Clinton Wins

As we've seen from the exit polls, she pulled ahead based on strong support from women.

UPDATE: I should say we're seeing some talk of a "Wilder effect" possibly doing Obama in. I don't buy that. If you look at the breakdown of the results, you'd need to believe that white women, but not white men, are inclined to lie to pollsters about that. More likely we're looking at a combination of gender backlash, plus the fact that Obama was so widely perceived as likely to win led independents to vote for John McCain in the GOP primary.

Comments

I will never understand what the people of New Hampshire were thinking.

Posted by Shinyk | January 8, 2008 10:37 PM

The gender divide here seems highly unfortunate.

Posted by infirm | January 8, 2008 10:37 PM

I blame Gloria Steinem.

Posted by blah | January 8, 2008 10:38 PM

Cynically: Weeping won the day.

Less Cynically: I think the media sexism really may have pissed a lot of women voters off, and we saw the backlash. Hard to explain, in any case, how the polls were so wrong.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 10:38 PM

As a longtime HRC supporter, what a great night. Also, a tremendous showing for the Shaheen organization. I see a new Senator in the fall.

Posted by ephus | January 8, 2008 10:39 PM

This is a sad day for America.

Posted by penelope | January 8, 2008 10:41 PM

Russert just said women and independents, check it out if you have the data.

Posted by artappraiser | January 8, 2008 10:41 PM

The 1988 model:

Northeastern squish comes in third in IA and then wins home region NH.

Ends up in three way race with white Southerner and African-American.

-----

Differences in '08:

In 1988, the white Southerner didn't seem ready for prime time and the African-American didn't seem even vaguely nominatable.

In other words, neither of Dukakis' competitors were viable. Clinton's competitors both are viable.

One last interesting note: in '88, the African-American was the fiery populist and the white Southerner was the wine track non-partisan candidate. Obviously reversed this time.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 10:41 PM

You know, Chelsea and Billy Bush should just get married to seal the deal.

Posted by matthewcc | January 8, 2008 10:41 PM

Or maybe, now this is just something to throw out there, the New York Democratic party is strong in New Hampshire and can count on veteran GOTV people to back their candidate. You know how its quite possible that the very strong Illinois Democratic party has strong ties to the Iowa party and Iowa GOTV people.

You no, maybe the whole meta narrative is just bullshit and a Midwesterner won int eh Midwest and a Northerner won in the North?

Posted by Rob | January 8, 2008 10:44 PM

Know not no, god damn Matt spelling is contagious

Posted by Rob | January 8, 2008 10:46 PM

I'm gonna puke.

Maybe he is too nice...not pushing down when he had his foot on her throat.

Or maybe women are so sheeplike that they'll vote for their own at their own expense.

I am a woman. I can say that.

Posted by G Davis | January 8, 2008 10:51 PM

If women want a female party, let them have one. But they shouldn't be shocked when Hillary garners all of 23% of the male vote after running a campaign that says women should vote for her entirely because she's a woman.

It may win her the primary, but it's going to lose her the general election. Apparently, Liberal women will vote for a conservative Democrat with views they would NEVER accept in a male candidate. Don't think for a moment that Republican women will vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman.

Posted by Soullite | January 8, 2008 10:51 PM

Simpler explanation: polls & pollsters are fucked up. They make a prediction, get it wrong, and then explain how voters fucked up. Why do people believe the explanation, since the pollsters got it wrong in the first place? They belong in an only slightly less vile circle of hell that political reporters.

Posted by gene | January 8, 2008 10:54 PM

Watching Obama: hope you young folks who love Obama realize the great position, and candidates, the Demoractic party is offering tonight.

He is pretty damn inspiring.

Posted by Andruw | January 8, 2008 10:55 PM

Leave it to the democrats to figure out a way to give the republicans the presidency yet again.

Posted by vert | January 8, 2008 10:57 PM

gender backlash?! what does that even mean?

Posted by correction | January 8, 2008 10:58 PM

I have to paraphrase the old really stupid statement some top Libertarian Party member once said:

If crying helps, I say cry.

(His version, of course, was substituting "lying" for crying.)

Also, southpaw may be right here - the media backlash might have thrown it.

So what this really means is, who wins next?

