pageok
pageok
pageok
Reluctance to admit voting for someone other than Obama?--

For the Democrats, why did we see major discrepancies between polling and election results in New Hampshire, especially compared to the Iowa caucuses? My colleague, John McGinnis, offered a possible reason: people might have wanted to appear to their neighbors (i.e., in an Iowa caucus) to be more open to an African-American candidate than they were in the privacy of the voting booth. A similar, though less strong effect might influence a respondent's answer to a pollster in New Hampshire: a possible reluctance to admit favoring or voting for Clinton over Obama.

As someone who has voted for Barack Obama several times in the past, I hadn't thought of that possibility.

OrinKerr:
One difficulty of this argument is that the likely alternative is a woman, Senator Clinton. Given that Clinton and Obama are both non-traditional candidates in a race/gender sense, I don't know how much such explanations really work. That's my concern, at least.
1.9.2008 4:54pm
Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka (www):
1.9.2008 4:55pm
phineas phogg:
Maybe the presence of young voters so strongly supporting Obama compelled a larger portion of the older population to follow suit. I think people fear being perceived as too old more than they fear being perceived as insufficiently racially progressive.
1.9.2008 5:01pm
Suzanna Sherry (mail):
A more likely explanation is that the huge number of independents in New Hampshire made voting behavior much harder to predict: An independent who expressed a preference for Obama in polling might decide to vote in the Republican primary instead (for McCain). This theory is bolstered by the fact that the polls underestimated McCain's actual margin of victory.
1.9.2008 5:02pm
ejo:
how does that explain the huge polling inaccuracies in past elections that didn't involve black candidates? how about a less sinister explanation that the polls are simply unscientific and unrepresentative?
1.9.2008 5:06pm
hattio1:
The Results are Rigged.....

Just throwing out another possibility.
1.9.2008 5:07pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
I thought Obama's post Iowa speech was very inspirational. So inspirational that one could find themselves getting sucked into all the excitement without thinking about his policies which are nothing new, just the same old hard left socialist and don't defend America schtick. Even I felt moved by his speech.

However, his speech in New Hampshire was very different. Far to many we shall overcome references and I'm a descendant of slaves feel my pain references. It was a speech that was in many ways the opposite of Iowa. A speech that evoked division and memories of violence, riots (hippies and civil rights riots), etc.

Given the separatist bigoted church to which he and Oprah are regulars I suspect post New Hampshire was but a glimpse of how he really feels and how divisive he would really be as President.

So far the only person I dislike more than the top 3 democrat contenders is John McCain. The republican contenders have so many defects among them that a President Obama or President Billary seems inevitable.

Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Says the "Dog"
1.9.2008 5:11pm
Arvin (mail) (www):
Orin, doesn't your concern sort of assume that all prejudices are created equal? In other words, that certain people would be equally appalled with a white female president as a black male president. I'm not sure this is established at all.

I'm not saying that the Bradley explanations hold water (or that they don't -- I have no informed opinion). Just that I think your objection makes an implicit assumption that I don't think is valid.
1.9.2008 5:13pm
Thales (mail) (www):
The Bradley effect is certainly a possibility worth exploring and that may have played a role, but Orin's point about gender, the registered independents breaking for McCain (perhaps because they thought Obama would win overwhelmingly anyway and wanted to handicap the Republican race for their preferred candidate), late decision switchers, Hillary's strong debate performance, rallying of support among Baby Boomer women, conscious desires by NH voters to keep the race open, etc. could all have influenced the outcome as well.
1.9.2008 5:16pm
AK (mail):
There's nothing that white liberals enjoy more than voting for a Magical Negro, and Obama makes the perfect object for leftist condescension disguised as praise, fueled by guilt.

But although their politics is wrong, leftists are often quite intelligent, and even they recognize that Obama's "hope" and "change" blather is a bunch of hot air. Alone in the voting booth, they realize that "clean and articulate" Obama is an empty suit. But they'd never admit that to other leftists, because they know they'd be branded as racists. Hell, for the religion-hating left, Obama is better than Jesus. But with Hillary!'s victory yesterday, all I can ask is "where's your Obamessiah now, Ezra?"
1.9.2008 5:16pm
rarango (mail):
How about extremely large turnout and nearly 60% of the voters were women? That has got to screw up pollint models. Whatever the case, polling remains an inexact science to which apparently we attach too much importance.
1.9.2008 5:17pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
According to Iglesias' analysis the pollsters got Obama dead-on. The single standout anomaly is their underestimate of Clinton. The "Bradley effect" can't explain that.

