I think this is silly and harmful (4.00 / 3)

"a partial cause but not a majority cause for Clinton's victory."

If it's a cause of anything, it's a cause of the polls being wrong.  She got the votes she got.  One is not "owed" poll results.

Not that race isn't a factor.  Obviously it is, but engage it straight up.

---

by: jeffroby @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:16:44 PM CST

Go To The Dkos (0.00 / 0)

front page and there you will find a video of Tom Brokaw lecturing Chris Mathews about too much emphasis being put on polls.

Brokaw's bottomline: We put to much emphasis on polls and we showed just forget polling and let the process play out and let the American people vote and decide.

Yeah but Tom - what would the MSM and the blogs have to do if that happened? And besides how would they be able to try to have any influence on how people voted?

http://www.dailykos....

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:30:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

showed = should (0.00 / 0)

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:33:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this is where Obama's message really gets tested. (0.00 / 0)

Since he's all about the hope and such.
As a lot of African American folks seem to think that he either couldn't get elected or would get assassinated if he did.

Of course, no matter what happens you have to believe in something, but that cynicism is richly deserved.

We aren't that many generations removed from civil rights you know?

There are still those that cry "too much, too soon".

:(

-C.

---

by: neutron @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:22:36 PM CST

Back To The '60's (0.00 / 0)

Racism will have a new resurgence should Obama win the nomination as we are already seeing. And for that I fear for our chances to regain the WH.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:32:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So (4.00 / 2)

We shouldn't nominate Obama because he will increase racism in America that will be detremental to our chances? Is that what you are saying? We must bow to racists or otherwise lose the election?

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:36:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Winning Elections (0.00 / 0)

is about playing the odds right to win. They are not about making idealogical statements.

Given the blatant racist that won't vote for Obama - and yes that includes some Democrats and Independents - and the millions of "closet racists" that are out there, Democrats and Independents...

Then we are without argument lessening our odds in nominating Obama. Now if making a statement is worth 8 more years of Republican rule then that is your personal call to make. But you and millions of others could suffer as you know as a result of your and others decision to make that call.

I think that if Obama were to lose in the general due to lost votes due to racism that you and others will rue the day you voted for idealism instead of for a candidate that didn't have that obstacle. I think you will rue the day that you voted for a candidate that ideology wise is not much different than his opponent but lessened our odds of winning just based on the fact that his opponent happens to be named Clinton.

From your own words on your own blog you don't support Obama - you supported Edwards. And your bandwagon support of Obama now is not real support at all - it is support based on you being anti-Clinton.

They are both basically cut of the same cloth, with Hillary actually being more liberal and having a longer record of being liberal. But yet you would rather lessen our chances of winning when you know racism reduces our odds than vote for the candidate who eliminates that hurdle.

To me that is taking personal hatred too far. When you put personal hatred before country that is just too far.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:40:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama has a better chance of being elected (0.00 / 0)

than Clinton according to polls.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:40:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fear is no excuse (4.00 / 1)

to give in to racists.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:14:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Not About Giving In To Racists (0.00 / 0)

That isn't what this election is about. This election is about choosing the best candidate who has the best chance of winning for our country and our party and our future.

It is about choosing the candidate with the least amount of hurdles in the race to the WH.

If this country was not currently spit down the middle I wouldn't even be bring this up. But it is split down the middle. And there are racists on both sides of the middle. So that means less votes for our side which in a 51-49 election we likely lose.

Now you can vote with your heart. Or you can vote with your mind and a rudimentary understanding of math. That is your choice. And in making that choice you must consider the possible consequences of your choice and live with them for a long time (think SCOTUS for one).

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:51:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What a sick little self-fulfilling prophecy (0.00 / 0)

"If Democrats nominate and African-American, he can't win because racists won't vote for him.  Therefore, like the racists we pretend to be disgusted with, we must also not vote for African-Americans."

---

by: moreaxe @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:54:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You Miss My Point (0.00 / 0)

the point is to vote for who has the best chance of winning the WH.

If you don't think racism is going to be a factor for Obama in the general and an obstacle to him winning then you are not paying attention. Read the front page on this site - racism is already an issue.

Now you can vote for Obama as our nominee and say the racists didn't win. But if racism takes hold in this race as it already is and he loses due to racism then the racists win anyway...

and the county loses.