This news story in the NYT is interesting:

"Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire viewed Senator Barack Obama as more likely than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to beat the Republican nominee in 2008, according to exit polls conducted Tuesday, a reversal of the previous trends in national polls."

Which means the same women who voted for Hillary thought Obama was the better candidate, if you think about it.

Nice, huh? Do we call this "female logic"?

Let's look at the same "logic" on the Republican side from the NYT article:

"On the Republican side, nearly half of primary voters said their biggest concerns were terrorism and the Iraq war. The exit polls showed that nearly half were dissatisfied or angry with President Bush. A third disapproved of the war. Each of those groups of Republicans broke decisively for Senator John McCain, suggesting more viewed him as a critic than as a supporter of the administration."

So here's my question: Do ANY of these morons actually LISTEN to the candidates positions?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 8, 2008 10:58 PM

Gosh, you people really are just file of bile, aren't you. If you don't have a convenient Republican to bash, you'll turn on one of your own. No one does circular firing squads better than liberal Democrats.

Posted by Jason | January 8, 2008 10:58 PM

The press may not realize it but their dislike of Hillary may be backfiring. I get more pro-Hillary every time I see an unflattering picture on a news site, every time I read snarky comments about her from "reporters", and every time I am they remind me of what they and the GOP did to both the Clintons and they country in the 1990s.

Posted by Emma Zahn | January 8, 2008 10:59 PM

I was trying to get my hopes up despite the polls, but I could not help myself in the end. Silly me. But congratulations to Hillary and her gang.

I guess I should look at it this way: if she gets the nomination, I can stop paying attention to politics until election day, just like I did with Kerry. I got so many little odd jobs done around the house in 2004, I can tell you...

Posted by sweaty guy | January 8, 2008 10:59 PM

I was trying NOT to get my hopes up despite the polls, I meant to say.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 8, 2008 11:01 PM

A more probable scenario is that men and women (women especially) got tired of the overt and incredibly misogynistic treatment of Hillary by the MSM and other supposed informed (cough, Sullivan, cough) Hillary haters who finally shot their wad a bit too far.

She tears up, they tear her town, and people suddenly realize that they can live with any of the Dem nominees, so they don't through the woman under the bus. Because they are Progressives!

And, of course, are tired of the sick, twisted, wrong, and upsetting drivel published by hacks (one of which is your colleague, who continued his shit parade this evening).

Posted by abjectfunk | January 8, 2008 11:01 PM

Throw, not through. See what hanging out here too much does to my spelling?

Posted by abjectfunk | January 8, 2008 11:03 PM

Duh. Of course it's not the white lie. White folks tell me so.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 8, 2008 11:05 PM

New Hampshire is supposed to be the state for insurgents, and Iowa is supposed to be the state of the status quo. And now, it's the other way around. It's Iowa that's come through for us, and New Hampshire that's let us down. Want a Republican in the White House? Then pray to God that Hillary keeps winning. Because if she gets the nomination, then God help us, the fractured shell of a party that the Republicans are now will disappear, and in its place will appear the old solid Republican party, fired by the Clinton-hatred they've been nursing for so long.

If you want the Dems to win, vote Obama. There isn't a conservative around that can withstand his message of change.

Posted by firebrand | January 8, 2008 11:17 PM

Several factors: 1) women probably did react to the tearing-up moment, 2) remember that until very recently Hillary was streets ahead in New Hampshire, so it is not clear that (leaving aside the recent hyped polls) Obama did not, in fact, do pretty well, 3) The north-east may be closer to Hillary's NYC "base", as so tend to be more in her favour, much as Iowa is closer to Illinois, 4) McCain probably did pull away a number of independents, especially given his long-standing relationship with New Hampshire.

I think that 2 is clearly true, when one looks at overall polls and trends for the last couple of months. 3 may have played a part, although I am inclined to discount it somewhat. On the night I would guess that 4, and, more important, 1, made the difference. If this analysis stands, I would guess that Clinton will continue her drift down, since 1 and 4 will probably not have the same force in future (unless she manages to weep convincingly in multiple states on Super Tuesday). Given the importance of the black vote in the south, I still think Obama will come out of Super Tuesday looking more like the nominee than Hillary. If Edwards quits, I would guess Obama will be the gainer by quite a big margin. In sum, I anticipate a pretty solid victory for Obama in South Carolina. After that, probably a pretty solid victory in Super Tuesday, although Clinton will scrape out some wins. The big question seems to be how long Edwards wants to play an obviously losing hand, and how long we waste time on Richardson (and Kucinich and Gravel). My guess is that Edwards will quit after South Carolina, and most likely throw his support to Obama - which will make the big difference.

