now seems pretty clear that virtually all of the late polling on the Democratic side was wrong... very wrong. The last Rasmussen Report had Obama +7 over Clinton. CBS had him +7. USA Today had Obama +13 and CNN +10.

With more than 60% of New Hampshire now reporting Obama is -3. 40% of precincts still need to report. Things may change. But this gap really is extraordinary. Chances are nil that Obama is going to win overwhelmingly. The polls were hugely wrong.

Why?

It is a return to the race-gap polling problems of the 1980s and 1990s:

This phenomenon was first noticed in the 1982 race for governor of California, where Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black Democrat, narrowly lost to Republican George Deukmejian, despite polls showing him with a lead ranging from 9 to 22 points. The next year, African-American Democrat Harold Washington barely won his race for mayor of Chicago against Republican Bernard Epton. Pre-election polls taken within the last two weeks of the campaign showed Washington with a 14-point lead.

The problem was prominent in the New York City mayoral race in 1989. David Dinkins, an African-American candidate beat Republican Rudy Giuliani by only 2 points, despite leading by as much as 18 points in polls a week before the election.

Tonight, despite all the talk of how little race matters in this campaign, it is clear that race is still a big deal in bi-racial campaigns. And it has showed up for the first time, in a measurable way, in the 2008 presidential race.

It means that every poll -- from exit polls to tracking polls -- are absolutely suspect from here on out.

Comments

[MrCoffeeCup]

Finally the media is beginning to catch on!
The Americans are sick of the "Talking Heads" telling them IN WHICH WAY or What person will be Media Designated to Winning or Losing!!

Our revenge is now to attack the exit pollsters. YES AMERICA YOU CAN DIRECTLY AFFECT HISTORY: Give an Answer which is completely incorrect to the suspected lead! Here's an example "Florida expects Obama to Beat Hillary! UPON EXITING tell everyone you voted for Dennis or Joe or Ron Paul.

WHAT A WONDERFUL RESULT IN THE THE PAPERS/TV the next day! Dennis expected to Take Florida by 23%. WHOOO HAAA! YES.

PS. This is not and endorsement of anyone but to get the point across that the TALKING HEADS NEED TO SHUT THE F UP!!

[JustMyWords]

I'm certainly not going to claim that racism is dead. It's not. But at the same time, I have a hard time making the leap in logic that some people here have made, which seems to go like this:
a. The polls had Obama way ahead.
b. The vote ended up with Clinton ahead.
c. Obama is black.
Therefore:
d. Rascists voted by color.

Why such faith in polls anyway? They can give an indication of what people are thinking, but they can't predict so many of the variables. To be honest, they can't get over one hurdle - to start with, you have to assume that everyone who says they will probably vote actually will do so. Even "probable" voters get sick, they have car trouble, the weather is bad, or most likely, they just don't get around to voting.

And as has been pointed out, in NH Obama supporters that believed those polls giving him a huge lead may have felt that it would be more useful to influence the Republican primary, bleeding off votes.

If someone said that he/she decided to vote for Obama at the last minute, it's unlikely anyone would claim it's a race-based vote. Why the assumption that it's racial if someone decides to vote against him?

[newsweek1945]

Well, here we go again, denial, denial, and then again, more denial, race will play a critical role in this election, primaries and caucases included, in that I have concluded that there is a monolithic portion of this country's electorate who are indelibily racists and bigots, "christians", defenders of the flag and "democracy". People who pretend to see us as the united group of peoples and cultures that we should be, but harbor an almighty "white is right" creature in their bellies and souls. They vote in the dark of the booth and stamp their legacies on the future of this country and the world as we all have seen over the past seven excruciating years. They yell God,but are the unwitting, unthinking allies of the Anti-. These are the people who truly are so blind and ignorant to think that this country is all theirs, because God deemed it so...Remember "manifest destiny"?
They will insidiously exhort the uneducated with phrases like, "family values", "war on terror", "fight them there, so we don't have fight them here", ad nauseam....All veiled bigoted bull! Clinton or Obama, or anyone other than the new " bushees", aka, Huckabee, and the dreaded Giuliani.

[Centaur]

David, I couldn"t agree with you more. In fact, as I watched the NH primary play out and came to the conclusion about halfway into the voting I knew he wasn't going to win. Ironically, when the projection came forth that Hillary was going to win, I watched MSNBC and heard Eugene Robinson bring up the "Tom Bradley factor" and the "Doug Wilder factor" just as I was thinking the same thing. I used the NH primary as a "litmus test" and not Iowa to see if white america has passed it but unfortunately and sadly it hasn't. How else can you explain away that Obama supposedly had "wide margin" leads in several polls leading up to the actual voting and lose? The same thing happened to Bradley and Wilder even though he won(barely). It will be interesting as the primaries go forward
if this was just an aberration or not. I have my doubts.