Combined with the record turnout, it looks like a whole bunch of voters came out of nowhere. One possible explanation for such a phenomonen could be the "Daley effect."
1.9.2008 5:18pm
ejo:
well, once they get a load of Emil Jones, the one who used to give Obama his marching orders in the State, they might change their mind about this force for change.
1.9.2008 5:22pm
AK (mail):
Maybe the presence of young voters so strongly supporting Obama compelled a larger portion of the older population to follow suit. I think people fear being perceived as too old more than they fear being perceived as insufficiently racially progressive.

Or maybe energy and passion are what matters. If you're caucusing at the dance hall, who do you want to hang out with: the cool kids (Obama supporters) or your mom (Hillary! supporters).

Personally, I think that New Hampshire voters finally confronted Obama's dark secret that came shining through once Hillary! mentioned it: he had been niggardly in his approach to spadework.
1.9.2008 5:31pm
Pyrrhus (mail) (www):
... or do you just want us to think that you have voted for obama on multiple occasions?
1.9.2008 5:33pm
OrinKerr:
Arvin writes:
Orin, doesn't your concern sort of assume that all prejudices are created equal? In other words, that certain people would be equally appalled with a white female president as a black male president. I'm not sure this is established at all.

I'm not saying that the Bradley explanations hold water (or that they don't -- I have no informed opinion). Just that I think your objection makes an implicit assumption that I don't think is valid.
No, I don't think that's correct. To be clear, I do not claim that Jim's theory is wrong: rather, I'm just suggesting that there may be a counter effect that makes it hard to know one way or the other whether the explanation is correct.
1.9.2008 5:37pm
Felix Sulla:
For what it's worth, this Bradley effect business is bunk. I find it unlikely that any statistically significant number of people tell a pollster (most likely, in comfortable anonymity over the phone) that they are going to vote for Obama, then get all the way into that voting booth where they suddenly realize, "Oh hey, wait a sec...I actually hate those darkies!" Please.

Here's what happened in NH: yes, the older female vote turned out in higher-than-expected numbers for Hillary, but mainly, it is the fact that the Clintonistas have literally been plugging themselves into the NH Democratic establishment for twenty years or so, they represent the lockstep machine base of the party, and they desperately called in every favor and/or threat and made every promise they could think of to turn out the orthodox party vote for them. This is something they didn't think they would have to do on this level, since until the last couple of weeks Hillary just figured her name recognition and the aura of inevitability would be enough. More importantly, it is the type of voting surge that polling will be very bad at detecting prior to it actually happening.
1.9.2008 5:46pm
Thales (mail) (www):
Rasmussen Reports has an article speculating on non Bradley effect explanations.

Also, could someone ban AK's IP address? Those comments are repulsive.
1.9.2008 5:46pm
Per Son:
I was thinking Bradley but some pundits gave another view. As discussed above, Hillary's numbers came up while Obama's came out as the polls suggested. It is possible that Hillary's emotional speech touched a lot of people. Also, Bill Clinton's attack on Obama's change of opinion on Iraq got me all pissed off at Obama and has been pushing me ever-so-slightly to Hillary's camp.
1.9.2008 5:50pm
WHOI Jacket:
Question, would we be labeled "sexist" for not voting for Hillary?

This is a "heads, we win. tails, you lose" argument.
1.9.2008 5:55pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
Extremely unlikely. As Matt Yglesias notes here, the polls did not get it wrong on the level of Obama's support; in fact, they got it almost exactly right. Rather, what they got wrong was Hillary's support, and they didn't see that the undecideds (which were substantial) broke in huge numbers for Hillary -- likely because the media was just disgusting in its hatred for Hillary in the last few days (you could just see Chris Matthews salivating as he talked about her losing) and enjoying the supposed rejection by the Dems of the Clintons. What the media never gets is that Democrats (and most Americans) like the Clintons -- a lot. They may ultimately choose to go with Obama, but it is not because they don't like Hillary or Bill, it's because they believe that Obama is the better candidate. The Clintons always do better when the media beats them up. The obvious example is the Lewinsky scandal -- Bill's approval ratings actually skyrocketed during that scandal.
1.9.2008 6:13pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
Far to many we shall overcome references and I'm a descendant of slaves feel my pain references.

