State of Change

Did "The Bradley Effect" Beat Obama in New Hampshire?

posted by John Nichols on 01/09/2008 @ 5:40pm

NASHUA, NH – Barack Obama was supposed to win New Hampshire.

The polls going into Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary had him running ahead of Hillary Clinton by up to 13 points.

Yet, when the returns came in on Tuesday night, Obama lost by three points to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Were the polls flawed?

Or was it just another instance of The Bradley Effect?

The Bradley Effect refers to an electoral phenomenon first identified in a 1982 California gubernatorial election.

Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles, was the supposed frontrunner in an open race for the state's top job. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the returns came in, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes.

The result made no sense. The gubernatorial election was one of the few Democratic losses in what was a good year for the party. Bradley was an able politician with a sound record. Analysts took a new look at the polls, which seemed to have been conducted appropriately.

They asked: What are we missing here?

Then they hit on the notion that white voters, not wanting to be thought of as prejudiced against an African-American candidate, had told pollsters they were for Bradley when they had always intended to vote for Deukmejian.

The phenomenon came to be referred to as The Bradley Effect.

It was to be seen again in 1989, when Virginians were electing a new governor. African-American Democrat Doug Wilder held a solid lead over white Republican Marshall Coleman – nine points in some polls. Yet, on election night, results showed him winning by less than one point.

In 1990, when African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt challenged white Republican incumbent Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat, polls had Gantt ahead by four to six percentage points. On election night, however, Helms prevailed by four points.

Again and again, in elections in the north and south, The Bradley Effect has come into play.

But, skeptical observers will note, there was no evidence of a Bradley effect in last week's Iowa caucuses. Obama led in the polls and he led on election night. What explains this? In Iowa, voting took place in a very public caucus setting where neighbors saw who neighbors backed.

In New Hampshire, as in California in 1982, in Virginia in 1989 and North Carolina in 1990, the presidential primary voting took place in private--behind the curtain of a voting booth. It was possible for voters who had said they were for Obama to cast their ballots for Clinton.

That's how The Bradley Effect works.

And there is good reason to suspect that The Bradley Effect was at work in New Hampshire. This is not to suggest that everyone who decided against voting for Obama was a racist. Nor is the point here that all those likely Democratic primary voters who said they were excited about Obama were lying. Rather, what needs to be understood is that voters in New Hampshire -- like voters in other states -- come to the polls with backgrounds and attitudes toward African-American candidates.

New Hampshire's population boomed in the 1970s and 1980s, when white residents of the Boston area fled north during a period of bitter dispute over busing to achieve racial integration. Many of these people grew up with a charged, racially defined politics that created long-term impressions about whether African-American candidates are electable. Thus, it is entirely possible that voters told pollsters that preferred Barack Obama but did not vote for him because they really did not think he could win in November.

Whatever the precise reasoning, The Bradley Effect offers a credible explanation for why the polls were so very wrong.

It also offers a cautionary note regarding the New Hampshire results and what they mean for the rest of the primary process: If The Bradley Effect was in play in New Hampshire, then Barack Obama may face a greater struggle as he seeks to bridge those rarely-mentioned gaps that remain in a nation that has long been divided along lines of race and class.

It is not merely Obama's struggle, however. It is America's struggle, as well. And Obama's opening remains. If he is ready to wrestle with The Bradley Effect -- and if his campaign is willing to challenge opponents who seek to exploit it with coded questions about "electability" -- Obama might well succeed in opening the American political debate up in a way that has been needed for a very long time.

Comments (159)

  1. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the same polling methods used for both repubs and dems would 'only' reflect the dem vote being way off. Makes perfect sense...

    Poll_____________________Date_______Sample__Obama__Clinton____Spread

    Suffolk/WHDH________01/06 - 01/07____500 LV____39______34____Obama +5.0

    American Res. Group__01/06 - 01/07____600 LV____40______31____Obama +9.0

    ReutersC-Span/Zogby_01/05 - 01/07____862 LV____42______29____Obama +13.0

    Rasmussen__________01/05 - 01/07___1774 LV____37______30____Obama +7.0

    CNN/WMUR/UNH______01/05 - 01/06____599 LV____39______30____Obama +9.0

    Marist_______________01/05 - 01/06____636 LV____36______28____Obama +8.0

    CBS News____________01/05 - 01/06____323 LV____35______28____Obama +7.0

    NOT.

    But then again McCain isn't BLACK. Good point. Nice to know that progressive independent youth are just as prejudicial as the old. Well, only in New Hampshire, but not in Iowa... as one is a lot more traditionally old time southernish.

    NOT.

    http://tinyurl.com/2exju2

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 04:10am

  2. Thanks for posting the polls, HSUBFOOLS. When I looked at these numbers earlier today, I understood them not as a collection of polls putting Obama well ahead of Hillary. It looks to me like he surged after his win in Iowa (to as much as +13), but that his popularity started to wane as the days went on (down to just +5 in the last poll, which is within the margin of error, right?). Throw in women who felt compelled out of feminist sisterhood to back Hillary, and you can see why he lost. Of course, this Bradley Effect is a disconcerting possibility.

    Posted by RKesarwani at 01/09/2008 @ 04:52am

  3. I think the so-called Bradley Effect is not as much of a factor in Obama's case.

    His bi-racial background and unity message transcend race.

    A better explanation is that Hillary in the final two days decided that it was OK to show emotion and women rallied around her as a result.

    In fact the key difference in demographic support from Iowa to New Hampshire was the female vote. Obama won this vote in Iowa but Hillary won this vote in New Hampshire.

    And closet racist are more likely to be men, but it was Obama that carried the male vote in NH, not Hillary.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2008 @ 05:21am

  4. New Hampshire played the race card--nothing more or less. What was just as disheartening was watching kath von fluffle just sit there silently and not back up Robinson when he made the Bradley argument. Not doubt she was stewing over Edwards' miserable showing and was pondering how to spin it into some kind of positive. The biggest problem for Obama will be overcoming the racism that purveys the aging boomer generation who clearly is voting for Senator Wratchet. The sexist discrimination that Katha Pollit is so attached to whining over is pathetic. The real discrimination is confronting Obama and he will find it most deeply rooted in the throughout the campaign. "You just can't be Martin Luther King, you have to be LBJ too."

    Posted by pit bunny at 01/09/2008 @ 06:15am

  5. Could be the other Bradley effect. In 2000, NH independents looking for change took Rep. ballots to vote for McCain, rather than Dem. ballots to vote for Bradley. The Bradley people hadn't realized they had to run against McCain too. Obama's people may have realized it but not done enough to counter it. Why people think McCain will bring change or fresh ideas is beyond me, but some apparently do.

    Posted by bcazden at 01/09/2008 @ 08:32am

  6. "Dr. Obama...again we see there is nothing you can possess, which I cannot take away. And you thought I'd given up!"---Hilloq

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 08:46am

  7. Posted by BCAZDEN 01/09/2008 @ 08:32am | ignore this person

    No with all due respect, no it could not. As the subject of the thread is about saying one thing, and doing another ...

    Posted by V at 01/09/2008 @ 08:56am

  8. Posted by METTEYYA 01/09/2008 @ 05:21am

    Here's a slogan for you to remember: Racist people don't do fractions. You talk about bi-racial as if it means anything, and it doesn't.

    And closet racist are more likely to be men...

