Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.  It's possible Napolitano could help Obama in Nevada (1/19 caucuses).  Arizona's primary is on 2/5.

...he might as well get it wrong twice.

Poorer, less-educated democrats voting with a bias based on their prejudices don't select against a black man by voting for a white woman.  They vote for a non-threatening white man who doesn't challenge their prejudices on race or gender.  In short, they vote for John Edwards, and he didn't do that much better than his polling numbers.

Kohut's a smart man and I respect a lot of his work.  But when he writes that "serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology," he's only looking at 2/3rds of the equation.  We must consider just as seriously the role that gender played in the New Hampshire primary, or we will never truly understand what happened earlier this week.

I know I'm not; I think Hillary's display of emotion (or "emotion", depending on your point of view) played an important role.  Also, Obama and Edwards "ganging up" on the lone woman in the ABC debate probably gained Hillary some sympathy votes.  That can explain a lot of the polling discrepancies, but I still think what Kohut's saying about race is worth thinking about...

only insofar as it's worth considering briefly and then immediately discounting.  If the numbers were there I'd be incredibly concerned, but the simple fact is that the wrong candidate's numbers were off.  Women broke at the last minute more strongly for Clinton here than they did in Iowa, and she won as a consequence.

That doesn't justify you suggesting that they're racists, though, does it?  Does your support of Obama justify me in suggesting that you're a sexist?

I like you, Lowell, so I'm just taking for granted that this is concerning you because you're a well-meaning person and not because you're bitter that New Hampshire disagreed voted against the guy you're supporting.  And I can respect that.  But the numbers simply aren't there to support your claim, and I think we should seriously consider backing off on any accusation like this before we start using race as a wedge issue.

...as are many analysts, including several on Diane Rehm this morning (and yes, the subject of race came up).

But they're wrong, right?  They were wrong before the election when they said Obama was going to blow her out of the water.  Why would they be right now?  They're feeling defensive because everyone knows they were royally off on their analysis, and the easiest way to rationalize how wrong they were is to blame the good people of New Hampshire.

If you want my opinion, they were actually right.  Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: the more they polled huge numbers for Obama and reported that Hillary's candidacy was effectively over, the more middle-aged feminist women felt compelled to turn out and support her.  New Hampshire women simply weren't willing to pull the trigger on the first serious female contender for the Presidency in US History before she'd even really had a chance to stand for election in the rest of the country.

Or maybe it was something else.  I don't know, I'm not a woman (neither are most political analysts, news anchors, reporters or bloggers, unfortunately).  I'm talking to every woman I can find to figure out how they felt about Hillary between Iowa and NH--the common thread is women saying "I didn't realize how badly I wanted her to win until she'd already lost."  But it was the women that made the difference, so let's think about what motivates women to vote for women and resist the urge to assign more sinister motives to their voting behaviors.

and make excuses.  But I remain intrigued by the POSSIBILITY - - and that's all it is -- of a "Wilder effect," even if it's just 5% of the population or whatever that's susceptible to it.  Unless you're arguing that there is NO hidden (or subtle) racism in this country?  

I would argue that while the racism is subtle and hidden, the sexism and misogyny is overt and right out there in the open for everyone to see ("how do we beat the bitch?"), but that's a discussion for a different time.

If we want to talk about what role racism played in NH, awesome.  Let's talk about why poorer, anti-Hillary voters with lower education levels are voting for Edwards while Obama's support (for someone supposedly anti-establishment) is strongest among wealthier anti-Hillary democrats with some graduate studies, masters degrees or PhDs.   "We must seriously consider the role race and class present..." wrote Kohut.  There's the divide RIGHT THERE.  Don't look in Hillary's camp for the hiding bigot voters (a few idiotic comments notwithstanding--Johnson WAS responsible for desegregation, King did acknowledge it, but there's no reason we can't honor both men for their accomplishments).

Look in Edward's camp.

(I apologize immediately to any Edwards supporters reading this; I am OBVIOUSLY not talking about anyone here specifically, and I personally think the divide is attributable to Edwards' populist message)

MLK and LBJ for their roles in ending segregation.  I'm still, however, wondering about the role race played - or didn't play -- in NH.  I believe this is an important question given that Barack Obama is African American and obviously SOMETHING strange happened with the NH polls.  I mean, EVERYONE was shocked, including the Obama and Clinton campaigns (e.g.,not just the "pollsters and pundits").