[frank67]

Here is one whitey who agrees with Mr. Kuo 100%.

[NoMoreDrama]

Hillary wins super Tuesday by 2.5% no matter what. Thanks Diebold.

[LeeFromVA]

You could be right, but I hope you're wrong. I think more likely the polls themselves were the problem. They made it look like Obama was going to crush her and she had been crying so there was a strong sympathy vote. Also, thinking that Obama didn't need their vote, many independents probably voted for McCain. Whenever you are expected to win big there's a certain amount of folks that want to stop you. Iowa wasn't certain. Every vote seemed to matter. The funny thing is, if the polls had shown NH as being close I think Obama would have won.

[research]

MSM polls are landlines phone polls. Do YOU even answer your phone? Or like so many people, do you wait for the answering machine? Do you even own a land line, many people's only phone is a mobile phone, which the pollers cannot call legally. How many of you would agree to spend your time on the poll? What question did they ask: Who would you vote for if the election was held today? Who will you vote for in the primary? Who would you like to see as president? Who is most likely to win? When in the day to they call? What days do they call? What about unlisted numbers? Do they publish every study or just keep taking polls till they get the result they want?

Great link on problems with modern phone polling.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/cell_phones_and_political_surv.php

With infinite money and power at stake, With the entire rethugs party willing to steal, kill and torture to get what they want, back room poll fixing payola would be Sunday school.

The big problem with polls is they are being used improperly to shut out MSM unpopular candidate, like Kucinich and ron Paul.

It is just insane the Iowa and NH basically get to choose the front runners.

Why do we let .2% of our population choose our president????!

Please Voters:

Vote for YOUR candidate in the PRIMARY.

You don't know, nobody knows who is "electable".

[Meah]

David Kuo, you are just as wrong as the rest of the media. It is not right for the press or you to assume the Bradley effect in this election. It is garbage. An insult to NH voters. The press is getting it wrong. Edwards did poorly. Much worse than Obama. Enough of the race issue. Both of these guys were picking on Hillary and people in NH did not like it. David Kuo, think before you open your mouth. You were wrong about George Bush and you are wrong about this.

[nodamnbush]

Another possibility. Who is more likely to vote - a Clinton supporter who believes her candidate is in deep trouble, or an Obama supporter who is convinced that his man will win big? If just 10% of those supporting Obama decided to stay home and an extra 10% of Clinton supporters showed up, the effect on the outcome would be major. Is it possible that polls showing a big win for Obama actually contributed in a significant way to his downfall?

[jadez]

All the polls being wrong on only the specific % going to hillary simply is not believable.

Dont expect to ever see vote fraud discussed here or any where in the MSM.

But any election involving diebold or any machine not leaving a paper trail is suspect.
I have said before that a black man will never be allowed to win the presidency in this country.
You aint see nothing net.

[JackCroswell]

This doesn't have to be viewed as a conspiracy, or a divisive gender or race war.

There was an article on politico last Friday that basically warned everybody from putting too much stock in polls between Iowa and New Hampshire. Why? Because accurate polling needs to take place over the span of about seven days. If you look at the polls before Iowa, Clinton had a very small lead over Obama.

The real story, if there is one, is that Obama was not able to translate his hype into votes in New Hampshire. He was able to do this in Iowa, because he spent months, millions of dollars and had thousands of volunteers. The challenge for Obama now will be to organize in other states as well as he did in Iowa. The lesson for Obama, as I think he understands, is that he can't rely on his celebrity status among college students and his flowery rhetoric in his stump speech. He needs to show not just as president how he will turn his words into actions, but as a campaigner, how he will do the same

[kali4niadazed]

OBAMA played the race card period. I won't vote for a president like that. OBAMA Sucks people, No experience, DUH who's going to control him. He slipped I heard the race card played and he OOPS!!! I do not like that man. I know my vote is for Hillary. Screw those men

[Ratso]

Couple things...reality check
First, Obama's time has not come; maybe in the next decade, but not now. Perhaps the huge win in Iowa was secondary to Ophra's huge ground swell of support of daytime women TV watchers who idolize her and the youth who were temporarily motivated (most youth movenemts are temporary, ask George McGovern). Hillary's comment about "8 yrs experience" in the White House, which was countered by Dick Morris by him saying, "so does the pastry chef" would have been better relayed as her overall EXPOSURE in foregin affairs and the office of the President. Hillary WILL be the Democratic choice for President, and I think the race will be close. Now, who will be her running mate, certainly not Obama; maybe Richardson? Who knows?

[CornBred]

What happened to the race gap in Iowa? Obama was running against TWO strong white candidates...we all thought he had a chance to win by 2 or 3 points...but he beat BOTH by 8-9 points.

My take is there were multiple crazy/unexpected factors at play last night...mostly the huge female turnout...but also a bit of race...but maybe 2-4 points worth of race.