    And what, pray tell, do you base this assumption upon? Some kind of causal effect from the penis?

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/09/2008 @ 09:17am

  9. It looks to me like he surged after his win in Iowa (to as much as +13), but that his popularity started to wane as the days went on (down to just +5 in the last poll, which is within the margin of error, right?).

    Posted by RKESARWANI 01/09/2008 @ 04:52am

    That might be the case if they were all the same poll each taken several days apart. It's the exact opposite-- several different polls using slightly different scientifically established methodology within the same period of time. I'm sure lots of pollsters are scatching their heads sufficiently to produce smoke.

    But will their hair catch fire? That's the question.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 09:39am

  10. saying one thing, and doing another ...

    Posted by V 01/09/2008 @ 08:56am

    one of karma's toughest battles.................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 09:44am

  11. "Racist people don't do fractions."

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/09/2008 @ 09:17am | ignore this person

    Is actually quite good as quotables go, Metteyya would do well to add remember it.

    A few days ago in another thread you asked how someone could, paraphrasing ... obtain empathy they could not get, by viewing an event that would normally cause empathy, using a visual record of same. The answer is that if you cannot, then all that is left is experience, if you're lucky.

    Over at HuffPost, the objective data and subsequent reality that HUSUBFOOLS has so adequately documented is being denied by all an sundry. I think in that referenced post, though the criteria I posed still stand, that I may have spoke too soon ...

    Posted by V at 01/09/2008 @ 09:49am

  12. Posted by V 01/09/2008 @ 09:49am

    V, curious on your view of the possibility that Hillary, Obama, maybe even Edwards split enough of the primaries that it becomes a "brokered Convention"...maybe even some outside "dark horse candidate" comes in and takes it from all three?

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:05am

  13. no comment

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 10:12am

  14. Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches

    Had bellies with stars.

    The Plain-Belly Sneetches

    Had none upon thars.

    you know, i gonna invent a pill that will turn everybody grey.

    gritalin.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 10:22am

  15. Not buying it here. Look at the polls from several weeks ago. Clinton was up by more than 20 points. Which means that Clinton enjoyed a tremendous amount of support prior to what happened in Iowa. Obama got a bump in the few days after Iowa, but Clinton came back during the last day or so. Was it "the speech," a defensive posture in response to a belief the press was being unfair to Clinton and anointing Obama, the huge turnout that may have affected the margin of error in the previous polls, or the polish wearing off Obama? Who knows. However, in my opinion, the Bradley Effect doesn't make logical sense. Why wouldn't those polled voters supposedly wavering on voting for a black president (either consciously or unconsciously) just continue to stick with Clinton after Iowa?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:26am

  16. Posted by HMAN23 01/09/2008 @ 10:26am

    How about the "Nuh-huh..no we won't" Theory?

    That after days of being TOLD by the MSM that "Obama will beat Hillary in NH"....the folks in NH decided they didn't like being TOLD who they were going to vote for?

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:31am

  17. So you are suggesting that in lily white Iowa the fact that the voting process was in the open prevented voters from hiding their closet (voting booth) racism? Wouldn't those same people hesitate before voting for a woman--or are they assured by the presence of her guiding husband?

    A just as likely scenario could be the machines--remember no machines in Iowa--no manipulation of the final tally. Think this is an off-the-wall conspiracy theory?

    Check last week's NYTimes magazine.

    And notice the final laughable rationale the pundits resort to when they can't rack their brain for any credible reason:

    The entire state (at least senior women and the working class) completely, independently swung to Hillary in the final moments. If the Clinon's think they can innoculate Hillary from the mean boys picking on her because she can't stand the heat---and it is so difficult when her mantle of inevitability is stripped, how the hell is she going to do her tough hawk strut when it comes to say, Pakistan? I have to wonder how many feminists will feel assured that at least her husband will be there to play Cheney. And then there is still the machines controlled by those who choose our inevitable candidates. Why should she worry?

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 10:43am

  18. Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 10:31am

    Frita, you mean that the independent/progressive/youth vote will purposefully vote against their own interests if shown support for their choice or that they like you are just plain contrary? That's a hard pressed possibility that isn't quite logical.

    The one remote possibility I see other than illegal vote tampering is that the overwhelming number in the polls for Obama may have made some not feel like their vote for him was that vital and thus took on other priorities... Yet I can't see over 3-5% of the dem vote thinking that way simultaneously. Odds favor more the vote tampering considering the Iowa vote and the NH aftermath vote implications when Obama won... Too great a surge for Clinton/hsuB admin to gamble a comeback on, is my guess-- thus the rigging.

    Perhaps it's some of all the above?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 10:48am

  19. A lot of "hoping" from Obama supporters that those for Edwards simply toss over their votes. If Obama wants the nomination, however, it is really quite simple what he need to do: earn the Edwards votes by setting forth some actual substance and policy in addition to the style he is so good at delivering.

    It's quite obvious that Edwards is vulnerable. His supporters cannot be pleased with the results so far. I am voting on Feb. 5 and for a while have leaned towards Edwards, but have to admit that if he cannot show me he has a chance to win and continues to finish a distant third, I may choose to decide between Clinton and Obama. I doubt I am alone in this sort of thinking. Now I lean towards Obama over Clinton, but if Obama could come up with some substance, he could solidify it.

    So, METTEYYA, trying to guilt Edwards supporters into switching votes and attacking them at Naderites is bad strategy. Instead, the strategy is obvious, send Obama a memo to throw some policy into his stump speeches and convince Edwards' voters that there is more to Obama that a feel-good pep talk.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:49am

  20. So you are suggesting that in lily white Iowa the fact that the voting process was in the open prevented voters from hiding their closet (voting booth) racism?

    Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 10:43am

    EXACTLY. Why not just sit quietly in the Edwards or Clinton corner of the room? Nobody will ever know your "true" racist feelings.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:51am

  21. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/09/2008 @ 10:48am

    Okay, so the ONLY people voting in NH were "the youth/progressive vote"? No. And my point was that NH'ers have a streak of independence to them (40% registered Indies in that state) and might not get swept up in the "Obama Tsunami" or WANT to.

    Second....

    "The one remote possibility I see other than illegal vote tampering..."

    you're seriously going with the RESE theory that NH was "stolen by vote tampering"???

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:52am

  22. Posted by HMAN23 01/09/2008 @ 10:49am

    Edwards has to win or place VERY close in South Carolina to stay in it. He won SC in 2004 and anything less (and especially THIRD) will be the end of his campaign.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:53am

  23. Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 10:53am

    Thought you said he was done if he did not win or finish a ver close second in NH?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:59am

  24. But HMAN23--if the vote is rigged--what the hell can Edwards do--what can Obama do? They got you where they want you, eh?