You can't change how people are. You can only factor them into the equation and then ask yourself are your ideals of electing a black candidate worth the possible consequences of winning the WH.

I'm not willing to risk the country's future just to make a statement.

And if you think the county is high on electing a black man then count how many black senators there have ever been.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 16:43:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So you know (0.00 / 0)

who "has the best chance of winning the WH?" Did some fucking poll tell you that? Is it one conducted by the same people who did the NH primary polls? I hope this is not what being a Democrat has boiled down to. All of us afraid of making a "statement" based on some vapid, inconsequential polling data or ex-post facto logic about "possible consequences".

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:02:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Grow up (0.00 / 0)

You are going to totally ignore racism in the USA? What a joke.

Count the number of black Senators in the history of the country.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 20:09:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So what's "grown-up"? (0.00 / 0)

Of course you can't ignore racism. But if your fear of confronting it, or any other bigoted position, is the determinant factor in how you decide your political allegiances then I can't see how you can make a legitimate case for any candidate. If you back Clinton, does that mean you're "ignoring" sexism? Sure there's never been a black or female president, but the minute there's the first one, it won't be that big of a deal anymore. From Garrison Keillor: "The country wants change. Here's how it happens. People talk it to death for decades and then somebody crosses the line and suddenly the line doesn't exist anymore. Men would not accept women in management and then, lo and behold -- Women in Management! Accepted. (Thump.) The country is not going to elect a black man president until one day it does and we all wake up the next morning and go to work and that's that."
http://www.salon.com...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 20:30:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not running away is not ignoring (0.00 / 0)

" You are going to totally ignore racism in the USA? What a joke."

Sorry, son, I'm not gonna let the racists tell me who I can, or cannot vote for - simple as that.

Just wondering, do you feel the same way about Hillary Clinton and the "hidden" sexism in the nation?  Maybe we should avoid nominating her because all the nasty little woman-haters won't vote for Democrats if a woman heads the ticket.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:01:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's pretty clear (0.00 / 0)

that sexism in politics is nothing close to the problem that racism is.

Count the number of women in the Senate and then compare that to the number of blacks in the Senate. That ought to give you a good idea of the lay of the land.

Even in the House blacks only represent about 10% and most of them come from black districts. Compare that to the number of women in the House.

No your comparison of gender versus race in politics is not even valid based on the numbers.

Vote for who you want. But if racism gives the republicans the WH again then part of that will be on you. You can be proud of your idealism while at the same time you watch more people sent off to die in wars, people going without healthcare, the environment getting worse, the rich thriving while the middle class continues to struggle, another wingnut judge on the Supreme Court for life which will affect you and your for the rest of their lives, etc

So you play a high stake game in the name of your idealistic vote. A high stake game indeed. Should racism cost us this election it will be something you will have to live with in a not so nice way for a long long time.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, polls do indicate that the strongest Democrat (0.00 / 0)

against Republicans is Edwards.  Both Clinton and Obama have baggage. And, as far as I'm concerned, it includes their positions on issues of economic equality, 'free trade', or to be more clear, their support of cannibal capitalism.

Let us also remember that polls are snapshots of a period of time.  They are not guarantees of what happens the next day.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 21:28:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bradley effect greatly misunderstood (0.00 / 0)

The election where George Deukmejian beat Tomn Bradley is where the so-called "Bradley" effect occurred.  Bradley appeared to have won in the exit polls, and did in fact win among thosew who voted on election day, but the absentee ballots gave it to Deukmejian. This was not necessarily an artifact of people lying to pollsters, so much as pollsters missing those who cast absentee ballots.  In those far-off days (1982) most absentees were conservative and older voters.

But there was another twist in that election.  There was a gun control initiative on the ballot, as well as at least one other progressive initiative.  The gun control measure in particular had the then-unforeseen but in retrospect eminently foreseeable consequence of propelling many to the polls who were what Stan Greenberg calls the "F* You" folks, who might not have voted except that the NRA and GOP ran a campaign telling them that the dreaded liberals were coming to take away their guns.  When they did vote, they didn't vote for the Black, Democratic mayor of LA.  They evidently were enough of the population, and not part of previous models, to skew the polls and the results.

I'm not saying that white voters don't lie.  But the discrepancy in that case was not that great since it was a relatively close election, and there were other factors that would account for it.