JLD, what are you talking about? This is complete nonsense. Obama, as a matter of fact, is not the descendant of slaves (at least not slaves in the Americas). Please cite some examples of these supposed references; otherwise stfu.
1.9.2008 6:15pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
There's nothing that white liberals enjoy more than voting for a Magical Negro, and Obama makes the perfect object for leftist condescension disguised as praise, fueled by guilt.

There's nothing sensible Americans enjoy less than watching racist rhetoric enter the mainstream from Rush Limbaugh and others. Disgusting.
1.9.2008 6:16pm
alias:

Reluctance to admit voting for someone other than Obama?--
. . .
As someone who has voted for Barack Obama several times in the past, I hadn't thought of that possibility.


Suuuuure you voted for Barack Obama several times in the past. We believe you. :)
1.9.2008 6:17pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
Personally, I think that New Hampshire voters finally confronted Obama's dark secret that came shining through once Hillary! mentioned it: he had been niggardly in his approach to spadework.

Again, cut the racism. Niggardly and spadework*? Come on. That comment should be deleted. It really is shocking that even slightly right-leaning blogs have readers that have no shame making racist jokes.

*And yes, I know what both words mean, but if you think that they were just used in tandem like that by accident, I have a bridge I can sell you.
1.9.2008 6:18pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
I also overlooked the reference to "dark secret" -- that's a triple there. "Dark secret" "niggardly" "spadework". Conservatives should be proud. Disgusting.
1.9.2008 6:20pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
My sense is that the numbers show Clinton's unexpected support came from people who told the pollsters they were going to vote for Dodd or Biden, but switched to Clinton at the last minute. Possibly it took them until on or just before election day to learn that Dodd and Biden had dropped out. There was some switch from Edwards to Clinton too, but there doesn't seem to have been much switch from Obama to Clinton. So the Bradley effect seems unlikely to have been in play here.
1.9.2008 6:20pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Another factor in Hillary's win may be the record number of OUT OF STATE voters who came into New Hampshire to vote. In New Hampshire you can vote in their primaries even though you do NOT live in New Hampshire. All you have to do is show up at the poll and ask for a ballot. When asked about your residence out of state and why you aren't a registered voter in New Hampshire all you have to say is "Well I don't live in New Hampshire right now today, but I plan on moving to New Hampshire before election day".

There are some reports that Hillary had bus loads of people coming in from out of state and numerous groups of people who drove themselves into New Hampshire from out of state to vote in the New Hampshire Primary. The record turnout may well be an indicator of a record turnout of establishment democrats from New York and Massachusetts driving in to New Hampshire to vote.

Says the "Dog"
1.9.2008 6:27pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
JunkyardPuppie -- please provide a cite for that. I am positive you are wrong; it may or may not be easy to do that given the instant registration, but it would violate NH law. Also, I think that would be easy to detect if such huge numbers of non-NH citizens were voting in the election.

There are some reports that Hillary had bus loads of people coming in from out of state

There were also "reports" that Hillary had Vince Foster killed, that she is a closet lesbian, etc., etc. Don't believe everything you read.
1.9.2008 6:30pm
AK (mail):
Chill out. Hillary's the one who started this "spadework" crypto-racism.


And it was a black pundit who first called Obama a "Magic Negro."

But, hey, never let the truth get in the way of liberal indigation.
1.9.2008 6:44pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
The most obvious explanation is defective exit polling. Remember the 2004 presidential election where the early exit polling indicated a win for Kerry? The other explanations sound like second order effects.
1.9.2008 6:51pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
And it was a black pundit who first called Obama a "Magic Negro."

And this song parody by Rush Limbaugh is as racist as they get and even employees of the conservative radio stations were horrified by it. Your comment, by the way, was so blatantly racist and your attempt to blame it on Hillary is absurd. You should be proud of yourself.
1.9.2008 6:55pm
KMS:
There are several blog posts noting the Bradley effect has limited (at best) empirical support. See here for links and some analysis from a political scientist.
1.9.2008 6:59pm
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):
Obviously Carl Rove rigged the results because he thinks the Republicans have a better chance of winning against Hillary.

I mean, really, isn't it obvious.
1.9.2008 7:08pm
pjohnson (mail):
I think perhaps the other Bradley effect may have been in operation here: he who is endorsed by Bill Bradley (as Sen Obama was a few days ago, and Gov Dean before Iowa in 2004) immediately loses the next vote.*

*Not an original thought, but I forget where I read it.
1.9.2008 7:26pm
Proud to be a liberal :
How about the fact that the polls affect people's voting? Thus, independents who thought Obama was winning big because they believed the polls and wanted to help McCain, voted in the Republican primary.