    Tell you what sickens me the most---That I have to watch her smug, self-satisfied look everytime she hears herself speak again.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 11:01am

  25. Mask:

    http://blogs.computerworld.com/nyt_distrusts_e_voting_now_and_photoextre me

    It has hit the mainstream baby.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 11:03am

  26. LIL -

    Sorry, don't buy the vote was rigged by machines theory either. Any exit polls show Obama by 5 points?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 11:27am

  27. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/09/2008 @ 11:09am

    So Edwards is not genuine in his beliefs unless he donates all his money? Ridiculous proposition. After all, so many of the current Republicans can support the war without sending their own, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 11:29am

  28. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/09/2008 @ 10:42am | ignore this person

    who needs polls when we have Maasch.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 11:41am

  29. No one said he should give away all his money...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/09/2008 @ 11:39am

    Yes. You did, Maasch. Thats's why I posted what I did.

    in the next 4 years he should demonstrate with HIS own money what he wanted to do with OURS ...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/09/2008 @ 11:09am

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 11:42am

  30. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 11:01am | ignore this person

    don't look. works for me. I haven't seen Bush or Giuliani in years.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 11:43am

  31. John:

    All polls showed Obama on top by a very wide margin prior to the election. Polls can be off, but rarely by that much. To me, it is implausible that white waitresses or the Crying Game could have turned the race around so dramatically. I raise the specter or shenanigans and await other folks' responses.

    Posted by Senor Smurf at 01/09/2008 @ 11:47am

  32. AN absolutely ridicuous assertion to make without a shred of empirical or anecdotal evidence to back it up.

    You compare a Democratic primary in a northern state with GENERAL elections in two southern states and one western state...

    In order for this to be true you would have to believe that there are a higher percentage of racist Democrats in New Hampshire in 2008 than in the entire voting population in Virginia in 1989...

    I understand that a "progressive" publication such as this is apt to look for explanations that don't contradict its ideological bent...but the plain fact is...on this night in this state...Democrats preferred Hillary...

    And unless you can come up with some evidence for racism other than you didn't like or believe the result...accusing people of racist motivation is a very irresponsible thing to do...

    Posted by SaveElmer at 01/09/2008 @ 11:56am

  33. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/09/2008 @ 11:54am | ignore this person

    when are you going to give away all of your money?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 11:58am

  34. Posted by HMAN23 01/09/2008 @ 10:59am |

    I think he is. The odds on him winning in SC are extremely long at best. If he can (not a total impossibility) he can recover.

    I just don't see it happening...and I see him finally calling it off after he comes in 3rd in SC.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 11:58am

  35. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 11:03am

    Sorry, LIL, but a BLOG post on "Computer World" about half an article in the NY Times....

    is not "Hillary stole NH" "hitting the mainstream".

    She won, Obama lost....no "machine machinations" needed.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:01pm

  36. Funny isn't it, how we are scolded for being sexists--but by god, none of us are racists. Racism never enters into it at all--so Hillary and her sisterhood of aging irrelevant "feminists" who trashed (along with Hillary) the women Bill exploited can whine about sexism behind every tree but hey, no calling the possibility of racism to question the purity of why folks vote the way they do.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:01pm

  37. Posted by SAVEELMER 01/09/2008 @ 11:56am

    Great post. What Nichols and others subscribing to the Bradeley Effect seem to ignore is that a lot of voters made up their minds within the past three days - around 30% I think?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:03pm

  38. See for yourself:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html

    Thought you would appreciate the links from the IT blog--after all those are folks that are most likely to know.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:05pm

  39. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 12:01pm

    I do not remember any Clinton supporters here blaming sexism on the Iowa results. If there are some examples apart from these threads, I would appreciate an example.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:06pm

  40. SAVEELMER 01/09/2008 @ 11:56am

    NH results

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:08pm

  41. Posted by HMAN23 01/09/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Exactly...in addition the exit polls were spot on. If people were trying to hide their racism from pollsters calling them on the phone...why would they all of a sudden not worry about it when speaking to them in public at polling places...the whole theory makes no sense. Seems to be the result of a media too lazy to actually dig into the real reasons...they pull up lexis/nexis to check and see when this type of variance between polling and result occurred...and voila..they have their theory!!!

    Posted by SaveElmer at 01/09/2008 @ 12:09pm

  42. why anyone is discussing the candidates skin color is beyond me. there is simply no evidence to support any claim that race is an issue in the campaign, as all voting is confidential, and all motivations for votes are impenetrable.

    Posted by darladoon at 01/09/2008 @ 12:09pm

  43. the hysteria of the media is alive and well here at the Nation. these two primaries are just the beginning.we have what 48 more to go.a marathon is 28 miles.we have "run" about a mile and a half. getagrip

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:10pm

  44. Exactly...in addition the exit polls were spot on.

    Posted by SAVEELMER 01/09/2008 @ 12:09pm

    ANOTHER excellent point.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:12pm

  45. .Why do you care about m money?

    why do you care about his. I don't recall any pres or pres candidate giving away all his money. you live in the clouds.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:13pm

  46. SaveElmer...DU Clinton cheerleader?

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:21pm

  47. LIL, you thought Dennis Kucinich was a sell-out for supporting Obama in Iowa....now, you're spouting "His NH primary was stolen from him by Hillary and Diebold".

    Odd...almost comes off as somebody just "stirring up trouble" (and I would know!...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:26pm

  48. SaveElmer...DU Clinton cheerleader?

    Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 12:21pm

    Well aren't you clever...outing me by smoking out my identity by using the handle I use everywhere...congratulations on your detective work...must have taken 2 whole seconds on google!

    Do you have anything to add by way of evidence that would support the ridiculous argument posited by this article? Other than you didn't like the result?

    Posted by SaveElmer at 01/09/2008 @ 12:27pm

  49. Lol, Saveelmer. Not saying you were hiding it--just that i am familiar with your...reputation.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:33pm

  50. NH results

    Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 12:08pm

    That's a conclusion, not evidence. How about linking us to some exit polling in favor of Obama? That would be a nice start if it exists.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:33pm

  51. "only suspicious when Dems lose to Repubs....."

    How true.

    Posted by Lil at 01/09/2008 @ 12:34pm

  52. Tim Grieve at Salon posits that the Bradley effect may not explain it; rather, that the pollsters got Hillary's support all wrong.

    quoth:

    The polls didn't overstate the support for the black man (or any man, for that matter); they understated the support for Hillary Clinton. Pollster's "standard estimate" put Clinton's support at 30.4 percent as the polls opened. When the ballots were counted, she had 39 percent.

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/09/bradley/index.html?sou rce=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

    Posted by zomby_woof at 01/09/2008 @ 12:34pm

  53. Posted by LIL 01/09/2008 @ 12:33pm

    Yet I notice you aren't refuting my comments...

    Posted by SaveElmer at 01/09/2008 @ 12:37pm

  54. It always amazes me how many different and sophisticated ways in which some people will bring out the old BIG BAD PREDJUDICE WHITE MAN myth. Does it ever occur to them that the polls were screwed up to start and the Einstein who "hit on" the notion that the disparity was racially motivated was just an idiot?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/09/2008 @ 12:44pm

  55. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/09/2008 @ 12:44pm | ignore this person

    don't forget "the slaves had it pretty good" and "the indian victimization is way over exaggerated"

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:52pm

  56. Is all right with the Western World now that Hillary has won a primary?

    She'll win Michigan too...because no other candidates other than Kucinich are on the ballot.

    Will she probably win the nomination? Unfortunately, yes she will. Mostly because the folks that really control the Democratic party, the DLC business interests who loved her husband's dismantling of public assistance and encouragement of total media conglomeration, will make sure that she does.

    Will she become president? Probably not because whomever the Republicans send against her will get the vote of every "values" voter, Clinton hater, and person who would rather be shot than see a woman in office.

    Now don't get me wrong. I'm a pretty die-hard feminist and believe that it has been long since time for us to have a female president. (Lord knows the guys have fucked the country up royally!)