Just don't look at it in a vacuum, and resist the urge to use it to rationalize results that it cannot, by itself, explain.  I'm not saying there weren't any racially-biased voters in NH, it just simply cannot be the case, looking at the polls and the numbers at hand, that racism is the overarching cause that lead to skewed results.  As an Obama supporter, I therefore am more concerned with figuring out how we build a bridge to the women we lost in NH who actually did swing the election than I am about a handful of racists--not only because it's impossible to argue that they're statistically significant judging by the way the polls differed from the final results, but mostly because we can't build a bridge to get racists to vote for our candidate anyway.

That's all I'm saying.

If you or anyone else believe that race was a factor in such a northern state as NH and that is what you are promoting as a possible cause for the outcome, you have lived in Virginia TOO long.

Why don't you look at the real cause the POLLSTERS who are trying to CTA. Has any one of them answered why there was little or practically no polls after Sunday. Did the pollsters think they were so right that they went to sleep fat, dumb and happy. So confident they were RIGHT, they took the rest of Sunday and Monday off?.

The sick part in all of this is everyone is crying foul, because HILLARY kick A--, while all of you slept.

Just look at all the men who voted against Hillary and there in lies a large group of SEXIST. Ask yourself this question, "Since they are sexist, how many are also racist."

Remember as the wind blows a Sexist/Racist will go.  

could lead to misunderstanding if all you are trying to do is investigate the results of the New Hampshire Primary.

I think it would be most fair to show the direct quote of Senator Clinton.  Also, it would be fair to credit her with clarifying that statement.  When I read it, I thought she was simply stating what LBJ had done, which was to use his substantial legislative skill to push through two landmark pieces of legislation.  Rereading her initial statement, I can see more clearly how that might be interpreted as minimizing Martin Luther King Jr.'s role.  But she clarified that it was not her intention.  And I am willing to accept that considering the intensity of campaign in NH and when your tired you may not convey your intended meaning as well as you would like.  I don't believe that Senator Clinton does not fully appreciate the work of all involved in the Civil Rights Movement.

The way the last paragraph is worded.  It sounds as though you are intending to portray supporters of Senator Clinton and Senator Clinton herself as racist or at least guilty of race-baiting.

I'm all ears.

at CBS News.

here:

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's staff spent much of Thursday explaining Mr. Cuomo's use of "shuck and jive," a term with racial overtones, during a radio interview on Wednesday about the presidential race.

By the way, what the heck is "shuck and jive?"  See here:

"To shuck and jive" originally referred to the intentionally misleading words and actions that African-Americans would employ in order to deceive racist Euro-Americans in power, both during the period of slavery and afterwards. The expression was documented as being in wide usage in the 1920s, but may have originated much earlier.

"Shucking and jiving" was a tactic of both survival and resistance. A slave, for instance, could say eagerly, "Oh, yes, Master," and have no real intention to obey. Or an African-American man could pretend to be working hard at a task he was ordered to do, but might put up this pretense only when under observation. Both would be instances of "doin' the old shuck 'n jive."

Today, the expression has expanded somewhat from earlier usage, and is now sometimes used to mean "talking pure baloney," "goofing off," or "goofing around." The original meaning of deceit often remains, however.

Nothing was said here in defense of Cuomo...

I thought it was relevant to the subject at hand.  

Does not an electorate in NH make.

Will it be legitimate in your eyes to look closely to see if  the reason was Obama's use of Donnie McClurkin to appeal to anti-gay Democrats? Even without evidence to suggest it?

Why would we limit our analysis?

If the standard is that every theory has equal weight then anyone can just pull something out of thin air and we should treat it as a serious notion...and it should be plastered all over the media, and given front page treatment on popular blogs such as RaisingKaine....?

Somehow I doubt if Obama wins that will happen...

The fact is, there is not a single scrap of evidence...none...that the so-called "Bradley Effect" had anything to do with the results in New Hampshire. And in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Evidence 2 minutes on google would have revealed.

That it has gained currency in the media at all is the result of lazy reporting, shoddy research, and a desire for CYA.

that the most respected pollster in the country, maybe the world, thinks there's something going on with race and the NH results.  Also, I've heard it discussed on almost every news show I've listened to recently. But we can't discuss it here?  Why not?