Posted by nickzi | January 8, 2008 11:19 PM

I've got a buddy working one of the campaigns in NH, and when I asked him last night how he thought the vote would go, he said, "I have never seen such a fluid electorate."

People weren't lying to the pollsters--unless white people in NH lie, while white people in IA tell the truth. Which seems like an odd Wilder effect. My gut is that people flipped fast--probably from the Steinhem op-ed, frankly. She's really respected. And probably they screwed up the methodology.

Posted by anonymous | January 8, 2008 11:22 PM

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out the Bradley effect. I wouldn't be quick to rule it in either. I just think that it's plausible as an explanation and deserves to be studied and considered.

However, if I had to toss out a guess, it would be that women turned out heavily and stuck with HRC.

Also, in terms of the last 48 hours, the Clintons (combined) generated a stunning amount of news coverage. For late deciding voters, that may have reignited feelings of familiarity and sympathy.

Posted by dry_fish | January 8, 2008 11:33 PM

...plus the fact that Obama was so widely perceived as likely to win led independents to vote for John McCain in the GOP primary.

Or to stay home altogether. It got up to 68 in my corner of Boston -- I bet it was well into the 50s in New Hampshire. A perfect day for outdoor activities, in other words, and literally about 30 degrees above what you'd expect for this time of the year. I wouldn't be surprised if today's weather was perfect for maximizing elderly turnout and draining away the votes of young people to the ski slopes (especially if plenty of the latter were certain "their" candidate was going to win easily).

Posted by Jasper | January 8, 2008 11:34 PM

ore likely we're looking at a combination of gender backlash, plus the fact that Obama was so widely perceived as likely to win led independents to vote for John McCain in the GOP primary.

Or maybe pollsters just aren't as good as they think they are.

I mean we're talking about an error of 10-12% here.

Posted by Jinchi | January 8, 2008 11:34 PM

"Also, in terms of the last 48 hours, the Clintons (combined) generated a stunning amount of news coverage."

Yup.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 11:36 PM

Hmmm, I am not sure Steinem commands much of an audience among younger women. She may have helped turn out some of the middle-aged/older women, but I think her impact was probably pretty limited. These days she seems to fit more into the "respected but frequently ignored" category of feminist writers as far as women overall are concerned (if we can even talk about such a "group" as a single category).

Posted by nickzi | January 8, 2008 11:37 PM

of course white folks lied to the pollsters.
EVERY poll does not get it wrong unless that happens. tracking polls, all of them, got it wrong.
why?
because white folks lied to the pollsters when they told the pollsters that they would vote for a black man.
the difference between iowa and new hampshire?
in the open process in iowa, people had to declare their choice in front of their friends and neighbors.
it is a lot tougher to pull the old, "i'll tell em i'll vote for the black guy until i get in the voting booth" trick in front of all of your friends and neighbors.
there is no such problem in the privacy of a voting booth in new hampshire.
people will try to make this vote count complicated and complex, when in fact it is as simple as can be.
good old fashioned american racism. as old as the us of a.
and that reality is why i do not, as an african-american democrat, do not want obama to get the nomination.
what happened in new hampshire will be a preview of exactly what will happen nationwide.
you can count on it.

Posted by frankie d | January 8, 2008 11:43 PM

How did richardson pull five percent out of NH? That's strange to me.

Posted by gerontion | January 9, 2008 12:00 AM

Brian Williams and Russert were just on MSNBC saying aides in both camps today saying what the media was reflecting, huge Obama win. They said that Obama and Clinton's internal polling showed a double digit lead for Obama.

In Iowa, you have to declare your "vote" in public. In NH, secret ballot. I think it is absurd to attrbiute tonight's result to anything other than the Bradler/Wilder/Gantt/Ford effect.

Posted by wwc | January 9, 2008 12:04 AM

I hate to say I told you so, but because I don't really have a candidate, I don't get caught up in the hype. The press and the polls do not help candidates in NH. In fact, the polls have done more damage to Obama's campaign than anything without them this would have been a good night for him.