    But my idea of a female in the White House doesn't include someone who is more than content to ride her husband's coattails and claim them as her own, who has a tendency to vote for some of the worst foreign and domestic policies I've ever seen, and whom, when I met them in person, made me feel as if I were standing in a walk-in freezer.

    Feminism, in my opinion, wasn't supposed to lead to us to a point where we're expected to vote for someone just because they're female.

    Also, most of the feminists I'm hearing from are showing their subtle racism. If I hear one more white feminist tell me as a black feminist that Obama should wait to be president or accept the Vice Presidency because it's Hillary's time, I'm going to smack someone.

    Posted by edwriter at 01/09/2008 @ 12:53pm

  57. No one here is addressing my first post concerning the female vote breaking in the last two days for Hillary.

    This seems more plausible than the "Bradley Effect", so I would be interested in hearing from posters concerning the female vote switching at the last minute in response to Hillary's show of female emotion (and Edwards stupid attack of her - this Edwards guy is really hurting progressives!).

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2008 @ 12:54pm

  58. I think it is interesting that I didn't see anyone asking questions when Barrack won Iowa by 8 points, when the polls showed him in a dead heat with Clinton the day before.

    Posted by awidboom at 01/09/2008 @ 12:57pm

  59. Posted by METTEYYA 01/09/2008 @ 12:54pm

    METTE, can offer you a rare compliment?....

    I'm glad to see you're not joining a small, but vocal group (of dubious ideological bent) trying to drum up "Diebold scanners stole the primary from Obama!"

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 12:58pm

  60. Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 12:58pm

    From me too METT. I know I get on you quite a bit.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:03pm

  61. There may be another explanation for Hillary's unexpected victory in New Hampshire: a sudden backlash amongst women offended by the sexist treatment that she received in the two days before the election. I am referring to the two male morons who held up signs instructing Hillary to iron their shirts and to the callous response by the mainstream media to her brief show of emotion. The reaction of women may have occurred too late and too rapidly to have been detected by pollsters.

    It is no secret that many voters have short attention spans and are easily swayed by events of the moment. Although I hope that Hillary's surge will be short-lived, I also know that historically, the establishment usually get the candidate they want. The Clintons are battle-hardened and will fight with every fiber of strength in their bodies. Bill's recents attacks on Obama have been particularly nasty. I expect things to get worse.

    Posted by robgo2 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:20pm

  62. Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 10:52am

    There's plenty of proof that these e-voting machines are easily hacked. Does that in itself prove that they 'were', no. However, 'if' they were hacked just enough to get Clinton/hsuB admin a 2% win... Considering all the other variables, sure it would be all the more difficult to prove a vote illegality as it was only done enough and not a lot. Still the margin of error is quite a lot higher than the polls scientifically can be assessed, not a just little. That the media immediately falls in line should be a concern to all.

    All I'm saying about your contention that a great many NH voters switched their own vote to stick it to the candidate they wanted to vote for--- just because the media were agreeing with them, really isn't that logical.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 1:23pm

  63. ...seem to ignore is that a lot of voters made up their minds within the past three days - around 30% I think?

    Posted by HMAN23 01/09/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Yet that is reflected differently in the polls than in the actual vote per the closeness of the polls' and the vote dates to one and other, as shown in my earlier post.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 1:28pm

  64. Hasn't anyone noticed the funny coincidence? Kerry was supposed to win in 04, but in the results Bush made a mysterious surge at the last minute--just as Clinton did over Obama. Another funny coincidence: it happened on 04 only where there were voting machines; 81% of the NH vote was on Diebold machines. Before election day, Bev Harris's Black Box web site sent out an alert, calling attention to the fact that the machines used in NH were easily hacked (see her video). Added fact: LHS Associates, Inc. (headed by John Silvestro) has the exclusive programming AND vote counting contract with NH, with easy access to every memory card on which votes are stored and from which they are counted in secret, in house, with no public access let alone scrutiny. So: Would Silvestro or any technician in his company have any motivation to skew the results? They easily could have, and no one would ever know. You don't have to assume that the Clintons would stoop that low; the Republicans have been hoping Hillary gets the nomination as the easiest to beat. Could it just be that enough votes for Edwards, the most vocal anti-corporation candidate, were skimmed off and added to Hillary's to edge out Obama? The clincher might be results from exit polls, if there were any. I heard no mention of them, much less any concern about why they "got it wrong again." We now know that those exit polls told the true story in 2004, but were eagerly discredited because they didn't agree with the (jimmied) machine counts. It would be really ironic if they have been abandoned when they are the only way we have to verify the "official" counts until we can get some true reform of corporate-controlled, unverifiable machine voting.

    Posted by Truro Bob at 01/09/2008 @ 1:33pm

  65. METT -

    In my opinion, I think it had less to do with Clinton choking up than it did with the bandwagon and over-the-top anti-Clinton press coverage since Iowa. Add to that the "Iron This" morons and even Obama's "Liable enough" comment. Hell, I'm not in the Clinton camp, but I felt sympathetic.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:35pm

  66. Posted by TRURO BOB 01/09/2008 @ 1:33pm

    Again, please send a link to the exit polls showing Obama should have won.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:36pm

  67. I think it is interesting that I didn't see anyone asking questions when Barrack won Iowa by 8 points, when the polls showed him in a dead heat with Clinton the day before.

    Posted by AWIDBOOM 01/09/2008 @ 12:57pm

    A completely off base and untrue statement-- the polls in Iowa were all over the place. One had Obama up by 7% another had Clinton up by 9%, with several anywhere in between:

    http://tinyurl.com/2yvvae

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 1:38pm

  68. I'm in agreement with Rece on the impact of the Diebold Machines:

    http://presscue.com/node/38034

    The margin from the polls to the vote are too wide.

    Posted by bartja at 01/09/2008 @ 1:43pm

  69. So...what ALGORE doing these days? Does he have any plans?

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/09/2008 @ 1:26pm

    Ever heard of the term--- conservation...

    Interesting that some have mentioned a brokered convention mostly for the repubs. But if you add up the vote percentage of the top 3 dems, as opposed to the top 3 repubs, the dems currently have a greater percentage of the votes centered on just those 3: 86% to 64%, and thus a greater likely-hood at this point anyway of that playing out. And I'm sure Edwards is looking at that as well.

    See latest USA Today/Gallop Poll:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 1:48pm

  70. What most of the media fails to realize is the impact of what they do. It appears many women got made at how some of the media piled on Hillary.

    Further, if McCain & Obama were competing for independent voters and those voters saw the big lead Obama had they would be more inclined to vote in the Republican primary.

    Finally, with Obama's big projected lead some would be inclined to stay home because their guy was going to have a blow-out victory anyway.

    Posted by kenburnsidelj at 01/09/2008 @ 1:50pm

  71. Also, most of the feminists I'm hearing from are showing their subtle racism. If I hear one more white feminist tell me as a black feminist that Obama should wait to be president or accept the Vice Presidency because it's Hillary's time, I'm going to smack someone.

    Posted by EDWRITER 01/09/2008 @ 12:53pm

    Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting. Up until now, I haven't heard anything from black feminists regarding both Hillary's and Obama's campaign run in the mainstream media. Of course I doubt the mainstream media knows or cares for that matter. Are there other black feminists, that you know, that share your outlook? Just wondering.