The one that starts with a question and proposes a possible explanation is "hypothesis."

I apologize Lowell.

There are two reasons I think this is kind of starting to frustrate me, and I want to share them with you in a non-judgemental fashion:

1. Suggestions of race-baiting and racism from Obama supporters in regards to Hillary supporters reminds me A LOT of Allen's supporters blaming Webb's supporters--including yourself--of Jew-baiting with regards to that one drawing of Miller as having a big hooked nose.  I am automatically opposed to anything that even sniffs of using race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexual preference as a wedge issue.

2. This campaign has, in the course of the past four days, started becoming about race vs. gender.  We're not talking anymore about the challenges facing America, and I think that's ridiculous.  A shooting war very nearly errupted with Iran a few days ago.  Millions of Americans don't have healthcare.  Violence in Iraq is thankfully diminishing (in frequency, though the number of "spectacular" attacks is on the rise again) and Bush has STILL not told us what's supposed to happen next.  About 1% of all homes in California will be foreclosed upon in the next two years according to economic forecasts, and unemployment is at 5%.  The most interesting thing about this campaign is Kohut's lame excuse for bad polling numbers?

lot of important issues out there that shouldn't be subsumed in all this gender/race stuff.  On the other hand, I greatly respect Andrew Kohut, and race is a major issue as well that needs to be discussed intelligently and seriously.

He's a smart guy.  I wouldn't think his normally-solid analysis should be tarnished by one baseless theory, and I wouldn't think he was less smart if he was wrong once in a while.

But if he theorized that Obama had lackluster support because one out of every sixteen of his supporters was abducted by extraterrestrials on their way to their polling place, it wouldn't make me post a diary about how maybe Kucinich has a point after all.

I am not defending Andrew Cuomo.  But you seem to imply that he is representative of her entire constituency.  By your further statements on Cuomo, I think you underline that.  It is unclear to me whether you think or are arguing that Senator Clinton supporters are racist or guilty of race-baiting.

I think this is where blogs fail.  We don't know each other or where we're coming from, and it's VERY hard to get it across in this format.  Let me try one more time, then I may just give up:  

1. Something happened in NH between the final polls and the election
2. Andrew Kohut and numerous other analysts have raised the POSSIBILITY that race may have played a role
3. There was discussion of MLK and LBJ by Hillary Clinton.
4. A major supporter of Clinton used the "shuck and jive" phrase.
5. What does this all mean?  Anything?  Nothing?  I'm simply curious.

MLK's goal of real civil rights legislation would not have become reality had it not been for Lyndon Johnson (and Hubert Humphrey)...that is a fact MLK acknowledged at the time...

It was inevitable as soon as Hillary won the primary that the excuses would fly hot and heavy among her opponents...as if genuine support for her was not possible...voter fraud, diebold, and of course racism...

Some things to keep in mind...previous instances of this "Bradley Effect" occurred in general elections...not Democratic primaries...two of them in the south (Virginia and North Carolina). Obama won areas with the highest number of white and rural voters in New Hampshire...

In addition exit polls were spot on. What this theory requires is that you believe 14% or so of Democrats were too afraid to reveal to a pollster on the phone they were racist, but were perfectly ok with acknowledging it to an exit pollster in public...

This theory also requires that you believe there is a higher percentage of racist voters in the Democratic Party in New Hampshire in 2008 than there were in the general voting population in Virginia in 1989...

It's a theory looking for evidence...of which there is none...

he has a long history of staying neutral in these races.

And I also recommend you quit while you're behind in defending these comments. Johnson signing that legislation was the end of a long journey that was not started by him, and left many dead in it's wake.

The bare fact is...without Johnson and Humphrey's experience as legislators, the civil rights and voting rights acts would NOT have passed. A fact again, that MLK acknowledged. Hillary did not claim Johnson was responsible for the civil rights movement, nor did she claim MLK was not the driving force behind it in the 1960's. It is only her opponents wishing to distort her meaning who make that claim. She made the completely accurate statement that public agitation(in the good sense) cannot come to fruition without courageous and experienced political leadership.

I would also note that Humphrey, who was nearly as responsible as Johnson for the passage of this legislation, was at the vanguard of civil rights from the beginning of his political career. It was his speech at the 1948 convention that drove the Dixiecrats out of the party and established the Democratic Party as the party of human rights not states rights...