Posted by bajsa | January 9, 2008 12:12 AM

frankie -

tut-tut. You should know by now that as long as there's any *theoretically possible* explanation, why, then it's not racism.

(The rule *used* to be that it isn't racism unless you say "nigger". But Michael Richards forced white folks to change the rule into its current form.)

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 9, 2008 12:13 AM

Matt,

You missed the story here. Gender had nothing to do with it. If you look at the CNN exit and entrance polls of NH and IA you will see they both indicate the same story. Obama's strongest Demographic is the under 40s particularly college and recent college grad, cough cough (you and young ezra klein's demo). While Clinton takes the lion's share of the over 40 crowd. The higher up you go in age the more reliable the voter and the more likely Clinton.

The problem for Obama is that while he has clearly indicated very very positive social trends by getting larger numbers of young people out to vote, he has not overcome the traditional problems this demographic has overall in getting to the polls. He has already picked up all the low hanging under 30 fruit there is to pick, the rest are just low interest voters "no matter what"
as demonstrated by the Darmouth stops this week by Obama and Bill.

Worse the racial issues run against him much more strongly in the over 40 crowd than in the under forty crowd. More precisely Matt, while Obama has your vote does he have your mothers? I am not so sure.

Posted by smacfarl | January 9, 2008 12:20 AM

My take is that the New Hampshire vote is a repudiation -- a massive F*** You -- of the Hillary Hatred narrative that has been so pervasive in our famously free press during the last ten years (and so very, very profitable for the Conservative Movement that devised and propagated it).

Unfortunately (and I'm not an HRC supporter) the Hillary Hatred narrative was enthusiastically and uncritically adopted and pounded into the ground by many members of the Obama Fan Base -- along with other right wing talking points that they also adopted and dog-whistled: Social Security and trial lawyers.

It's to be hoped that one of the lessons learned is that right wing talking points disempower progressives, as indeed they are designed to do.

The good news would be that, just maybe, the country has recovered from conservative dominance enough for the use of right wing talking points in a Democratic primary rebounds against the users. Finally.

Posted by lambert strether | January 9, 2008 12:28 AM

A possible reason why NH might have an over-40 Bradley effect is that the Boston busing and desegregation battle in working-class areas of Boston that led to migrations from Boston and endless news coverage began in 1974.

An over-40 year woman would be born before 1967 and would be 7 years or older in 1974. The last day rallies of Hillary had many Massachusetts residents present.

There's no comparable Iowa racial conflict in the 1970s.

Posted by Tony | January 9, 2008 12:38 AM

It is not the Bradley effect, it was the Chris Matthews effect. I suspect Obama will handily win the nomination from here on out, but women were not going to let Matthews and the rest of the MSM humiliate a decent woman who has worked hard for the party and the country.

And I say that as an Obama supporter.

Posted by Teresa | January 9, 2008 12:46 AM

Ummm, Matt, you may want to check your reasoning. The Wilder Effect suggests that voters lie to pollsters - both before the election and in exit polls. While the pre-election polls were off by more than the exit polls, the exit polls were also off by around 4%, not an insignificant amount. I think Tony is on to something.

Posted by Jim | January 9, 2008 12:47 AM

every once in a while i'll imagine that this country is mature enough to actually deal with its contentious and embarrassing racial history, and then something like tonight happens. it is bad enough that the problems with the polls/results actually happens. what is worse is that most people, including lots of otherwise rational people, simply refuse to honestly confront the unfortunate and ugly truth of what has occurred. instead, they come up with all sorts of fanciful, creative answers for a very simple problem: white folks lie to pollsters about voting for black candidates. it is an old and established problem that has occurred often.
my recognition of this fact has nothing to do with hating hillary. i am ambivalent about her.
i do think, however, that she has been treated so unfairly by the press that it is almost incomprehensible. i will not go into chapter and verse, but there are dozens of instances where a double standard has been applied to her actions, and it makes me sick to see it. that idiot chris matthews should be barred from commenting on political events until he undergoes therapy and comes to grips with his very unhealthy and perverse obsession with clinton. it is almost as if he is making it his mission to prevent her from becoming president.
so i agree wholeheartedly that hillary has gotten the shaft from the press and it it totally, totally unfair.
and i say this as an edwards suppporter who would not mind seeing obama as the candidate.
all that being said, however, the fact is that the discrepancy between the polls and the results is a clear and simple example of good old fashioned american racism and i would not want to risk the presidency on the bet that it would not raise its ugly head in the general election.
sad, but true.