Also, it is possible that polling stopped on Monday too early and that the undecided decided to go largely for Hillary late in the game.

As for the exit polls, it is possible that the polling data was based on erroneous sampling -- it included a larger sample of younger pro-Obama voters than voted and included a smaller sampling of older women who voted for Hillary. Bad sampling = erroneous polls.

Maybe it is good for the system if the polls are wrong. If the polls can be wrong and every vote counts, then everyone should vote -- and there's no point in declaring the winner until the votes are counted.
1.9.2008 7:47pm
AntonK (mail):

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.

Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also

claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.
Bwahahaaaaaaa!
1.9.2008 7:49pm
pete (mail) (www):

What the media never gets is that Democrats (and most Americans) like the Clintons -- a lot.


White most Democrats like the Clintons, most Americans do not. Pretty much every poll that asks favorablity questions about Hillary show that about 20% of Americans love her, 20% like her, 10% are neutral, 15% dislike, and 35% hate her, give or take a few points. Some recent polls show Hillary with as high as a 52% negative rating. And since Clinton has been in the news more prominently and longer than any other candidate the number of Americans who dislike her are pretty set on disliking her.

See this Rasmussen story for instance, which says that McCain is the only candidate liked by most voters:


John Edwards is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 42% and Hillary Clinton is the only other candidate with favorables about 43%. She is viewed favorably by 48% of all voters and unfavorably by 50%. Attitudes about the former First Lady are held more firmly than those for other candidates.


http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ as_campaign_season_begins_only_one_presidential_candidate
_is_viewed_favorably_by_majority_of_voters
1.9.2008 8:29pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
CrazyTrain, I don't care if you believe it or not. What I posted is quite correct. The law in New Hampshire allows people who reside outside of New Hampshire to vote in primary elections, just so they say they plan on moving to New Hampshire before the real election.

Call any New Hampshire election official or county clerk. Do your own research. I'm not going to do it for you.

There were several reports in the press on bus loads of people coming in to vote. That isn't even unusual democrats bus loads of people into wisconsin from Minnesota and vice-versa all the time. Several reports in the press about out of state vehicles pulling up to park with voters pouring out of them.

In a race where only a few thousand votes means the difference from winning or losing and when a loss means the death of your candidacy, Billary had more than enough money to provide directions and incentives for people to come in from New York and Massachusetts.

Says the "Dog"
1.9.2008 8:40pm
sashal (mail):
I'd propose that rather than the 'Bradley Effect,' what we've seen is what I call the 'garage effect.' Namely, when women voters were polled earlier they said they would vote for Edwards or Obama, but when it came time to vote they remembered that their husbands still hadn't cleaned the garage like they had promised months ago. They then voted for the sister at the last minute.
1.9.2008 8:57pm
The Cabbage (mail):
Suuuuure you voted for Barack Obama several times in the past. We believe you. :)

Barak ran against Alan Freaking Keyes after the Jack "not related to the convicted ex-governor" Ryan/ Jeri "Seven-of-Nine" Ryan divorce papers were released to the press. Few people, even lifelong Republicans, didn't vote for Obama.
1.9.2008 9:01pm
alias:
Few people, even lifelong Republicans, didn't vote for Obama.

It was a joke. I certainly believe Prof. Lindgren. It just jumped out at me that, at the conclusion of a post suggesting that a significant portion of people who say that they voted for a racial minority candidate are probably lying, Prof. Lindgren tacks on the claim that he has voted for Barack Obama multiple times and that the idea that people would lie about it has never occurred to him. Couldn't let that pass without comment...
1.9.2008 10:15pm
James Lindgren (mail):
Obama was also my representative in the state legislature (he lives about a 10 blocks from me).
1.9.2008 10:23pm
EricMess:
I think the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct--there could have been a lot of people who just didn't know who they were going to vote for until the day of the election. There was something like 15-20% of polled voters who were undecided. Are these people less likely to be swayed by the "hope" message after a second or third look at Obama? There is no reason to assume that these undecideds would break proportionally to the other candidates as they are probably not a random sample. Anyone with more knowledge of stats or NH electorate please comment.