 

I do not need a history lesson. And again...Clyburn is not her opponent. He's an african-american who until a few days ago had no beeg with Clinton whatsoever.

not beeg

She said nothing wrong. As to the history of the topic...your belittlement of Johnson's role as "signing" legislation called for it...

The history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is very interesting, as presented by this piece:

http://faculty1.coloradocolleg...

I especially liked the part about the discharge petition.

The older generation votes hillary, younger votes Obama.

I have observed before that the older generation is more racist. In 1968 my grandfather was visiting, I was 12 years old, when he cheered the news of MLKs murder.(Sorry to say so, but he was VERY Racist)

Just a thought, the elephant in the cookie jar is racism.

then how can Senator Obama win the presidency?  If it is something we are discussing affecting the Democratic Primary, then how does that play out in the general election?

Roseanne Barr is an idiot.

n/t

I would propose that the polls for the most part got it right.  Most pre-election polls represented the feelings of voters two to three days before the election.  The greatest support for this claim comes from the fact that the GOP polls closely matched the election results.  If the GOP results are right, then why must we assume that the DEM results (done by the same companies with the polling techniques) were wrong?  Logic would dictate that they weren't.  
  My guess is that there were soft voters in NH in the last 2-3 days before the election who changed their preferences after the polling was completed, before they voted.  

here:

I tend to think the Bradley effect, while perhaps present in some measure, wasn't primarily responsible for the inaccuracy of New Hampshire polls. The nonresponse-bias explanation (blue-collar voters, who prefer Clinton for reasons unrelated to race, are more likely to refuse to answer pollsters' inquiries) strikes me as fairly plausible. But we can't rule out the possibility of voters lying to pollsters simply because Obama's final vote tally matched what the polls predicted. There's just no good scientific way of ascertaining what impact the Bradley effect might have had in any given race.

a story on this as well, "Racial tensions roil Democratic race."

My favorite quote dredged up from an interview with Sen. Obama:

*"I think America is still caught in a little bit of a time warp: The narrative of black politics is still shaped by the '60s and black power,"* he [Sen Barack Obama, D-IL] told Newsweek this summer. *"That is not, I think, how most black voters are thinking. I don't think that's how most white voters are thinking. I think that people are thinking about how to find a job, how to fill up the gas tank, how to send their kids to college. I find that when I talk about those issues, both blacks and whites respond well."*

I think we should mind the junior Senator from Illinois' thoughts on the matter and start focusing on the challenges of the 21st Century, rather than challenges my parents faced in the 1960s.  I'm reminded of another line that the future junior Senator of Virginia likes to throw out during speeches: "This election isn't about left versus right, it's about the future versus the past."

I think we're all better served if everyone (no matter who you're supporting) got back to talking about what we're going to do with America's future.

These arguments back and forth as to the truthfulness of survey respondents or nonrespondents who have either positive or negative feelings toward blacks reminds me of the situation in Aristophanes comedy The Clouds (someone with a better memory than I can correct me if I'm wrong about which play I'm writing about).

In the play there is an argument about how far a flea can jump, and the characters discuss the best means to measure the distance.  Of course, the solutions, the means of measuring, are totally absurd, as they were meant to be.

As is this argument, to be frank.  We'll never learn whether whites who don't respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than those who do respond, because even if we could question those nonrespondents who look askance at blacks, they might lie about their racial feelings, in a survey.  Further, those who do respond might have antipathy toward blacks and lie about how they voted, or about their antipathy.  Further still, those who respond to surveys might dislike blacks as a group but nevertheless vote for Obama.

The back and forth, while interesting to a point, is pointless.  Best to realize that even polls showing a huge voting favorite might someday be wrong, even though they are right maybe 99 percent of the time when they show huge polling leads.  It happened here.  A woman drives in the Big Dig Tunnel in Boston and a chunk of the ceiling falls and kills her; a guy falls 42 floors and lives.  What is a poll compared to the odds against those 2 happenings?

If people are prejudiced and lie on surveys and polls, rest assured that Gallup knows this.  Politicos  know this.  To look for further meaning in this particular event is an exercise in futility, and we should appreciate that Hillary pulled off a surprise that shocked everyone.  As for race, her campaign isn't race-oriented, and the mention of "shuck and jive" by Cuomo may not have had any disparaging intent attached to it; I've heard it used many times and I've used it, with nary a thought of blacks in mind.