Posted by frankie d | January 9, 2008 1:22 AM

in fact, i think republicans are counting on this phenomenon and their understanding is the reason they have been so complimentary of obama.
they are trying to sucker democrats into nominating obama, knowing full well that what happened tonight would happen in the general election.
all of those right-wingers who are complimenting obama now would turn on him and then stay totally quiet when it happened.
and that 5 point lead that obama might enjoy going into the general election weekend would melt like ice cream on a south beach sidewalk in the summertime.
and when has a presidential election been decided by more than 5-7 points? you could easily rely on this type of pattern occurring and wiping out such a margin in the blink of an eye.

Posted by frankie d | January 9, 2008 1:32 AM

I see.

The way to get elected in the US is to be treated unfairly by the press.

Well, that should simplify electioneering from here on out.

Guess we don't need any "consultants" anymore - unless you can't figure out to get beaten down by the press better than someone else.

Maybe Obama should start crying like a baby, "Everybody won't vote for me because I'm black, it's so hard to be a successful black politician in this country". Then the press can beat him up for being a "whiny nigger" (without using that term, of course, except on some blogs.) Then he'll be nominated.

Wasn't that easy?

It's not the PRESS that is the problem, it's the ELECTORATE who are MORONS.

In my view, this was purely a combination of last-minute news coverage focusing on Clinton plus a bunch of white older women voting for a white older woman because she had an (alleged) crying jag and was perceived to be "the underdog" (for about 48 hours - last week she was supposed to be "inevitable.")

It's incredibly fucking stupid, no matter how you cut it.

I'd rather have Segolene Royal and her bikini coverage than this crap.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 1:36 AM

ive seen that matt guy write some stupid stuff - but that is tops!

obama fans voted for mccain - why?
to guarantee obama would lose in november?

fan boys can be sooooooo dumb!

Posted by tim | January 9, 2008 1:43 AM

The polls said Obama would take 38% of the vote and he received 37% of the vote. So the "black candidate" effect appears to be 1%.

Posted by math | January 9, 2008 1:51 AM

Really? That explains an 11 point shift in one day? (The average of the four polls that included the Seventh was Obama up by 8 or so; Hillary won by about 3.)

Only the Wilder explains such a huge shift, and also explains why it didn't exist in Iowa (open caucuses don't have Wilder effects because it's open, not a secret ballot).

Posted by Geotpf | January 9, 2008 1:59 AM

A more plausible explanation is that Obama actually did very well, considering that Clinton had been heavily favoured in NH for a long time, and that his narrow second place (despite the favourable polls) is more the reult of a passing wave of hype and enthusiasm, which didn't quite produce a full, mature committment among the electorate. This would suggest that voters responding to hype are basically not committed, simply showing somewhat random enthusiasm for flavour of the month. Then the Clintons got 48 hours of "news", and so the hypeometer swung back to them. People may well have been sincere in declaring preferences, but simply not bothered to show up on the day, for whatever reasons. In some cases, this would be because Obama voters felt he was going to win easily, so they had no need to turn out, while others may have simply decided to wait and see for the longhaul.

Posted by basilbrush | January 9, 2008 2:36 AM

Somebody said the undecideds were 17% - if that's true, and most of them were older white women, than an 11 point shift could have easily come from them.

There's no other explanation, because the one poll nailed both Obama's and Edward's numbers, so where did the Clinton votes come from except undecideds?

And the only explanation for why a bunch of undecideds went for Clinton is - older white women influenced by 1) "The Crying Game", 2) Bill Clinton, who they still lust for, 3) their emotional reaction to the perception that Clinton was the "underdog" (for 48 hours, last week she was "inevitable"), 4) their emotional reaction to the press beating Clinton was taking, and 5) the overall press focus on Clinton in the last 48 hours.

There's no other rational explanation, unless you can come up with a "vote fraud" conspiracy theory.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 2:38 AM

one of the things that occurs when white voters lie to pollsters is that they will inform a pollster that they are "undecided" when in fact they are planning on voting, overwhelmingly, for the non-white candidate. people who have looked at this phenomenon argue that such an overwhelming move in one direction - away from the black candidate - can only be explained by something other than random chance. say...racism.

