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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Will you guys get of this race excuse?
18 percent of NH voters made up their minds in the last 24 hours.
If you don't believe me, just ask the pollsters, chortle!
The polls perfectly predicted all of the candidates except Clinton and Obama.
The many polls were correct.
Diebold made them wrong.
You white people just don't get it!!! Like many of you, I want desperately a Demcrate to win the white house. Unlike many of you, I am very conscious about the race factor. Mr. Kuo, being a non-white, is also conscious about the race factor. I think many of you trying to push Obama to nomination is a VERY dangerous move. Checkout repulican blog sites, they are bashing Clinton aggresively, while playing lightly on Obama. They know they are in a disadvantage position this year. Their only hope to have this "magical" race factor on their side. They want to compete against Obama!!!
!!!! STOP BASHING HILLARY !!!!
OBAMA in another decade NOT NOW.
He has no real-- experience and that's the change we don't need.
We KNOW what we had with the Clintons and to experiment now with newcomers in my opinion might just be more pain for this country.
Come on...let's listen to reason. I think Rachael Maddow said it best last night: How is Hillary the comeback kid when she was technically NEVER behind? Hillary was up in the polls in New Hampshire consistently until the Iowa caucus. The polls were skewed since Iowa folks! NH was Hillary country from the beginning. I hope the other media will now SHUT IT during this process and let us decide. Russert trying to make the connection that Obama's "HUGE" loss is somehow representative of racism and typical for black candidates at any level. BULL! The polls were crap in the last week, pure and simple! Now let's keep the race going. Frankly, I want to see Barack questioned more about his record in Illinois (my state) and some of his votes in the US Senate. And, I want Hillary questioned more about her record. To that, I want Hillary to appear more often on the shows (I still can't believe she snubbed Meet The Press while ALL other candidates appeared). That arrogance is what will lose her the votes.
Hillary Clinton knows why she won, it's the sympathy vote of women. How does she now exploit this win, does she cry again?
LIE TO THE POLLSTERS!!!
It's such fun.
I was watching CNN yesterday and caught part of a story on Obama's roots - his African roots. "In Kenya Obama's Relatives Pray for Victory" is a piece focusing on his relatives in Kenya. His grandmother, speaking in her native tongue, says "he is a good listener". From the transcript, "When we arrived, Sarah Onyango Obama was waiting with a smile as she cut up corn maize preparing animal feed. As the chickens clucked and a rooster crowed, "Mama Sarah" is as busy bringing in the crops as her grandson is trying to bring in the votes."
Now I may be a sceptic, but I wonder about CNN's timing. I wonder how many people watched that show and thought about Obama's race and changed their vote. They may have been able to vote for him when he didn't appear to be so Black, but watching the visual of his family roots brings race right up front. It ends showing the grave of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. on the family farm.
I wouldn't be so quick to consider CNN's motive as racist, if they had included Obama's mother's roots, presented the documentary on another day, traced the other candidates' roots... but, they didn't. Check it out and see what you think.
The thing that disturbes me is that the independents went for McCain rather than Obama. This bodes bad for November. We need the indies to vote Democratic or we are sunk!
I respect people that vote for Hillary Clinton, I cannot say the same for people that vote for John Edwards. He hangs around collecting 10% here 15% there, to what end. Ralph Nader voters were really George Bush voters, when they started complaining about George Bush and the war, I tell them to f ### off, you got what you voted for. A vote for John Edwards is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
John Edwards, the skunk who continues to invite himself to the garden party.
Also Mathews, Russert, Huffington Post, should be a little more careful and not be so judgemental, don`t you think David ?
Gibson`s debate was better conducted because he and the Radio Host refrained from attack like Russert did. It is only my opinion. !
thanks
Crappy polsters, Huffington post, expensive media talking heads. Let it be a lesson, take a moment. Keep personal fellings aside and try to be a professional and be fair. Otherwise everyting is meaningless.
Us the voters, see through you , remember that. The winning point for Hillary was the Debate conducted by Chrlie Gibson. The three overconfident male democrats put their heads together and piled up on Hillary.
Us the Voters said "wait a moment"..
David,
Hats off to Obama!!!!
Yes, the results were startling! A definite eye opener! We Obama supporters are definitely eating humble pie this morning. However, we CANNOT forget one important thing. In a lily-white state, he was within 2-3 percentage points of juggernaut Hillary Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton! THAT...is something to be very proud of! And, I'm confident the Clinton's abortion letter campaign against Obama (FALSE) and Hill's crocodile tears (They're ganging up against me, ya'll) helped turn the election in her favor! Will she be able to pull that off, again? They say a leopard never changes his spots. Who is Hillary? A cold, calculating and manipulative woman who will stop at NOTHING to get what she thinks she deserves at all costs (dirty politics) or someone who's 'heart is full'? Let's see if she'll pull off an Oscar winning performance or her true self - unable to be repressed - will live alive and well for all to see.
The race is not over. This is the time for Obama to capitalize on his mistakes and prove to the naysayers - once and for all - that he is the candidate to bring about real change to this democracy and the one to beat. If he can come within percentage points of the Clintons in New Hampshire, there's no stopping him. BUT, the time is NOW!
To suggest that New Hampshire voters lied to pollsters to protect their racism is ludicrous. This is the Chris Matthews mantra - and it only shows the racial discomfort of the reporter.
Ohg.
http://the
You know, everytime I've heard someone drag out this corpse of an argument over the last 12 hours, I've heard the sound of another thousand voters pulling the lever for Senator Clinton. Why does this have to be about race? Why can't it be about the fact that women, of all shades, saw a pack of (mostly male) savages in the media and the other candidates in the debate descend on Hillary like vultures, saw Hillary show a genuine display of humanity and personal fortitude in the face of this adversity and changed their minds at the last minute? That's what happened, people! That's why the polls were wrong; all of this all occured AFTER the last polling was done. If, out of sour grapes or delusion, Obama and his supporters think that pulling the race card in this situation is a winning formula for them, they are DEAD wrong. THERE IS NO MORE DEFINITIVE A WAY FOR A BLACK CANDIDATE TO LOSE AN ELECTION VIA THE BRADLEY EFFECT THAN TO TRY TO MANIPULATE AND CAPITALIZE UPON WHITE RACIAL GUILT!!! Even though I am a firm Hillary supporter, the Obama camp needs to learn this lesson now, in case they do win the primary, because they can't try and pull this crap during a general election or we will have four more years of Republicans ruling the executive branch. This was a genuine moment of victory FOR Hillary, not AGAINST Barak Obama and the color of his skin. You all need to give her that, deal with it and move on to the next battle.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
