Obama & The Bradley Effect

I am sure that I will be called down on suggesting this, but I can see no other reason why Obama loses the NH primary after being up on nearly every poll.  

Race likely had a reason...

Of course, many people won't want to believe this, but there is little doubt when almost all of these professional polls are wrong.

Bear in mind that a caucus - a la Iowa - is a public event.  People are less likely to show race based preferences in public.  In the privacy of a voting booth, where Clinton's internal polls showed her losing by 11 and Obama's internal polls up by 14, the fact that he lost by 3 in 24 hours is baffling, and nearly impossible.

I know that Hillary supporters won't want to believe this, but when was the last time the polls have been so wrong, by so much?  

When race has been a factor

I am sorry to suggest this, but what is the alternative?  The facts don't lie.

Am I wrong?

•  Give it up.

  by masslib on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:04:28 PM PDT

  •  nobody likes sore losers --

    or sore winners, for that matter.

    so many Obama supporters here are both.  what a shame.

    what's not a shame is the diary on the top of the rec list right now from a sane and mature Obama supporter.

    i wrote a similar diary after Clinton lost Iowa and got 7 comments.

    c'est la vie.

    by CC Music Factory on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:15:37 PM PDT

    •  here we go

      now the mention of race will be met with questiong of ones sanity and maturity.

      It can't be the Bradley effect because?  because you don't want it to be?

      by tcandew on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:03:07 PM PDT

      •  it's a question of sanity

        for the Obama camp.

        the way i see it: given his broad appeal, to bring up race as a matter of any significance now would wreck his entire campaign.

        but go right ahead if you want to keep bringing it up.  no matter how unfair the results, Americans will never side with a (perceived) sore loser.

        by CC Music Factory on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:15:01 PM PDT

  •  hey after how BILL BRADLEY

    treated Gore, Id bet that his endorsement of Obama DID cost him votes!!!!!!!

    lol!

    I friggin hate that guy! He was Nader before Nader was Nader!

    by seymour glass 08 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:25:09 PM PDT

  •  Or independants reached for a GOP ballot

    after telling pollsters they would vote Democratic.

    It was a surprising win.  But then, so was Iowa.

    The game is afoot!  A two-candidate footrace, that is.

    by Quicklund on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM PDT

•  four words: GOTV

  Clinton had a superior operation in New Hampshire. That's it.

  The MSM didn't cover it because the MSM is lazy.

  Obama did very well in Clinton's firewall, it's unfortunate that this will be spun as a catastrophic loss in another round of 'anoint the nominee.'

  by Stroszek on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:06:31 PM PDT

  •  Clinton had been leading up to last week

    And commandingly so.

    Both Obama and Edwards took big chunks out of that lead, but not enough to overcome it.  

    It's not a big loss for him, and in my opinion it's good as it keeps the primaries going longer.  I remember all too well what happened when Kerry had it locked up in February:  That gave the GOP months to focus on him and him alone.  So long as there are three major candidates, the GOP can't focus on any single one, and has to work three times as hard on oppo for a lot longer than they'd like.

    by Phoenix Woman on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:12:10 PM PDT

    •  It's not a big loss for him?

      that is sooooo delusional!

      funny too!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      by seymour glass 08 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM PDT

  •  its done

    obmaa had to sweep the first 4 to kill her money flow and to get the slew of endorsements.  he didnt.

    she gets the money, he doesnt get the slew,

    hes dead man walking.

    the grind will continue, but hes finished.

    if he takes it with grace, hes a very viable vp and id support that, but he will not be the nominee,

    if he wants to ever be, its time to go for the vp.

    by seymour glass 08 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:29:46 PM PDT

  •  lazy

    they are lazy. sometimes we attribute to malice was is actually laziness.

    by isis2 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:35:15 PM PDT

•  this is america

  this is america afterall, and racism is still alive and well.  Did it mess up the polls?  who knows, but race does and will play a part in this election.  Just how much is the real question.
  Just last week at new years I was with a buddy, this guy is a diehart Democrat, he works and helps the mentally challenged, and as we talked football, suddenly we switched to politics where he just blurted out, " no way I am voting to put a n%^$#* in the white house"

  I live in the north east, racism is alive and well.

  by dark daze on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:07:28 PM PDT

•  I thought it was Bill Bradley's endorsement

  Because we all know he's electoral poison. ;-)

  Seriously, I've often wondered if The Bradley Effect is at work with Obama's campaign -- though really, Hillary was always, right up until last week, massively ahead in New Hampshire.  The fact that Obama came with spitting distance is actually not that bad for him.

  by Phoenix Woman on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM PDT

  •  Maybe it's because Bradley played basketball

    enjoyed and played by some black people, that race is a reason. OR because Bradley represented New Jersey, where some black people live. Bradley played at a college that some black people attended.

    He lives on Earth, where all black people live?

    I give up. What does race have to do with New Hampshire and Bradley?

    by JohnGor0 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM PDT

  •  refers to Mayor Bradley from LA...

    who ran ahead in the polls for Governor of California, but lost narrowly, because people voted differently than they said in telephone polls - being unwilling to admit to pollsters their reservations about voting for an African American.

    by fhcec on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:13:02 PM PDT

•  I think this accounts for at least a few %

  I don't think it tells the whole story.