Posted by frankie d | January 9, 2008 3:02 AM

It may win her the primary, but it's going to lose her the general election.

As odious as I might find Hillary and as much as I'd like to believe that, I doubt that's the case. Giuliani will make the pro-lifers stay home. Romney will make the evangelicals stay home. Huckabee will make the fiscal cons vote Democrat (any Democrat). McCain is too hated among conservatives to inspire turnout and wants to stay in Iraq for a century. Paul is apparently a closet white power symapthist (what a sad day for federalism and limited government). Hunter is a nonentity. And my guy (Fred) just got less votes than Kucinich.

Make no mistake, Democrats, your primaries are the general election.

Posted by Shinyk | January 9, 2008 3:06 AM

Just curious, but can anyone give another historical example when polls were off by 10% or more that can't be attributed to the Wilder effect? I really think people are a bit hasty to rule it out.

Posted by Matt in New Mexico | January 9, 2008 3:17 AM

" should say we're seeing some talk of a "Wilder effect" possibly doing Obama in. I don't buy that. If you look at the breakdown of the results, you'd need to believe that white women, but not white men, are inclined to lie to pollsters about that. More likely we're looking at a combination of gender backlash, plus the fact that Obama was so widely perceived as likely to win led independents to vote for John McCain in the GOP primary."

ARG poll 1/06-1/07
Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton among men 44% to 25%, with 21% for John Edwards. Among women, Obama leads Clinton 37% to 35%.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

CNN exit poll

Women 46-34%, Men 40-29%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

So, yes both sides were "lying" she picked up 4% on the male side and 11% on the female. You are only looking at the exit poll and not the polls prior to the election.

Posted by Harry S/mdana | January 9, 2008 3:19 AM

Blackboxvoting.org is beginning to suspect vote fraud - or vote count error - for the Clinton surge. They're not sure yet if it can be explained by an "urban preference" for Clinton. Initial number crunching indicates 60/40 for Obama among the hand-counted ballots, but NINETY percent for Clinton that were electronically counted.

The New Hampshire electronic voting machines are controlled by one company, they count 81 percent of the votes in the country (mostly urban votes) - and they are the same Diebold machines proven to be hackable.

Stay tuned.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 3:26 AM

I am of the same generation as the Clintons, the one the press and the pundits were saying was going into the ashcan. I hear that turnout among the 60-somethings was particularly strong for Hill, and I'll bet a lot of them felt resentment about being ushered offstage by the pundits. We did produce one good President, after all.

Posted by bob h | January 9, 2008 7:25 AM

Hmm,

I'd keep in mind that the Iowa results reflect a public caucus, while the NH results are from a secret ballot. Theoretically, the same social pressures that create a "Wilder Effect" should also be present in the actual caucus, thus preventing the results from deviating from pre election polling.

Along the same theoretical lines, considering the traditionally subdominant role of female partners in patriarchal society, and the gender/race difference between the two candidates, one might predict a greater disparity between the poll numbers for a female candidate as women are more willing to break with their male partners in a secret voting process. Essentially a “Reverse Wilder” where a female candidate outperforms statistical predictions.

All of the above is completely speculation. I am not convinced of the Wilder Effect (in fact, I’m not sure Wilder actually suffered from a Wilder Effect). As more results come in, we should get a much bigger sample with witch to judge. If the Wilder Effect is real, one might predict (1) close correlation between polling and results for any other public caucus states, (2) deviation of white voters in secret ballot states away from the black candidate, (3) close correlation (or a deviation toward the black candidate) between polling and results of black voters in secret ballot states.

South Carolina should be especially interesting in this regard.

Posted by IMU | January 9, 2008 9:47 AM

A little snark (from this long-time Republican who has recently changed his party affiliation, to vote for Obama).

Shouldn't we get Robt F. Kennedy's opinion? I believe he PROVED PROVED PROVED that exit polls cannot be wrong. Remember Ohio 2004?

Will there be an avalanche of similarly-grounded suspicion and finger-pointing on the matter of NH 2008?

I rather doubt it.

Posted by Stephen | January 9, 2008 9:56 AM

It looks like Hillary benefited from the large lesbian population in New Hampshire which came out in large numbers and voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.