    Posted by k330k at 01/09/2008 @ 2:05pm

  72. Again, please send a link to the exit polls showing Obama should have won.

    Posted by HMAN23 01/09/2008 @ 1:36pm

    January 08, 2008

    LOOKING FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE EXIT POLLS?

    Looking for leaked exit poll results from New Hampshire? Sorry to disappoint, but whatever their merits, we are unlikely to see any such leaked results until moments before the polls close.

    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/looking_for_new_hampshire_exit.php

    And hey, if one were going to cheat selectively, how much less difficult would it be to have a few extra people come out of targeted polling sites, not even having voted, to sway an exit poll? Not that difficult at all-- compared to knowing ahead of time which random individual population targets pollsters would be anomalously contacting...

    http://tinyurl.com/yuw6ak

    (just something to think about)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 2:10pm

  73. #1 I don't trust Diebold, "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes!" We all know that Republicans would prefer to run a Conservative against Hillary Clinton. #2 Hillary's speech last night "borrowed" progressive phrases from John Edwards, and Barack Obama. Perhaps that's what was missing in her campaign.

    Posted by dryheatpete at 01/09/2008 @ 2:11pm

  74. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/09/2008 @ 2:10pm

    HSUB, I think it's much more likely that New Hampshireites didn't synch up with their polling and their votes....than Her Majesty hacked the Diebold machines (or if you want to join DRYHEATPETE, that "Repubs" hacked them because they want to run against her).

    BTW, what is there LESS chance of than Diebold cheating Obama last night?

    A brokered Convention that leads to Al Gore (and NOT one of the guys actually IN the race) becoming the nominee! But hey, maybe Diebold will count the votes at the Pepsi Center and you can claim THAT was stolen when the time comes!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 2:17pm

  75. Posted by KENBURNSIDELJ 01/09/2008 @ 1:50pm

    That's a likely scenario except that we're talking at least 5% of the likely voters! That's quite a lot-- considering all the Obama 'excitement' factor. I'd think that scenario may be responsible for maybe as much as .25% of the vote but nowhere close to 5%.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 2:18pm

  76. I am a member....:) Why not?

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/09/2008 @ 1:04pm

    Which is what makes me...curious...about the REAL politics of LIL!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 2:18pm

  77. Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 2:17pm

    Er, Frita, odds are a funny thing, what were the chances that your Frito would be booted out 6 months before he actually was?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 2:21pm

  78. Posted by TRURO BOB 01/09/2008 @ 1:33pm

    Take a look at the link ZOMBIE provides. It is pretty clear that the polls had the support for Obama, Edwards and Richardson correct. The only error was understating support for Clinton. Your theory has no legs. Sorry.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/09/2008 @ 2:49pm

  79. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/09/2008 @ 2:21pm

    Oops, my fault...sorry, need to start a new count...okay this is January 9th, so DNC delegates vote Wednesday August 27th, and that means...ahhh, got it...

    231 days and counting until Al Gore becomes the nominee! (Mark your calendars, folks....HSUB won't!...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 2:52pm

  80. I love how the story has been spun so that now it's about the polls rather than the pols

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 3:00pm

  81. Another good point:

    ANALYSIS: Not so fast... Obama and Clinton tie in NH

    By DARREN ABRECHT, McClatchy Interactive

    As a result, each will come away from New Hampshire with the pledges of 9 delegates. John Edwards, finishing in a distant third place, will take the remaining 4. A look at the national scorecard finds Obama barely in the lead with 25 delegates to Clinton's 24.

    http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/437288.html

    So it's all about appearance at this early 'stage', even if Obama would have won by 2%, the delegates would add up the same. What Clinton winning NH does is give the appearance that she's not on the way down, but then ironically improves Obama's chances of winning 'in the long run' by losing NH now by only 2%... Otherwise he'd be the inevitable nominee and no longer the 'anti-establishment bringer of change'... candidate.

    Now I'm considering whether the vote rigging may very well have been done by the news entertainment industry heads as opposed to their talking heads... Or, could it be that they've already merged with the Clinton/hsuB admin!?!?!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 3:02pm

  82. Finally--we needed the Nation to come through and write about what really happened in New Hampshire. Thank you! Now let's consider what would happen if Obama's campaign started discussing the "Bradley Effect." I believe white voters would run away in droves. America is not a safe space for minorities to discuss race. I have experienced the discomfort gear and attack mode that white Americans generally shift into the moment a minority brings up race. Why the antipathy for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? I wonder if Obama believed he could escape the Bradley effect by avoiding the subject of race--I think he has probably found that his strategy has limitations. Obama should have at least addressed Biden's inappropriate comments about his status as a 'clean' and 'articulate' black man with an appropriately strong rejoinder. It's too bad that America's corporate media, white hegemony, and widespread feelings of entitlement toward white privilege will never allow this national discussion to take place.

    Posted by Sonal at 01/09/2008 @ 3:17pm

  83. FYI, Clinton was not consistently ahead of Obama a month ago in NH, perhaps only inconsistently. There was a long trend, not just a bounce from Iowa. One would need to go back to November to find all the polls showing Clinton consistently ahead of Obama:

    http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 3:26pm

  84. Also, most of the feminists I'm hearing from are showing their subtle racism. If I hear one more white feminist tell me as a black feminist that Obama should wait to be president or accept the Vice Presidency because it's Hillary's time, I'm going to smack someone.

    Posted by EDWRITER 01/09/2008 @ 12:53pm

    Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting. Up until now, I haven't heard anything from black feminists regarding both Hillary's and Obama's campaign run in the mainstream media. Of course I doubt the mainstream media knows or cares for that matter. Are there other black feminists, that you know, that share your outlook? Just wondering.

    Posted by K330K 01/09/2008 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person

    I don't know because it seems that no one has asked us. We're actually a very small tribe and it's because of stuff like this. Most of the women of color with feminist tendencies that I know believe that the Feminist Movement as it was constructed in the 60s and 70s (and to an extent how it's constructed now) has totally failed to take our struggles into consideration.

    Then when Gloria Steinem puts her two cents in on the Opinion pages of the New York Times and basically says that a vote for Obama is a vote for the continuation of sexism, that reinforces that perception.

    Unfortunately, the mainstream media hasn't bothered to address this issue. I guess that's because to them, the only feminists are white ones. Meanwhile, I'm having to deal with some knucklehead asking me if I'm a lesbian every time that I'm in a room with black folks and I say I'm a feminist.

    It makes me want to holla and throw up both my hands.

    Posted by edwriter at 01/09/2008 @ 3:29pm

  85. Meanwhile, here's Gloria Steinem's two cents:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

    Posted by edwriter at 01/09/2008 @ 3:32pm

  86. The neanderthals of America who are too racist to vote for Barack Obama are also often too sexist to vote for Hillary Clinton. You'd expect that if there was under-the-radar discrimination going on, white guy John Edwards would have gotten a big bump in the the final results. That didn't happen.

    Posted by hbridges at 01/09/2008 @ 3:47pm

  87. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

    For those of you who still have not heard:

    There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

    It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

    Together for Obama, Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/09/2008 @ 3:51pm

  88. An interesting, if totally disengenuous point from Steinam's article....

    "Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter)."

    How many women faced POLL TAXES or IQ tests or a threat from the local KKK after 1920 if they tried to vote? FOR A CENTURY (1865-1965)

    And Geraldine Ferraro was nominated as Vice-Presidential candidate for the Democrats in 1984...while NO African-American male (or female) has so far been nominated to either major party.