Is there any way to know which independents (or undecideds for that matter) voted where and who they voted for?
1.10.2008 12:13am
Bad (mail) (www):
This doesn't need a conspiracy theory. The polls showing vast Obama support included double digit undecideds. End of story. To believe the racism angle, you'd have to believe that white women are dramatically more likely to lie about voting for an African American than white men. Does that really sound all that plausible?

The bizarre part of this story was not that Obama lost but that he surged so much in so little time in NH, which was a state he was always at a real disadvantage in (Hillary's best and most seasoned folks working a political machine that she got to long before anyone else). If not for those inflated polls, NH would have been seen as a victory night for him and not a "comeback" for Hillary.
1.10.2008 12:47am
RW Rogers:
Jim - "The Bradley Effect" implied by your associate is predicated on the false assumption that voters lied about their intentions in the 1982 CA gubernatorial election. I believe that the record showed that the pollsters (and the CA Democratic party) overlooked an important change in CA's election laws with regard to absentee voting. This allowed the CA GOP to mail directly to every registered Republican in the state an absentee voter application, to follow-up on requests and whether or not the vote was mailed in (the Democrats could have, but didn't mount as extensive an operation until after this election). In the end, those absentees provided Deukmejian with his margin of victory. So, the pollsters had it right about election day (Bradley probably won among those actually voting on that day) but their models failed to account for the hitherto unprecedented huge increase (100's of thousands) of early ballots. The so-called effect had little to do with race and much to do with outdated polling models and an extremely effective get-out-the-vote effort unmatched by the other party. Since that election, both parties have engaged in the same efforts, and although absentee voting has increased significantly, it has generally returned to its historical norm of favoring the GOP slightly more than the votes on election day but not enough more to make a difference.
1.10.2008 1:10am
Bandon:
Just as a bit of a "reality check," it's important to recognize that both Obama and Clinton came out of NH having won the same number of delegates there. So Clinton's "landslide" victory is mainly for bragging rights, made more dramatic by the inaccurate Dem polling and the associated media hype.

As at least one commenter has already reminded us, Clinton had a very big lead in NH until very recently. The true news story should have been that Obama almost edged out Clinton after trailing her for many months, but the media had already committed to a different story that then had to be quickly re-written Tuesday night.
1.10.2008 2:12am
Syd Henderson (mail):
If I heard correctly, the exit polls showed Obama with a 4-point lead and Clinton won by about 3 points, which isn't that weird. It looks to me like she got most of the undecideds and some of Edward's support, and possibly Biden's and Dodd's.

Polls have a hard time with three-way races, as the 1992 Presidential race showed when Perot finished well ahead of what he was supposed to; the 2004 Iowa Caucuses are another good example.
1.10.2008 2:52am
JoshL (mail):
Despite everyone suggesting that the Bradley effect had no role here, it very well may have. Note pollster.com's assessment of "so what happened?" Note that the Bradley effect does not necessarily mean that people lied and said they'd vote for Obama but didn't- they may have lied and said that they were undecided, but didn't. That would make sense, given that Obama got about the expected percentage of voters but that Clinton got most of the undecideds.
1.10.2008 7:07am
subpatre (mail):
RW Rogers - Your detailed 'takedown' of the Bradley Effect is noted, it can also be called the Wilder Effect. Fact is people routinely say what they think the listener wants to hear.

Occam's Razor says the people of Iowa —voting in caucus— would vote approximately like they claimed they would; and the people of New Hampshire —voting in secret ballot— would deviate more from what they said beforehand.

Next . . .
1.10.2008 8:00am
Ralph Phelan (mail):
As someone who has voted for Barack Obama several times in the past
In separate elections, I hope! ;-)
1.10.2008 8:23am
calmom:
There may have been no Bradley effect in New Hampshire, but what will be the effect of pundits, commentators and bloggers saying, in effect, that Hillary's voters may be closet racists? Some in the media seem to be trying to help Obama's campaign by playing this race card. And it will backfire.
1.10.2008 9:32am
MLS (www):
If I heard correctly, the exit polls showed Obama with a 4-point lead and Clinton won by about 3 points, which isn't that weird. It looks to me like she got most of the undecideds and some of Edward's support, and possibly Biden's and Dodd's.


