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
And wouldn't a reasonable person put a little distance between a poll and reality from the beginning. Every time a poll is wrong everybody in the media acts bewildered, the rest of the time they are simply bewildered. Do you recognize the symptoms?
While it's well documented that the last minute switch happens sometimes in races with a white and black candidate, it seems hard to believe that in 2008, and in NH, this could be happening, especially since the pundits were going on so much about how a vote for Obama would a vote that would make people feel good about themselves.
Racism (and all kinds of biases) are usually more pronounced in areas where differing races, cultures and ethnicities are constantly bumping up against one another. The last minute switching, that Obama's loss is being blamed on, would probably be more likely to happen in S.C.
I'm an Obama supporter, so it's possible that the idea that someone would tell a pollster that they planned to vote for him, and then change their mind, on the basis of his race, comes as a huge shock.
Hilarious. Clinton led in N.H. forever -- then one poll reversal. The anomaly was the 1 week.
Obama's my horse, but it's cool, at least people are out voting, and in record numbers. Also, none of the dem candidates are retarded. I'll take Billary, Obama, Kucinich, Edwards, myself, you, my cousin's new baby, Mos Def, and maybe even Lyndon La Rouche over "100 years in Iraq" McCain, "Dogs are the new sunroof" Romney, and Huckabee as ordained by God. I mean, damn.
And seriously, are we already going to start race-carding Obama? He won in one whiteass state, and lost in another. Hella white. Let's just wait for a few more primaries here.
Okay, here's why this synopsis didn't hold up in Iowa: First, Iowa considers itself the most important aspect of any presidential election. Plus, you have to stand up in public and express your vote. Remember last week when two guys rigged something so that they could get the first oil sale over $100 a barrel? Same thing with Iowa. Iowa had a chance to nominate someone young, likeable and black who made sense and gave people hope to heal this nation. And, in order to vote against him, you had to in a room full of your neighbors who could quiz you about it for the next year. So, there was no way to hide your vote (even to yourself). Not so in NH.
Here you could tell pollsters anything you wanted and vote any way you wanted. If you had ANY reservation about Obama, whether race, lack of experience, or just that that he is so @#&$&$& optomistic, you could quietly vote against him and no one would know. It's like Bush - I have NEVER voted for him (a real accomplishment in Texas), but now its harder to find people here who will admit that they did! I am so glad we vote late. I don't care who gets nominated on the Dem side, I think we will both vote for him/her/it? The rest of you can thrash it out.
Overconfidence by the Obama supporters may have been a factor. It is possible that many Obama supporters figured it was in the bag and did not bother to vote. Also independents who favored Obama may have decided that he had it won and therefore decided that their vote was not needed, so they voted in the Republican primary for McCain instead.
Wow. So the "professional" political pundits have learned nothing even after this embarrassing and unpredicted win by Hillary Clinton. Not even a day has passed before the New Hampshire voters and, according to David Kuo (known for his good judgment by his previous support of Christian extremists for years), now every poll -- from exit polls to tracking polls -- is now suspect.
But wait, look at the following:
Obama NH Polling Data (%) 1/05 - 1/07
Real Clear Politics Average 38.3%
Suffolk/WHDH 39
American Res. Group 40
ReutersC-Span/Zogby 42
Rasmussen 37
CNN/WMUR/UNH 39
Marist 36
CBS News 35
Actual NH Obama Election Results (CNN): 37%
So, the polls predicted that Obama would receive between 35 and 42 percent of the vote, an average of 38.5%, according to Real Clear Politics. He received 37% (95% reporting) (-1.5%).
Mr. Kuo, where's the Bradley Effect??
The same polls predicted that Hillary would receive between 28 and 34 percent of the vote, an average of 30%, according to Real Clear Politics. She received 39% (95% reporting) (+9%).
So, clearly more people came out to vote for Hillary than the polls indicated. The question is why? Was it the Crying Incident, her debate performance, her attacks on Obama's lack of experience, a surge of feminist support late in the game typified by Gloria Steinem's article in the NYTimes this morning? I don't know! But, neither does Kuo.
If I'm not careful, I'll start thinking that the pundits, like Kuo, want to create a self-fulfilling Bradley Effect with their premature analyses of the NH election results.
I am black I take offense to the race card being played in this situation. Barack Obama is a viable candidate he got beat by better candidate tonite. The media try to sway the minds of voters and a back fire on them. Please let's not ever bring this up because it's offensive to somebody like me. What happen in Iowa?
Yup Mo - you got horn swaggled. Here's how it plays out. In Iowa, people caucus in public. Now, there isn't a democratic candidate that wants to upset the African American base - because to do so XXX out that particular vote. In Iowa, so people told me, it was crazy. The African American base was eyeballing and taking notes on who bunched in one corner, and who bunched in another corner. It was mighty particular. So to keep the peace and status quo, they voted for Obama, or in simple terms, their own party regulars. Okay - but here's another factor in Iowa and in the primary that isn't being revealed. I had folks tell me that known republicans showed up as Obama supporters, who changed their affiliation to Independent in order to support Obama. That was strange as can be - and thus Huckabee won the primary - but the enemy of the Republican Party failed in her bid to capture Iowa. To the Republicans of that state - that was a victory. Get it - Mo?
Oh, simmer down now! It's one primary. HRC wins it and the real crybabies fall out of the woodwork. Politics is a tough game. Stay home if you're not ready to play.
I've been paying attention and when the polls are wrong you are supposed to say the "neocons stole the election"?
The Bradley effect is in full effect!!! IA was an abberation. America hasn't changed its racist stripes! Thanks, IA, for allowing me to feel like an American for 5 days at least!
This is speculation - an interesting speculation, but there is no evidence for or against it.
Before assuming it's true or untrue, it'd be great if someone would go out and do some research and find out what really happened.
Many voters, in many Democratic sub-groups, see Mr. Obama as a mixed-race American, and count this as a positive asset he brings to the contest.
Race is never simple in this country. Be suspicious of simple racial explanations like the one promoted by Mr. Kuo.
Kind of early to play the race card, isn't it?
Then how do you explain Iowa?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