Certainly, in this instance, there were enough very late goings-on that could have affected the vote, and without race being a factor in the latter polls. But I note that serious consideration has always been given to the difficulties that are presented by race and class, as far as I've read, and it seems that Mr. Kohut is beating a dead horse.  

Amid all the angst about race and gender bigotry there are some actual statistics (that is, facts not speculation) that I find rather odd, which have been studiously ignored by pundits, pollsters, and most commentators.  

The pollsters and pundits should stop beating up on the pollsters. The polls were stunningly accurate, close to final results, that is they were NOT wrong or far off the mark on all the races and all the candidates, whether Republican or Democratic, until you look at the Clinton-Obama race, and even there they truly were not out of line except for one strange fact.

Compare these vote tallies:
Clinton optical scan vote 91,717 or 52.95%
Obama optical scan vote 81,495 or 47.05% and

Clinton hand-counted vote 20,889 or 47.05%
Obama hand-counted vote 23,509 or 52.95%

Notice anything? The percentages are exactly reversed. Remember, the last pre-election polls showed Obama leading overall by 13 percentage points, even Clinton's own internal polls showed him up by 11 percent; but then her actual vote count had her winning by 3 percent.  This means there was an overnight vote change of 14 to 16 percent in Clinton's favor.  But it was a shift which occurred ONLY among optical scan voters.

What is it about optical scan voters that cause them to change their minds in the voting booth? Or, is it not the voter but the machine? A Diebold machine already proven to be easily, readily hackable, programmed, in New Hampshire at least, by a convicted felon. A machine which it seems does not even have to be meddled with to cause dropped votes, even flipped votes, a machine whose votes are counted in secret (proprietary software) and which cannot really be sudited with any reliability because of the passaage of time and an insecure protection of the machines after the vote.

NOTE: I am not suggesting Clinton's campaign monkeyed with the vote--- far from it. I actually do not believe the Republican party itself monkeyed with the vote, even though they have prayed for a Clinton nomination for over 2 years (Hugh Heffner hopefully predicted a Clinton-Obama ticket 2 years ago). But I do wonder if the virulently neocon Diebold outfit, or the virulently pro-Republican extra-curricular groups didn't play some games here, maybe as a dry run for the general election.  

I am myself awfully tired of conspiracy theories, but in this case, as in Ohio in 2004, I have a queasy feeling, and I also wonder why even talking about the fragile reliability and honesty of electronic voting is so adamantly off the table. Without a reliable, truthful vote, our democracy is dead.  
 

of the state that were more pro-Clinton?

"Were optical scans used in more pro-Clinton areas?" To some extent I think so, but not entirely... What is so odd to me is the exact percentage reversal, as if votes were somehow flipped, and a vote for Obama was recorded as a vote for Clinton, but programmed so as not to be totally across the board, which would make it obvious. There were supposedly one or maybe two odd numbers on lower tier candidates, but the overwhelming vote count was in almost perfect alignment with the pre-vote polls in all other races. It sounds like desperate grasping at straws, to keep chattering on and on about Bradley effect etc (which seemed to work only in optical scan territory by the way), in order not to accept a simpler explanation.

Just as in any attempt to figure out an explanation for a particular phenomenum, I favor the simplest, least complicated one. And that in this case would be something wrong with the machines, whether due to human intervention or to machine error.  I am not in Obama's court, I have not made a decision yet, have no bone to pick with Clinton either so I am not grasping at conspiracy straws here.

but where we vote the optical scan machine are out in the open during the entire voting period. Any suggestion of fraud or tampering with those machines would have to be in full view of all in that voring precinit. The fraud or tampering would have to have accured at the SBE or after the election, but then they are very well guarded. These machines are usually programmed far ahead of election day, so no one would have known the out come of Iowa, that they had to rig the election, because 2 weeks before Clinton was the favorite.

So far optical scanners have been the most reliable machine and most tamper proof, unless there are corrupt people programming the machines.

Very poor theroy. Looks like some organization will have to buy the right to examine the ballots and machine down the road, like was done in Florida in 2000, to settle this puzzle.

Lowell, get a grip. You sound like an intelligent design theorist trying to prove the earth was created in 6,000 years. As Teddy has shown, the probability of the percentages being exactly reversed in this way is astromonically unlikely.