If those figures are correct, it is weird. It doesn't surprise me at all (or that much, anyway) that the polling prior to the primary failed to predict accurately the final results. Given that the polls varied significantly and changed from day to day, the fact that they failed to predict the results could be explained by a number of factors (difficulty in predicting who would vote, people changing their minds, etc). But the exit polls, one would think, should be pretty close to the actual results. One explanation might be that Clinton's voters lied, but it could also be that Clinton's voters were less likely to talk to exit pollsters. Indeed, if Clinton's voters were older than Obama's, that wouldn't be surprising, although I assume that the exit polls control for that problem.
1.10.2008 9:42am
ejo:
Obama was a do nothing machine politician in Chicago and, essentially, a do nothing Senator in the United States Senate. His vaunted background as a "civil rights" lawyer in Cook County is interesting-what did he do to advance civil rights in what is a one party city and county? He looks good and mouths platitudes-what else has he done? might that be one reason why voters didn't vote for him?
1.10.2008 10:12am
Harry:
A view from two pollsters on what happened. They have a very different view




Valley Views: Polls missed surge of support for Clinton

By Lee M. Miringoff and Barbara L. Carvalho



So, what exactly happened Tuesday night in New Hampshire? Did U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have a stunning comeback in the closing hours of the campaign or were the pollsters and pundits alike just dead wrong all along? Well, for answers, the Marist Poll staff took a look at the numbers.




For starters, the contest on the Republican side played out true to expectations. Bolstered by independent voters, U.S. Sen. John McCain beat former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. McCain has always been a good fit with New Hampshire Republican primary voters with his "Straight Talk Express." He won the state eight years ago against George Bush only to falter in South Carolina.




But, what happened on the Democratic side of the ledger? Editorially, the polls missed the mark. In other words, they touted poll watchers in the wrong direction suggesting U.S. Sen. Barack Obama was positioned to win.




Interestingly, with few exceptions, most polls were accurate in measuring Obama's level of support in the state. The Marist Poll had him receiving 36 percent of the vote and eight of the polls conducted over the last days of the campaign had him within the statistical range of his final vote. What they underestimated was the support Clinton would garner from New Hampshire Democratic primary voters.




All of the Democratic candidates were well liked in New Hampshire Gallup Poll. During the final days of the campaign, Democratic primary voters were deciding whom to vote for among candidates they liked with nearly four out of 10 making up their minds in the last three days, according to the exit polls. They weren't voting against any of them.




Campaign context changed

As pollsters, we can re-evaluate our models and recalculate the numbers. But, what the weekend polls found was an Obama lead as primary day approached. What they do not reflect is what was apparent here in New Hampshire. The context of the campaign was changing. The last hours of the campaign were a media feeding frenzy over Clinton's show of emotion when responding to a voter's question Monday morning. Video of her "emotional" moment was everywhere. It was played over and over with unrelenting commentary. Clinton was again the victim.




New Hampshire has a tradition of voting for women. Democratic primary voters also like the Clintons. If the pollsters and media pundits erred, it was not in their weekend numbers but in not polling Monday and missing the impact of the unrelenting media coverage that characterized the Clintons as finished.




Unfortunately, few pollsters polled here in New Hampshire on primary eve and no one released Monday-only poll results. How New Hampshire voters were evaluating the race and the factors they were weighing in the last hours of the campaign were never measured. Even the exit polls, designed in advance, would not capture the final mood of the voters about the campaign. As a result, explanations about what happened here are fueled more by conjecture than by the numbers.




'Bradley Effect' weighed

One such example is the suggestion of the "Bradley Effect." The idea is in bi-racial contests support for the black candidate is overstated. The view suggests white voters lie to pollsters about their choice because it is politically correct to support the black candidate but in the privacy of the voting booth cast their ballot for the white candidate. Many years ago, in a New York City mayoralty race, David Dinkins, who is Democrat and black, was poised to trounce Republican Rudy Giuliani. On Sunday, most polls including the Marist Poll showed Dinkins with a double-digit lead. Dinkins won, but narrowly.




Pollsters and pundits struggled to come up with reasons, including the Bradley Effect. But that was not an accurate explanation of what happened. On the Monday before the election, a story of corruption broke out about Dinkins. It had not been the first. The Marist Poll surveyed voters through election eve. The results found in the midst of such intense media pounding about the corruption scandal many voters had, in fact, become disillusioned with Dinkins. His lead had collapsed in our Marist Poll from 13 percentage points Sunday to barely 2 percentage points by Monday night. This matched the eventual election result.




Here in New Hampshire, for the most part, Obama's support was not overstated in the polls. But the polls missed the magnitude of the support for Clinton. Although the pollsters in New Hampshire cannot have Monday night back, we plan to re-contact in the next few days the voters we spoke with over the weekend to glean whatever additional insights we can.