  But let's be honest -- racism has just retreated to code words and inner-feelings. That's enough to sway an election by secret ballot.

  by danthrax on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:08:47 PM PDT

  •  If racism explains it...

    Why Clinton and not Edwards? Wouldn't a racist prefer a white man over an "uppidy" woman?

    by Sharon Jumper on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:08 PM PDT

    •  If racism is so prevalent

      is Obama toast in the general election?  Should he just throw in the towel now?

      I don't think it is racism, and I don't think it is time for him - or Edwards - to quit.  Let the Democratic process work.

      by bear83 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:21:04 PM PDT

    •  You're missing the point

      The Bradley Effect is not questioning why Hillary beat Obama.  It questions how the pollsters could have overestimated Obama's polling strength by such a large and consistent margin.

      by TheWurx on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM PDT

      •  not consistent - only women...

        by fhcec on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:10:14 PM PDT

  •  5 % would be a Bradley effect

    Obama was up about 9 on HRC in polls taken Sunday, so the swing is 12.  Maybe a Bradley effect plus a gender backlash caused by perceived media coverage of HRC being on the ropes.  The gender gap today makes that a possibility.

    by MJB on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:49:20 PM PDT

•  it's absolutely a factor

  but there is also hillary getting beat up by the press and the tears. women came to her defense big time, but race is absolutely an issue. For christ sakes this country has only elected one non WASP and he was irish catholic and named kennedy.

  by Tanya on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:09:20 PM PDT

•  It was the crying.

  My husband said it as soon as he saw it on the news, that a whole lot of people would feel sorry for her because she was going to cry.  I didn't think that was possible until I read today that all 3 networks led the news with it last night.  

  by Lois on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:09:30 PM PDT

  •  I wonder if the media

    Knew that would help the warmonger win.

    by jfern on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:13:04 PM PDT

  •  and all that lead up to it

    i think that snotty comment disguised as a debate question last saturday night set something off... where hillary was 'asked' about not being likeable. it was painful to listen to. i thought it was just plain mean even though she handled it well and even made a plus out of it.

    it pissed me off and i'm an edwards supporter. i thought it was an incredibly cheap shot. i think it contributed. just my opinion.

    by isis2 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:45:37 PM PDT

    •  It was a stupid question and

      what could the other candidates do about it?  You're right; it set up the whole "poor Hillary Clinton" thing.  

      by Lois on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:25:48 AM PDT

•  This is a duplicate diary

  And also silly.

  The pollsters got the male vote and missed the female vote by a mile.

  by brklyngrl on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:10:12 PM PDT

•  Let's try again in 30 years.

  by sunbode2000 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:11:08 PM PDT

•  Not Buying It

  Look at Matt Yglesias:

  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.

  Then look at his other post comparing actual results to poll  results.

  Just as Brian says, the difference between the Obama poll level and the Obama vote total level seems to just be your basic statistical variance. The pollsters underestimated Clinton's level of support. People who were undecided as of the last round of polling seem to have gone overwhelmingly in her direction.

  by LawStudent on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:17:42 PM PDT

  •  wha?

    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!

    by seymour glass 08 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:39:19 PM PDT

•  You are wrong in this case---here's why:

  The polls weren't wrong about Obama if you look at them on average and look at their margins of error.  They were wrong about Hillary, however.

  The CNN election eve poll was typical, so I am using it to respond. (I actually posted this comment on another diary first a little bit ago.)

  First, likely Democratic voters were polled (26% of registered voters in NH), but apparently not independents who make up 40% of registered voters in NH. (The article implied independents were not polled, but I did not read the actual poll itself, so this may not be an accurate interpretation.)

  Second, Obama was  predicted to get 39%; he actually received 37% and the margin of error was 4%; so his results were well within the predicted range.  

  Finally, 6% of those polled on the Democratic side were undecided.  

  Since the actual results were well within the margin of error, it is highly doubtful based on this poll that people lied to the pollsters about voting for Obama.

  As for Hillary's stronger than predicted showing, the poll had her at 30% and she won 39%--outside the margin of error.  Likely explanations: the 6% undecideds were motivated to vote for her and independent women came out for her.

  Please do not jump to conclusions about racism and electability.  Yes, we have witnessed it before.  Too often.  But not tonight in New Hampshire.

  by sfgb on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:23:25 PM PDT

  •  so your explanation is...

    100% of undecided voters broke for Hillary and also a couple percent of Obama voters changed their mind at the last moment?

    by jbrians on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:38:53 PM PDT

•  Perhaps the New Hampshire voters

  just didn't want to annoint Obama quite yet. The vetting, kick the tires thing.

  I was only slightly disapointed with tonight's outcome, even though I'd almost hate to see another Clinton Presidency.

  I want our candidate to earn the nomination.

  by SecondComing on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:54:44 PM PDT

  •  Why "almost"?

    After the lying mailers the Clintons sent out, Bill's lies about Obama in his recent talks, his whining, etc. etc., I'm coming to think that the Republicans may have been right about the Clintons all along.

    by skeptica on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:28:51 AM PDT