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 3:55pm

  89. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2008 @ 4:18pm

    Curious FRANK why HuffPost failed to mention this?---

    LOOKS LIKE CLINTON WILL TURN TO CARVILLE, BEGALA...Posted by John Nichols at 01/08/2008 @ 2:14pm

    as well as Major Garrett's story?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 4:27pm

  90. You might want to do a little more research next time, the numbers are readly avalible that disprove the Bradley effect in NH. First off, most of the pollsters correctly predicted Obama's take within MOE. If the Bradley effect was operative, than we would have seen a big drop from what Obama was polling compared to what he actually took in. What the pollsters didn't expect was the extra turnout Hillary took in, similar to 2004 when many pollsters projected Kerry to win. They correctly estimated Kerry's vote total, but they didn't expect the extra Bush votes the GOP managed to squeeze out in swing states like Ohio. 2nd, Hillary won, not because of white defections, but because of women voters swinging her way hard. Male voters (in NH, they are mostly white) went for Obama by 11 points. Women were 57 percent of Democratic voters Tuesday night, and Clinton beat Obama by 12 points among them.

    The New York senator won single women with no children -- about four in 10 Democratic voters -- by a stunning 18 points. Clinton also won married women by 13 points and mothers by 20 points.

    So it wasn't the Bradley effect in operation in NH; more like the Steinem effect.

    Posted by detroitcgj at 01/09/2008 @ 4:28pm

  91. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2008 @ 4:22pm

    BTW, your loathing of Limbaugh blinds you to the fact that the guy is self-interested and that a Hillary nomination and ESPECIALLY a Hillary Presidency....would resurrect his ratings to its 1990s levels again.

    He WANTS her to win...that's fresh material for 4-8 years. Romney, Huckabee, or McCain...Rush has to "play defense" for another 4 and just bat balls off the Dem Congress.

    Bill Clinton was his Golden Goose...and he wants Mother Goose back in the WH (with Bill in tow)!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 4:30pm

  92. Once again all John Nichols can do is parrot what's in the mainstream media. C'mon John, how about something original just once in a while?

    Posted by nationwatch at 01/09/2008 @ 4:43pm

  93. In response to the Bradley Effect being a "racial" excuse, please check this out on MSNBC before your next Hillary Clinton 'front runner' status about a possiable Bradley Effect in her future.

    Please check out the Hillary Clinton sound bite that were shown in California about 12am on 1-6-07 on MSNBC. Please follow this up with the sound bite on MSNBC where she did a retraction around 7:30am 1-7-07! Then lets talk alright, before you get this information second hand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's say on this issue.

    Posted by Lunky at 01/09/2008 @ 4:51pm

  94. Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 4:30pm

    Hey Frita, bet it was Limppaw with his druggy/underworld or under(foot-tapping)stall contacts that rigged the NH vote for Clinton to squeak it out...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 4:56pm

  95. wow, nationwatch. for a nationwatcher, you're quite the lazy little bastard, aren't ya? maybe i'm wrong, though. is it laziness or is it stupidity that explains your occasional vapid, shallow and meaningless attempts at criticism? maybe you should change your name to nationwatchwannabe.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 5:14pm

  96. I guess one has to be Black to understand how glad I am that Obama lost to Clinton. Because for right now I can stop worring about someone killing him. What does make me sad is that the old(new)"he will win, because Black people will vote for him" is back in full force;to prove that my people have no freedon of thought, choice or social/economic values. But then all of you RACE EXPERTS on this site know that this is the American(?) "norm"?

    Now what was that all of you were saying about being racist? If Obama had not lost he would never be believed that he and Hillary "words" are about Hillary down grading Rev. Martin L. King's Historical classifications. Think back to how Hillary keeps talking about "words" are worthless. How Obama keeps quoting King in reply every time she does this? How Hillary keeps down grading "great speakers". Then notice Obama's come back to what she has to say are about defending the powers of WORD and in the words of Dr. King!!!!!

    What I said before was about the tapes (I had made of Mrs. Clinton)of Hillary down grading Dr. King as having no effect on the Civil Rights movement then retracting it 7hours later is exactly what I was talking about. I have been emailing MSNBC to show it again as it was in the middle of the night on the east coast.....Now it is up to Al Sharpton as they are on the way to him.

    Posted by Lunky at 01/09/2008 @ 5:19pm

  97. The Brad blog disputes the whole notion that there was a shortage of 'paper' ballots seemingly as a cover for the increase in Clinton e-votes... curiouser and curiouser.

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530#more-5530

    So what happens to Clinton's candidacy if voting shenannigans are indeed found in NH? Sad, really sad-- especially if her campaign had nothing to do with it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 5:24pm

  98. Hey Frank, couldn't that work vise versa too? An Obama/Clinton ticket? Sos not to piss off or deflate all the females. Clinton can then become the new cHeney!?!?! Do all the secret behind the scenes war/corporate deals... And Obama out front inspiring everyone and the Dems would get maybe 75% of all the female vote and 90% of the black vote as well...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 5:57pm

  99. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2008 @ 4:22pm

    So Nichols was "half-right"? Only Carville is joining the Clinton campaign!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/09/2008 @ 6:58pm

  100. Hey Frita, bet it was Limppaw with his druggy/underworld or under(foot-tapping)stall contacts that rigged the NH vote for Clinton to squeak it out...----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/09/2008 @ 4:56pm

    Gotta ask...cuz it's you....

    Are you being serious?

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 7:02pm

  101. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/09/2008 @ 5:06pm

    or they're more friendly with "TN" than FNC?

    BTW, HSUB thinks Hillary is going to lose the nomination to Al Gore come the Convention!

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 7:03pm

  102. You left the white voters of NH. The obvious implication of voter lying to conceal their racial prejudice is that they are racists. You also stated that why Bostonians moved to NH to avoid sending their kids to schools with blacks during the 1970s. That sounds like racism to me as well. And, the point that a decisive reason that Obamah won in Iowa being liked to cacusus members not being able to conceal their actions suggests, as you stated, that whites do not want to appear racists. But, when given the opportunity to do so covertly, there's a strong chance that whites will not support black political leadership, also sounds like racism. Please, no codewords, just call it like it is.

    Posted by kharib at 01/09/2008 @ 7:07pm

  103. Has anyone considered that it may not have been the "Bradley Effect" that caused the discrepency in the polls and the election but rather a stolen election----I mean afterall wasn't the Governor of New Hampshire a Hillary supporter---didn't the exit polls have Obama winning---isn't this the same evidence of a stolen election that was used in Florida---hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/09/2008 @ 7:21pm

  104. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/09/2008 @ 7:21pm | ignore this person

    whatta dopey post.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 7:34pm

  105. I was always, for the most part, supportive of Bill as president. Sure I had issues, but I also have issues with W. But I supported our president because I feel that's the right thing to do.

    Having said that, I just wish the Clinton clan would just away.

    Enough is enough and Hill is not what this country needs.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2008 @ 7:37pm

  106. Posted by USAPRIDE 01/09/2008 @ 7:37pm | ignore this person

    Clinton fatigue.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 8:00pm

  107. whatta dopey post.