But that was California, and I know norhing of the Wilder election in Virginia.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:46:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That can go two ways (0.00 / 0)

I'm finding the whole Tweety meme that Clinton couldn't win a primary unless there was racism involved pretty repugnant. Does that mean that Obama couldn't have won the Iowa caucus unless there was sexism? If he wants to run with that, I think he's going to find some people repulsed at his assumption that he would automatically win all Americans if there weren't racism involved. We don't all vote like little Stepfords. We get to weigh all the issues and make a choice. I would suggest that Mr. Obama needs to get busy actually talking about the issues, rather than trying to make one where there isn't. One of the biggest complaints people have about him is that he is very light on issues, and heavy on Kumbaya. That might play for one caucus when it's new. But some of us are getting a little bit bored about "I'm all fired up!" "Do you all want change?" and other pep rally statements without any substance behind them.

---

by: CognitiveDissonance @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 14:49:24 PM CST

Obama has not made this an issue (0.00 / 0)

but from your post, we can plainly see why he can't.  Whites just aren't comfortable with open talk of race and immediately become defensive.  Thanks for such a good demonstration of it.

---

by: moreaxe @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:03:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No Evidence (0.00 / 0)

The following article states:
1. Obama did not lose any votes so there was no evidence for the Bradley effect;
2. Late breaking voters, those who made up their minds within the past 3 days, voted strongly for Obama; and
3. If anything, the horrible press coverage of HRC inspired voters who already preferred her to actually go out and vote for her; so points 2 and 3 counter "conventional wisdom" her HRC's emotions themselves did not win it for her (Take it, Maureen Dowd).

http://alternet.org/...

More on the lack of evidence to charge NH residents as secretly racist: If the Bradley Effect were in play, one would expect A) Obama to fall significantly, and B) his support to be divided among the white candidates. You'd certainly expect a boost to the prominent white guy, Edwards. But none of that happened -- Obama got just what the polls suggested he would overall, he won 36% of the white vote, according to the exit polls, and, instead of getting a bump, all of the other candidates also lost a small amount of ground to Hillary -- all except for Richardson, the only other non-white whose vote total came in just as it had been expected to.

---

by: Patrickson @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:02:01 PM CST

Damn Typos (0.00 / 0)

This is what I meant to type:
Obama did not lose any votes so there was no evidence of the Bradley effect;

and

3. If anything, the horrible press coverage of HRC inspired voters who already preferred her to actually go out and vote for her; so points 2 and 3 counter "conventional wisdom" her emotions themselves won it for her (Take it, Maureen Dowd).

---

by: Patrickson @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:06:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Scratch "themselves" (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Patrickson @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:07:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What about people who are racist AND sexist? (4.00 / 1)

We call them Republicans ;-).

Seriously, this is all overblown.  First, see my post above about the supposed "Bradley" effect, which has itself been overblown.  Second, is the idea here that men, who went more for Obama, are less racist tham women, who went for Hillary?  But more sexist?

None of this gives much credit to the voters, who may not think in policy terms like most of us do, but who aren't by and larege stupid or retrograde either.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:53:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

And those who would seem to be most likely both racist and misogynistic--white men--voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

I can't help but fear this myth will take hold.

---

by: Patrickson @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 16:41:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The polling data indicates that women gave Clinton the (0.00 / 0)

victory.  Why would these women (who decided in the last hours of the race)lie about voting for Obama.  Of course, there may have been a little racism involved, but the overwhelming reason Clinton won was because of the Tweety effect.  I am no fan of Clinton, however, between Obama's comment that "you are nice enough" and Tweety, Olberman, et al, giving her campaign last rights, even I felt a need to defend her.

Why is it that Clinton could not have won because of the horrible treatment she received from the msm, and Obama must have lost because of racism?

The Bradley effect occurs in general elections.  Where is the evidence to show that it occurs in Democratic Primaries?

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:03:21 PM CST

very poisonous and unfounded CW (0.00 / 0)

There are myriad other explanations for this. Why should there be a "Wilder effect" in secular NH, but apparently not in culturally conservative Iowa? Yeah, I know, Iowa is not a secret ballot. Ok, fine. Does that mean every white Iowan who didn't vote for Obama would instinctively fear being tagged as racist? Come on.