Posted by NC Independent | January 9, 2008 12:48 PM

A possible reason why NH might have an over-40 Bradley effect is that the Boston busing and desegregation battle in working-class areas of Boston that led to migrations from Boston and endless news coverage began in 1974.

That's an interesting attempt to make a linkage, but there's no way that is what actually happened. First of all, the people who left Boston generally went to other South Shore suburbs. They didn't have the kind of jobs that allowed for a commute from N.H. nor was it as much in vogue to move there in the 1970s.

The Massachusetts people who moved to N.H. now are younger (you'd have to be older than 40 to have been alienated by busing; try 50s or older), professionals, many of them not with roots in ethnic Boston. And there aren't that many, overall. More people from that generation are probably living in Florida condos than in northern New England.

Finally, the link between busing and Obama is extremely tenuous, and more to the point, it's exactly the kind of liberalism that people identify with Hillary Clinton.

I don't deny the existence of racism, but I find such extraordinary grasping at straws to be sad. No, Louise Day-Hicks and Dapper O'Neil were not ghosts haunting Hillary Clinton rallies in New Hampshire in 2008. It's just not right, and that's not because "it's unfair to say people are racist" or "I don't want to see it," it's just not what's happened and you're denying any opportunity to respond with the real explanations.

Finally, Massachusetts' record in 2006 shows a REVERSE Wilder effect, where the African-American candidate actually performed better than polls predicted in the primary and the general elections. Since nearly all of the people who left Boston decamped to nearby suburbs, how do you account for their unremarkable voter behavior?

If you're going to allege a Bradley effect, you have to make a case beyond that racism still exists and you can't understand why anyone would have voted for Hillary Clinton after this weekend.

Posted by Brittain33 | January 9, 2008 1:31 PM

Geotpf, primary polls are notoriously unreliable and prone to big volatility. The Wilder effect is the only explanation if you choose to disregard the past history of polling for primaries, and also screen out for the very many elections recently (Deval Patrick and Harold Ford in '06) where there was no such effect.

It's a blind alley to take all those results, identify the ones where the African-American candidate did as well or better than polls predicted as fair, and those where he did worse as evidence of racism. People change their minds. I was a weak Clinton supporter for several months, and I'm a man, but I was really pissed at description of her debate performance as a "meltdown" and I connected with the tears.

Posted by Brittain33 | January 9, 2008 1:36 PM

You don't have to buy a Bradley Effect, but what else is there?

Obama was leading in every poll going in, and he lost.

It's, what, a 97% White state?

It's White voters, not White men that cause the Bradley Effect.

Nice try, but no dice.

This was a Bradley Effect.

Stop trying to explain it away. It's staring you in the face.

Posted by rikyrah | January 9, 2008 1:57 PM

You don't have to buy a Bradley Effect, but what else is there?

Obama was leading in every poll going in, and he lost.

It's, what, a 97% White state?

It's White voters, not White men that cause the Bradley Effect.

Nice try, but no dice.

This was a Bradley Effect.

Stop trying to explain it away. It's staring you in the face.

Posted by rikyrah | January 9, 2008 1:59 PM

You don't have to buy a Bradley Effect, but what else is there?

Obama was leading in every poll going in, and he lost.

It's, what, a 97% White state?

It's White voters, not White men that cause the Bradley Effect.

Nice try, but no dice.

This was a Bradley Effect.

Stop trying to explain it away. It's staring you in the face.

Posted by rikyrah | January 9, 2008 1:59 PM

Obama was leading in every poll going in, and he lost.

And one week before, Clinton was leading Obama in every poll in N.H. The poll moved really quickly in 5 days. If there's a Bradley effect, why weren't those voters lying to the pollsters a few days before? Primary electorates are really volatile, things change, is there any way you can have Hillary Clinton do well in New Hampshire without deciding it was due to racism?

Where was the Bradley effect in Iowa, where was it in the Massachusetts governor's election in 2006, the Mass. primary in 2006, Ford's senate election in 2006, Obama's senate primary in 2004? Nowhere. It didn't happen.

Clinton won this race this weekend. Obama had a quick Iowa effect bubble that deflated pretty quickly, leaving him just where he was before he'd won Iowa. If you screen out every other factor that could possibly affect the poll, yes, only race is left. Where does that leave us?

Posted by Brittain33 | January 9, 2008 2:54 PM