Lee M. Miringoff is the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. Barbara L. Carvalho is the director of the Marist Poll.
1.10.2008 10:28am
Harry:
Hmm. The link to the previous post disappeared. Let's try it again.

Here's the original source
1.10.2008 10:30am
Felix Sulla:
A point of order for JunkYardLawDog, who wrote the following:


I don't care if you believe it or not. What I posted is quite correct. The law in New Hampshire allows people who reside outside of New Hampshire to vote in primary elections, just so they say they plan on moving to New Hampshire before the real election.

Call any New Hampshire election official or county clerk. Do your own research. I'm not going to do it for you.


Weak. You made the positive assertion the New Hampshire law is a certain way, and he stated disbelief as to that proposition and asked you to back it up or retract it. He did not ask you to "do his research" for him. That is in fact what you have done. It is not properly his burden to disprove your unsupported statement. Rather, he asked you to substantiate a statement you made, and upon which you are apparently holding youself out as an authority. I too would like to see these alleged provisions of New Hampshire law. Incidentally, I am not asserting they exist or don't exist, because I do not know if it is the case, and do not consider myself an authority on New Hampshire law. But it is bad form for you to imply you know something very well, and then scoff at the notion that you should be able to back it up.
1.10.2008 11:35am
Connie:
There's a way to turn off the posts of specific Conspirators. Can we get the option to turn off the remarks of certain commentors so we just never have to see their remarks?
1.10.2008 11:56am
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Felix, pick up a phone and call a New Hampshire county clerk or voting official. Hire a New Hampshire lawyer or choose to ignore any and all ideas you care not to believe. I really don't care. The law in New Hampshire is as I stated. Out of state residents can vote in primary elections. All they have to say is that they plan on moving to New Hampshire in the future when they ask for a ballot.

Says the "Dog"
1.10.2008 12:17pm
Annon6:
More support for the Wilder effect:

"Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here's the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.

I've experienced this myself. In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall.

Certainly, we live in a different world today. The Pew Research Center has conducted analyses of elections between candidates of different races in 2006 and found that polls now do a much better job estimating the support for black candidates than they did in the past. However, the difficulties in interviewing the poor and the less well-educated persist.

Why didn't this problem come up in Iowa? My guess is that Mr. Obama may have posed less of a threat to white voters in Iowa because he wasn't yet the front-runner. Caucuses are also plainly different from primaries."Andrew Kohut is the president of the Pew Research Center.
1.10.2008 12:55pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
Obama is very cool. Who wouldn't vote for him?

And lets not forget how LITTLE (1) the Republicans, (2) Bill Clinton, and (3) Hillary Clinton have done to enforce the rights of millions of disabled Americans to Court access under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the U.S. Judicial Conference communications disability policy incorporating Title II of the ADA.

Obama offers so much hope for change.

That is why he will be our next President.
1.10.2008 1:54pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
Oh yeah, making cities and counties spend even more money on interpreters and access ramps, that's a real vote-winner!

I won't get to worried about it though, I doubt Obama has actually promised anything specific on ADA enforcement - why should it be different from any other issue?
1.10.2008 2:43pm
Philistine (mail):

Felix, pick up a phone and call a New Hampshire county clerk or voting official. Hire a New Hampshire lawyer or choose to ignore any and all ideas you care not to believe. I really don't care. The law in New Hampshire is as I stated. Out of state residents can vote in primary elections. All they have to say is that they plan on moving to New Hampshire in the future when they ask for a ballot.


How did you get your understanding of NH law?

Because, looking at the NH Secretary of State website on how to register to vote--your understanding appears to be incorrect. "There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register. You may register as soon as you move into your new community." Link

The New Hampshire Election Statutes, at least as I read them, also don't appear to say this--defining a primary as an "election" and requiring an actual domicile in NH to exist at the time of voting.