A much more plausible explanation is that independent men disproportionately voted for McCain in the GOP primary and independent women disproportionately voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary.

Anyway, Deval Patrick didn't have that problem in Massachusetts.

We have three cases of results. Iowa and Massachusetts have had no Wilder effect. NH numbers produced a surprise at the expense of the black guy. The Wilder effect hasn't been replicated since VA, and the Wilder Effect is nothing more than an artifact of conventional wisdom before CW could be challenged, anyway.

It didn't happen to Ron Kirk in TX (he underperformed final polling, but not relative to white Democrats in 2002). Didn't happen to Patrick. Didn't happen to Obama in Iowa. Sure as hell didn't happen to Obama in any of his Illinois races.

So for your own sake, don't sell your white self so short. Based on what we know, a collective guilt trip is just not necessary.

---

by: jforshaw @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:06:46 PM CST

Bradley effect? I think not (0.00 / 0)

Before:
http://www.pollster....

After:
http://politics.nyti...

The Monday poll average from Pollster.com shows Obama polling at 37. His primary numbers? 36.5.

Looks to me like everybody who said they were gonna vote for him face to face voted for him in the polling booth as well. Ergo, no Bradley effect.

What the pollsters missed was a Hillary surge of about 8 points. Looks more like people polled said they'd vote for Edwards/Obama than did in the polling booth, so maybe there's a biased-against-white-men effect here. (I kid. I kid because I love.)

This "Bradley effect saved Hillary meme" is flat-out wrong. It's being pushed by the media, and it's damaging to the Dems.

Imagine that.

Please stop falling for it and take it down for the fallacy it is.

---

by: alteran @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:25:49 PM CST

Oops-- "Edwards/Obama" should say "Edwards/Richardson" (0.00 / 0)

---

by: alteran @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:28:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rothenberg (0.00 / 0)

Seems to me that Rothenberg's take is particularly poisonous to both campaigns and to the party. In 1988 Jesse Jackson won among lower-income white Democrats because he was addressing their issues, in 2008 Barack Obama does not do as well among lower-income people because he does not address their issues.  Jesse Jackson Jr.'s take is condescending to African Americans and undermines the basic message of Obama's campaign: getting beyond divisiveness.

---

by: souvarine @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:34:50 PM CST

The only "Bradley Effect" (0.00 / 0)

was from the endorsement of Bill Bradley.

Seriously, anyone who looks at the raw numbers from the polls can see quite clearly that there wasn't any significant difference between Obama's support and his eventual vote percentage. It was well within the margin of error.

Edwards' support in the polls was vastly overstated, which suggests that many Edwards supporters switched to Clinton because they thought it was a two-person race. It's a more plausible explanation for Clinton's victory than hidden racism.


Further Reading

---

by: Dave Sund @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:51:05 PM CST

Objectivity is beside the point (0.00 / 0)

Why are so many commenters on this thread trying to use some kind of objective evidence--polling data, comparisons to previous elections and primaries--to argue that the perception that racism is taking center stage in the Dem primary is unwarranted? Since when do perceptions have to have rational explanations? Like Chris, I don't know the impact that this perception has on the overall campaign either. But many observers of the NH primary who concluded that perceptions of gender discrimination helped Senator Clinton seem unable to deal with the question of whether racist perceptions will help or harm Obama. Instead, they  try to explain the perception away. Should this type of reaction be widespread, it bodes poorly for Obama's candidacy and the Democratic party in general.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 15:54:05 PM CST

polls (0.00 / 0)

The final UNH Survey Center poll, which is the gold standard for NH polling, showed 25% undecided, but it also showed 21% leaning towards candidates. In short, there were 46% in the final days who had not made their minds up. I bet the other polls were similar. The polling message should have been, "Obama leads, but nearly half still undecided"; instead, it was "Obama on way to win".  Hillary Clinton's campaign astutely recognized that NH voters decide late, so she did several town hall meetings the last few days, and also events with undecided voters right through the last day.

Hillary had a good debate on Saturday night; Obama's  snarky comment about "you're likeable enough" had people muttering about him a little. Combine that with her reaching out to undecideds, having great events at which she impressed people with her breadth and depth of knowledge on a myriad of issues, a superior GOTV organization, the Portsmouth event on Monday which got so much press coverage, and a revulsion toward the national media, and there was your upset.