    Posted by BRANNIGAN

    You mean that you don't think that the Clinton's are capable of stealing an election??? When democrats claimed that Florida was stolen three of the major claims were that Bush's brother was the Governor, the Secretary of State Katherine Harris was a republican, and the exit polls had Gore winning--that was enough evidence for many dems----Now when the same evidence is in play why not the same accusation?????????? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/09/2008 @ 8:12pm

  108. Not just fatigue, I really think Hill is bad news. She is not qualified and then we have the baggage.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2008 @ 8:26pm

  109. Simple math demonstrates that the N.H. democratic primary result is not an example of the "Bradley Effect". Pollster.com tracks national polls and creates standard estimates based on the results of many different poles. Their standard estimates leading up to the vote were 36.7% for Obama, 30.4% for Clinton, 18.4% for Edwards, 5.6% for Richardson, 2.5% for Biden, and apparently 6.4% undecided or voting for minor candidates. The actual results were 37% for Obama (almost exactly correct), 40% for Clinton, 17% for Edwards, 5% for Richardson, and 1% for Kucinich.

    Now do the math. The only candidates that actually lost ground on Clinton were white males (Edwards and Biden). She obviously also gained some support from people who were undecided. More than likely, the massive media attention focused on her heart felt explanation for why she is running and her debate performance helped her capture undecided voters, and also take votes away from the white males in the race. There is really no evidence of a "Bradley Effect".

    Posted by kimbiaje at 01/09/2008 @ 8:37pm

  110. She is not qualified and then we have the baggage.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 01/09/2008 @ 8:26pm | ignore this person

    what are these "qualifications" of which you speak?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 9:22pm

  111. Please name her qualifications.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/09/2008 @ 9:26pm

  112. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=USAPRIDE

    asccording to the constitution she qualifies. why don't you say something, instead of just drive bys.

    the woman is a US senator. she was elected and re-elected to that office.

    Ah I don't know why I bother, you are just babbling.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 9:52pm

  113. I submit that no self-respecting racist would actually vote for a woman because that voter would naturally opt for a white male, like John Edwards. However, Edwards got less than half the votes Hillary got, and less than half than Barack's. OK, that's not it. Aha! I've got it! Since exit polling reveals that Hillary got unexpectedly thunderous support from women, then it must be those women who are the dastardly racists. That doesn't make sense either. Bottom line: there's absolutely no convincing evidence to support the assertion that Clinton's victory resulted from a huge move by closet racists. As for this primary election, history reveals it usually gets an inordinate amount of attention and serves very little use in predicting the eventual outcome of the nomination processes or the eventual winner. Let's move on.

    Posted by mellowdrama at 01/09/2008 @ 10:18pm

  114. Bottom line: there's absolutely no convincing evidence to support the assertion that Clinton's victory resulted from a huge move by closet racists. ----Posted by MELLOWDRAMA 01/09/2008 @ 10:18pm

    No but it neatly fulfills two fundamental left-wing thoughts...

    1. America is so racist that any defeat for an African-American MUST be racially motivated, regardless of all other factors (qualifications, agreement on policy, organization, message, better qualities in their opponent.)

    2. That Hillary is despised in general by most Democrats...as she is by the liberal base. And the reason for THAT belief is...the inherent belief that THEY (the liberal base) are the MAJORITY in the Democratic Party and therefore their desires MUST win in Democratic primaries...else it's "racism" or "Diebold machines".

    Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 10:31pm

  115. That Hillary is despised in general by most Democrats.

    this just not true. you are peddling horseshit.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 11:04pm

  116. Gotta ask...cuz it's you....

    Are you being serious?

    Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 7:02pm

    My same thoughts about a lot of your comments, just figure it's Frita and she's just naturally contrary per the vast amount of straw she prefers to sleep on...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/09/2008 @ 11:05pm

  117. Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 10:31pm

    you are peddling horseshit.

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 11:04pm

    Guess English is NOT your native language.....you need to read MASK's comments again!

    Let me help.........begin with "it neatly fulfills two fundamental left-wing thoughts..." but be sure to connect with the end "the inherent belief that THEY (the liberal base) are the MAJORITY in the Democratic Party".

    Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 11:10pm

  118. what is this crap about english not being my native tongue. I write better than most people here, my vocabulary certainly exceeds yours and Mask's.

    i was very clear what I objected to. Mask has no way of knowing how most dems feel about Hill.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 11:16pm

  119. We have a winner! I haven't conferred the DAD title on anyone in w hile....but you, BRANNIGAN, is the winner of HAPPY's New Year Dumb As Doorknob award!

    The problem is not in your vocabulary, it's in your comprehension, duh!

    Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 11:24pm

  120. Posted by BRAG AGAIN 01/09/2008 @ 11:16pm

    I write better than most people here

    "obviously......................."

    my vocabulary certainly exceeds yours and Mask's.

    ¿de veras? ¿y como lo compruebas?

    A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle. --Benjamin Franklin

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 11:39pm

  121. Mr. Obama lost because of the Bradley effect! sounds good. What effect you would think of when the guy won, out of sudden, the Iwova caucuses? Alright, I would call this Florida effect -due to Dubya's dubious win in the 2000 election.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 01/10/2008 @ 01:58am

  122. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom

    it's not bragging when you can do it.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 08:48am

  123. Mask has no way of knowing how most dems feel about Hill.----Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 11:16pm

    True, it's a guess.

    But after February 5th...I think I'll be proven right.

    Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 08:51am

  124. Just read the Tom Hayden piece....apparently he takes the METTEYYA view on Edwards...

    "Obama desperately needs the John Edwards voters, but Edwards shows no sign of abandoning the race, despite the fact that he is unlikely to win a single primary. The math is simple: Clinton wins if the anti-Clinton vote is split between Obama and Edwards."

    Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 09:36am

  125. I got my own personal "bingo" moment with the Hillary "cry" episode.

    Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's C-SPAN broadcast seminar for college students in Arkansas a little more than four years ago? His prescription for winning a presidential race contained three items:

    A) show people that you have the qualities that people like in your opponent. B) show people something about your opponent that if people knew it, they wouldn't like them so much. C) show people something that your opponent can't possibly offer that you can.

    First Hillary had to be for change, second they trotted out the (false) Iraq war and abortion claims and third Hillary was a woman..something Obama can't be.

    Exactly Bill Clinton's prescription for winning, by the book.

    Posted by hrayovac at 01/10/2008 @ 10:17am

  126. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 09:47am

    Kerry himself is useless....but his DONOR E-MAIL LIST...!!!

    (And it is a slap at Her Majesty...as well as a kick to the already-crippled Edwards' campaign)

    Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 10:33am

  127. Being PRO-IRAQ-WAR AND PRO-BUSH doesn't take much stamina or effort...it just takes buckets of other peoples money and BLOOD.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 09:04am | ignore this person

    Posted by conshame at 01/10/2008 @ 10:57am

  128. Being a CONSERVATIVE doesn't take much stamina or effort...it just takes buckets of other peoples money and property.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 09:04am | ignore this person

    CONSERVATIVES: INCAPABLE OF LOGIC ON IRAQ

    Posted by conshame at 01/10/2008 @ 11:15am

  129. Supporting pre-emptive wars based on lies that negatively affect the country, doesn't take much stamina or effort...it just takes buckets of other peoples money and property.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 09:04am | ignore this person

    Republicans: Soft, on intelligence

    The Disaster in Iraq is nothing but a massive bloated socialist bureaucracy out of control.

