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

[riverhouse]

The interesting thing is that women over 65 and women earning under $30,000/yr supported Clinton while at the same time a vast majority of voters in an exit poll said Obama was the candidate who was most likely to defeat the GOP candidate and win the White House. That looks like a sympathy vote for Hillary and her tears with a little bit of the Clintons ugly racism injected.

[IkeChicago]

You have to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEBMp6uwdc

[1dogs2]

There is another (somewhat less depressing) possible explanation for what happened. Exit polling shows that women turned out in far greater than usual numbers and that they were the reason for Clinton's success. I think what happened was that a lot of women were profoundly angered by the barely disguised sexism of the MSM's coverage of her during the few days preceeding the primary (she chokes up and it's major news; Romney cries repeatedly and there's barely a ripple) and the vulgar baiting of some men in the crowds (e.g., "Iron my shirt"). They took their anger directly to their polling places.

The (mostly male) talking heads were dumbfounded by the result. But many women know (and resent) that they didn't get the vote until 50 years after the franchise was, at least in theory, extended to black men. My grandmother didn't get to vote until she was in her late 20s, and she never got to vote for a woman for president.

I am NOT a Hillary fan, and found Bill's public meltdown, blaming everyone but the Clinton campaign for what appeared to be about to happen, very off-putting, but if I lived in N.H., I might just have voted for her in the primary, even though I would prefer not to vote than to vote for her in the general election.

[JimReed]

David,
Are you supporting the Democrats in this election?

[IkeChicago]

You just have to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEBMp6uwdc

[sofia]

I am sure that what you are saying is true, however, why didn't Edwards benefit from this and Hillary did?

[Lusiones]

If race distortions between poll and vote were important in New Hampshire, what happened in Iowa?

[Athena1955]

I am a democratic activist in NH.. and was on the front lines here. I do NOT believe Obama's SMALL loss had anything at all to do with racism. The main thing I heard, while I was campaigning for my candidate, John Edwards, was that they wanted someone with experience and someone who could restore our reputation in the world in the Whitehouse­.... in other words.. Bill Clinton. Hillary is a two-fer.

In addition, Hillary Clinton had a HUGE number of state party big shots supporting her. My county's party chair has been a supporter of Hillary's from the first days of the campaign. (She was the short woman you may have seen on NBC giving Chelsea Clinton a tour of a NH Clinton campaign office.) I felt it was wrong for her to be so biased from the start, being that she was charged with helping to support every candidate in the race.

I know that many Dems in this country try to criticize NH's first in the nation primary status because they believe we aren't racially diverse enough.. and I bet that those people will try to use this SMALL loss by the country's first viable black candidate as supposed "proof" of their opinion, but I really don't think it had anything to do with Obama's race. If one looks at the numbers.. Obama received nearly 20 thousand MORE actual votes than Kerry did to win the 2004 primary! How does that translate into racism? It doesn't. I think, at worse, the reason that the polls were so wrong is that when it came to actually being in the voting booth, it was cold feet.. going with a sure bet (Hillary AND Bill) rather than a very exciting, charismatic candidate.­. but one who has yet to be completely tested.

[Steamboater]

One of the reasons why everyone was so wrong is because New Hampshire is very independent minded, no matter if the state is made up of republicans and democrats too. The media's mistake was to mainly rely on polling but polling isn't exactly a true picture of New Hampshirites. They may tell you they haven't made up their minds or tell you one favored candidate over another but all the time they're thinking, "This really is none of anyone's business", and that can be tricky for anyone trying to figure out who's going to win.

[daybranch]

Hillary and Obama are unelectable. Many democrats would vote republican to vote against them. Republicans would vote solidly against them. Independents would be split as usual and the republicans would continue to run the white house for another five years. Do not let the desire for political correctness undermine the best chance for a truly Progressive, worker friendly government to escape us. Elections are about who wins the most electoral votes. How many southern and western states do you see Hillary or Obama carrying? Contribute to and vote for Edwards. He will pay us back when he is elected.

[KISSman]

People can brush off these results with a simple, "the polls were wrong", but they are way too sophisticated at this point to be THAT wrong. Something happened between Monday and Tuesday and there are less than a handful of answers.

I don't want to believe this article. I don't want to believe that race might have quietly swayed New Hampshire in Hillary's favor, but what other reasons are left?

When I hear that it could be in part (or full) due to race, the wind just blows out of my sails. I really wanted to believe that we are better than that. It is crushing, not to lose a primary to Hillary, but because the loss may be due to something that I really believed was no longer a major factor in 2008.

[nuana]

"The real reason for the reversal has been reported - it was a last-minute smear mailer by the Clinton campaign. The story: The Illinois Planned Parenthood asked its supporters (including Obama) to vote "present" instead of "no" on a number of anti-choice bills, in order to give cover to moderates so they could also vote "present", thus blocking the bills. The Clintons sent out a last minute mailer (which Obama had no chance to respond to), saying that he had repeatedly refused to stand up against anti-choice bills. The President of the Illinois Planned Parenthood is livid." Alex Black-if this is true, then these votes were travesty

[JanP]

What a tough choice for those who are politically correct: Do you vote for a "person of color" or a woman?

Never mind what their policies are! One has Change, the other has Experience.

[Ides]

Obama's performance was accurate to the polls, Clinton simply overperformed. Now, a cynic would say that her crying had something to do with it, and an observant anecdotal observer would say, "Well, a female coworker said that Hillary needed her vote, so she gave it to her," and MSNBC would say, "41% of voters looking for a candidate 'who cares about someone like [me]' voted for Hillary, up from 22% in Iowa five days ago" while Hillary's support among women was up almost twenty points."

So, um, the cynic might be right. To be honest, even I felt sorry for Hillary, I can see how someone would abandon their good judgment and throw her a vote in New Hampshire.

[OSUMercutio]

Whether or not this theory played a part in this primary (it's a bit premature to speculate), it is not about racism. It's about being politically correct - not wanting to admit to a pollster that you are favoring a white over a black. If the polls were online or written, it would be different than actually talking to someone. That said, it is still disappointing. Personally, I'm against all pre-election polls, but that's another topic.