So many of the national pundits are lazy. They could have analyzed the polls and picked up on the undecided factor. They would have done their homework and known that New Hampshire voters historically make their minds up late; there are several recent instances of NH elections where the polls were wrong.

Also, the national press made its mind up a long time ago that Iowa dictates the NH result. Again, if they had done their homework, they would have known that the opposite is true. NH usually does something different than Iowa, in both parties, but the press assumed '08 was '04 all over. 

The Obama campaign kept telling the press it had the best organization. The press beleived the press releases. Clinton had the superior organization. Clinton hired the absolutely best New Hampshire people, who have won elections over and over and over in this state. Democratic governors have been elected in five of the last six elections in NH. The people who worked for Hillary either ran those campaigns, or were trained by the people who ran those campaigns.  Obama decided to go in a different direction.

Since the pundits and pollsters can't admit error, they are looking for another reason to explain why the voters made them look silly.  When someone like Chris Matthews, who is incredibly self absorbed, is wrong, rather than admit it, he has to find someone to blame.  So he blames the alleged bias of the voters - because if the voters proved him wrong, it can't be his fault, it has to be their fault.

The reality is, NH gave 75% of its Democratic vote to a woman and an African American.  This is a state that approved civil unions with out the threat of litigation, the only state to do so.  Is it a perfect place? No, but the idea of racial bias dictating the result is an effort by elitist pundits to justify their collective gross miscalculation that a candidate they don't like won. Shame on Matthews and others for accusing the good people of my state of racial bias in order to hide their own ineptitude.

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 16:50:50 PM CST

People should (0.00 / 0)

really stop posting this crap about racism or sexism causing the NH results.  It's patently absurd on it's face.  Maybe good for someone's propaganda but that's about all.

---

by: RalphB @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 17:12:39 PM CST

Bradley Effect In NH, but Not Iowa??? (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry, I've been writing a lot today, and not had time to click around a lot.  But it's hard to imnagine anyone coming up with a plausible explanation for why a Bradley effect would show up decisively in New Hamshipre, but not at all in Iowa.

That's the primary reason that I lean toward the same multi-causal mushy middle as Chris.  There's just too many plausible eplanations for modest shifts that all add up to explain what happened, and no overwhelming argument for one big shift--including the Bradley effect.

Likewise, I find it incedible that anyone could pretend there's no such thing as a Bradley effect anymore.  It's may be hard to tease out, but it's ludicrous to pretend that it's magically vanished.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 17:21:50 PM CST

Was Iowa the white guilt vote (0.00 / 0)

Whether it was because they were eager to leave behind the bitter divides of the last two decades or because they wanted to send a message that a small white state could transcend the issue of race, Iowa voters handed Senator Barack Obama a victory here

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:17:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Race taking center stage (0.00 / 0)

With all due respect to Clinton operative Kathy Sullivan, I have to respectfully disagree. Andy Kohut of the Pew Research Center doesn't dismiss what is generally termed "the Bradley Effect," a phenomenon that took its name from Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley's 1982 race for Governor.  Polling substantially ahead late in the race, Bradley lost by fifty thousand votes.  In short, white Democrats lied and told pollsters what they wanted to hear and refused to reveal their true preferences. The phenomenon repeated itself in the 1989 New York Mayoral contest and in that year's Virginia's gubernatorial race.

Kohut wrote a New York Times Op-ed piece eliminating four separate factors that could have caused an aberrant result.

Kohut eliminated: polling methodology, subtleties of polling methods, a last minute trend going Mrs. Clinton's way, and lastly, high turnout as causes for polling inaccuracy. What he couldn't eliminate was race.  Kohut wrote, "But another possible explanation cannot be ignored - the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor."

"…In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it's hard to pinpoint the exact cause of the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology."  He spoke from experience having worked on Mayor Dinkins 89 Mayoral race and I believe him.

Contrary to media doublespeak, Arne Arnesen, a radio talk show host, former New Hampshire state legislator and gubernatorial candidate, also echoed this opinion on NPR.

I share Mrs. Sullivan's assertion that the vast majority of New Hampshire Democrats possesses no racial antipathy, but it is also clear to me that a portion of the Democratic electorate has a problem.  Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

"The Harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved."
--Jeremiah 8:20

---

by: skeptical brotha @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 23:21:33 PM CST