    George Bushs Disaster in Iraq is Communist.

    Posted by conshame at 01/10/2008 @ 11:19am

  130. Posted by CONSHAME 01/10/2008 @ 11:15am

    No such thing, CS....

    BLOG | Posted 07/31/2007 @ 07:21am Comments for "Vitter's Close Call" by David Corn

    Mask, what do you want? Alright. Nobody is a "Conservative". Conservative is an abstract concept. For a real Conservative to exist, that person would have to agree 100 with a set of principles that can not be fully and specifically defined. The same for a Liberal. ----Posted by CONSHAME 08/01/2007 @ 6:17pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 11:19am

  131. The idea that Obama might be viewed as unelectable as a Bradley effect light is interesting in that this in fact may be the overriding motive in all elections where this theoretical effect is attributed to poll vs. vote discrepancies. Could it be that people are not necessarily embarrassed to admit they support the white candidate but their deep-rooted prejudice will not allow them to help elect the candidate of color if they think the race is close? In all examples given for the Bradley effect the races were within 8-10 points. Most voters are aware of the polls when they vote.

    Posted by uncleeddie at 01/10/2008 @ 11:34am

  132. George Bushs Disaster in Iraq is Communist.

    Posted by CONSHAME 01/10/2008 @ 11:19am | ignore this person

    no, it isn't. the communists were against it, but I imagine they enjoyed seeing Amerika shoot itself in the foot.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 12:25pm

  133. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 09:04am | ignore this person

    useless PC crap

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 12:27pm

  134. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/10/2008 @ 12:25pm

    BRANN, maybe didn't mention this to you but...

    CONSHAME?...isn't "quite right in the head".

    Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 12:45pm

  135. Hey, Brannigan, saw your comment about the "indian victimization" yesterday. Which Indians are you talking about, the ones killed at Sand Creek or the ones that slaughtered all the women and children in Minnesota in 1864?

    Get real about that conflict: It was brutal on both sides.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 12:58pm

  136. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/10/2008 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person

    you tried this shit before. the indians were exterminated. end of story. you are a holocaust apologist and in my mind despicable.

    PS, I heard the jews fought back and killed so,me nazis. their victim status too is over drawn, right?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 1:01pm

  137. some

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 1:01pm

  138. Posted by MASK 01/10/2008 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person

    I don't doubt it. Chip too.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 1:03pm

  139. The Clinton/hsuB admin explained:

    http://tinyurl.com/29ex55

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/10/2008 @ 1:15pm

  140. No, Brannigan, the Indians were not exterminated, not the Northern American ones anyway, in fact they still exist on several reservations throughout the country. And where do you get this holocaust apologist nonsense> I believe you "tried that once before" also, to use your words. I did mention once the time a British person was thrown in jail in England for denying the Holocaust:Pointed out as an example of how freedom of expression is better here than anywhere, even England. If by that you deduced that I, myself am a denier than I can consider you just another raving fanatic whose understanding of history, people and politics is constricted by your own preconceived, unwavering notions, and your opinions therefore easily dismissable.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 1:16pm

  141. I hope you and Chip will be very happy together. you are both clueless.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 1:30pm

  142. I'm only on the third page of posts right now but I have to respond to the assertion of someone killing Obama. If worrying about whether Obama will be killed is keeping you from voting for him then you are a supreme dumbass. It's really a shame. I heard that bullshit from a male friend of mine and I wanted to smack him. I'll be damned if I'm voting for Hillary or anybody else ssumed longer life-span. If Obama, who should know better than anyone about someone trying to kill him for winning primaries, is still going strong and is not pulling out of the race for fear of his life then I'm not gonna worry either. I swear. My people, my people.

    Posted by k330k at 01/10/2008 @ 1:50pm

  143. By the way, John, I had asked on another blog whether you had gotten to the Great Wall?, then couldn't get back & forgot on which one I asked the question DUH! :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 2:02pm

  144. BRANN, I don't do ignores. I mentioned before, I consider Ignores (with the exception of holding back RESE's diatribes) as the Cyber equivilent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalala. For Babies only.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 2:05pm

  145. Brannigan seems very angry. Even though I do agree with your postion on the extermination of Native Americans. Those that weren't exterminated were forced to leave lands that had been inhabited by them for centuries. In any case, take a chill pill. Just because you disagree with someone doeasn't make them an idiot regardless of whether they are or not.

    On a side note: previous post should state " because of an assumed longer life-span". Uh-oh, here come the grammar police. Gotta go!

    Posted by k330k at 01/10/2008 @ 2:05pm

  146. That last was no offense to you John

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 2:07pm

  147. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=CHIP%20THORNTON

    I don't recall mentioning ignores.

    some of the jews survived the holocaust. that doesn't mean it didn't happen. same with the indians.

    you are a historian only in your mind, which has not only been washed, it has been dry cleaned.

    anyone, where is that last bit from?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 2:08pm

  148. Okay. I've just read maureen dowd's op-Ed piece for the NYTimes. I couldn't get to the steinem piece. Anyway, Dowd's take on Hillary's timely show of emotion is the closest I've read to my own take. Tears don't sway me one way or the other. I still don't understand how FRANKGRITS can support someone who willfully voted for the war in Iraq. Weren't you against the war, Frank?

    Posted by k330k at 01/10/2008 @ 2:23pm

  149. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/10/2008 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person

    A population of 15,000,000 gets reduced to 230,000 and was, last I checked still decreasing. To use the example you gave to show parity is as rational and easy to dismiss as it is silly.

    Posted by V at 01/10/2008 @ 2:28pm

  150. What last bit?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 2:30pm

  151. your mind, which has not only been washed, it has been dry cleaned.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 2:33pm

  152. Just because you disagree with someone doeasn't make them an idiot regardless of whether they are or not.

    gosh, I love that kind of talk.

    hey folks, I am not angry. why should I be?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 2:34pm

  153. By the way, the continued reduction in "pure" Indian population is in large part, according to a rancher and resident of Pierre, SD who took me around, due to intermixing with the white population, a fact confirmed by a Sioux I met at Wounded Knee. I have also heard much lower estimates of the overall Indian population at the time of, say the Plymouth Rock landing, the lowest being 300,000, which I believe to be too low. By the same token 15MM is probably too high, and submitted by guilt mongerers to make what was essentially a slow 200 year conquest encompassing battles and massacres on both sides into some sort of Hitler like genocide, which it was not.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 2:38pm

  154. It may also interest you to know, Bran, that many of the South & North Dakotans consider we Easterners to be making way more of it all then they themselves do, which I found ironic.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/10/2008 @ 2:41pm

  155. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/10/2008 @ 2:34pm

    Now that's what I'm talking about! Let's focus on love!

    Posted by k330k at 01/10/2008 @ 2:44pm

  156. Let's focus on love!

    Posted by K330K 01/10/2008 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person

    include me out.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 2:50pm

  157. I think the Indians in general are having the last laugh so to speak, with the casinos...but as my sister in law warns...the govt(libs) are eye balling more and more ways to get their hands on all that revenue...(taxing potentials)...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 2:50pm | ignore this person

    this false. an overwhelming majority of indians are in poverty, and are subject to increased crime, drug addiction, unemployment, early death etc. you show over and over again that you are an ignorant jerk.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 4:05pm

  158. John May as well give it up old b