In fact, the law states "a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves." Sec. 654:1.
1.10.2008 3:13pm
Felix Sulla:

Felix, pick up a phone and call a New Hampshire county clerk or voting official. Hire a New Hampshire lawyer or choose to ignore any and all ideas you care not to believe. I really don't care. The law in New Hampshire is as I stated. Out of state residents can vote in primary elections. All they have to say is that they plan on moving to New Hampshire in the future when they ask for a ballot.
And once again, you utterly fail to do a thing other than make a factual assertion and say it's so....because it's so! Are you suggesting that New Hampshire county clerks and "election officials" actually made the substantive law of voter registration in new Hampshire? That the word of one of these persosn, whatever it might turn out to be, is what the law in New Hampshire is? At any rate, I think Philistine nicely put paid to your "argument" by, lo and behold, actually doing your research for you...as you have demanded of others and categorically refused to do yourself.
1.10.2008 3:59pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Philistine:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm

You may also register on election day at the polling place. The town clerk's office can inform voters of what proof of qualification they should bring to register.


http://liberalcommonsense.blogspot.com/2008/01/
and-in-new-hampshire.html

With the way New Hampshire is set up, it's entirely possible for you to go there, register to vote, vote then go back to any other state and as long as you meet the residency requirement, vote again. Is this a huge issue with the small number of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire? No, of course not, but it provides further reasoning that the results of Iowa &New Hampshire can be manipulated more than many of the other state primary systems.

Focusing on Who Can Vote in Iowa, N.H.
November 27, 2007 - 2:11pm
By MIKE GLOVER
Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - It's Jan. 3 in Iowa and you decide, what the heck, I'm going to a precinct caucus.

Not affiliated with a political party? Not registered? Not even old enough to vote?

No problem. Come and help choose the nation's next president.

In yet another quirk of Iowa's caucus system, all citizens can participate as long as they sign a voter registration card, attesting to residency in the precinct and show that they'll be 18 in time for the general election.

Some people do have a problem with the ease of registering for New Hampshire's leadoff primary, which follows Iowa's caucuses by five days.


New Hampshire allows same-day registration at the polls, has no minimum residency period and defines a voter's home as the place where he or she sleeps most nights or intends to return after a temporary absence.

This year, New Hampshire Democrats pushed through a change that some Republicans contend would enable campaigns to bus in people who could cast a ballot and then vote again in their real home states.

"You can vote in New Hampshire without being a resident," said Republican state Sen. Bob Clegg. "You can vote in the primary because you someday may want to live here."

Democratic state Sen. Peter Burling calls such arguments "part of the campaign of fear to restrict people's right to vote."

David Scanlan, New Hampshire's deputy secretary of state, acknowledged the law is ambiguous about prohibiting people from voting in more than one state.
___


Associated Press Writer Norma Love contributed to this report from Concord, N.H.



You can register to vote at the polls on the day of the election. If you ID says you live in another state some claim you just have to say you intend to move to New Hampshire in the future. Others might argue that you have to say you have already moved to New Hampshire and then give any phony address you care to give. They don't check the address (they can't its election day after all). You can then "change your mind" about living in New Hampshire immediately after voting and return to your real home state and vote their also!!

So the state of the law is unclear according to the Secretary of State, but even if you take the position that it requires a violation of the law to come in from out of state and give the address at the local YMCA as your new New Hampshire address when you don't actually live at the local YMCA, I say a law that is so easily violated, has absolutely no means of checks to allow its enforcement permits the behavior, imho.

Unlike Felix, you Philistine did enough to shift the burden back to me. So I dug up the above information for you.

The no nothing argumentative crowd (Felix et al) who think a person has a duty to run about getting citations for them without first coming forward with some factual assertion that counters the assertion they are challenging only deserve the back of one's hand, imho


Says the "Dog"
1.10.2008 6:39pm
Paul B:
The problem with the Bradley/Wilder effect explanation is that the exit polls correctly predicted a very close election.

If people lied to pollsters prior to the election because they felt the need to show their lack of racism, why wouldn't they have done the same at exit polls, when they had to answer interviewers face to face?
1.10.2008 9:05pm
Felix Sulla:

Unlike Felix, you Philistine did enough to shift the burden back to me.
My point, you silly silly man, which you indignantly ignored, is that the burden was ALWAYS on you to back up your positive assertion. It was never mine nor Philistine's to bear. NOW it might be...but we'll see.
1.11.2008 9:56am
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
I understood your point Felix. I just stated your point was meaningless, carried no weight, and wasn't worth considering. As I told you from the outset, if you didn't want to believe want I stated I didn't care. You could be happy in your ignorance of the truth for all I cared. I'm not going to run around googling up information for every moron who reads something and goes Nah Ah I don't want to believe that. You've got to put more effort than that into it, or as I told you before, I really don't care what you believe nor how ignorant of the truth you are in fact.

Says the "Dog"
1.11.2008 12:55pm