Jack & Jill Politics

did the polling account for the spectacularly high turnout?

She won on the woman’s vote. The men voted the same way they did in Iowa. This suggests the tears thing (which I believe, in the height of cynicism, was staged by a desperate campaign) broke her way. There was a massive shift of women in the last 24 hours, and the tear thing–not the Bradley effect–is the only explanation for that.

It made women identify with her. Here’s her problem: she can’t do that again every time she gets into a tough spot. She played that card once. The next time she does it, it’ll be transparently phony and staged.

Here’s the reality: the forces of cynicism weren’t going to go down without a fight. Though Hillary Clinton won the primary, 61% of Democrats voted against her. (Memo to Edwards: you made a valiant run, but drop out; you’re taking votes from Obama and thereby enabling the “status quo,” now).

Also here’s the other reality: Clinton may have won the battle, but she may also lose the war. Now she can’t skip South Carolina to focus on Super Tuesday. She’s obligated to go there and spend big money. If she loses that, New Hampshire will be a footnote going into Super Tuesday, and Obama will once again have the momentum.

The reality is that it’s dead even at the quarter pole. Nevada isn’t as important as South Carolina, and will garner less media attention. Michigan is totally worthless as Hillary’s the only name on the ballot. And Florida doesn’t count.

That leaves South Carolina. If Obama wins there, he’ll get the nomination. If he doesn’t, he probably won’t. I will figure out a way to travel there and volunteer for him this week. We have to stand up for our country now. It’s time to go win the battle on doorsteps.

I now equate Hillary’s episode on Monday with how white women in the South use to cry rape and get innocent black men lynched. I sincerely hope those (self-censorship).

The Bradley Effect is real in 2008…atleast in New Hampshire. Wow.

The good news is that 36 + 17 = 53.

Obama Voters + Edward Voters = Victory

Edwards voters will align with Obama.

I think the tear thing is separate from the Bradley effect. The Bradley effect is a negative, visceral reaction to the thought of voting for a black candidate.

The tear thing was a positive, supportive response of a gender. It was especially powerful among working Moms that often feel stressed about their professional lives. It spoke to their hearts, and was undoubtedly a powerful moment. The Clintons knew the way the media would portray it, and it worked beautifully. But that card can only be played once. If it’s played again, it’ll come off as cold, calculating, and cynical. The election will be decided in South Carolina. I think it’s a 50/50 chance at the moment.

Looks like there was little to no Bradley effect. Re: Matthew Yglesias: “No one is talking about how the polls actually nailed Obama’s number…He stayed steady and Hillary surged ahead. You can view the graf here: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_wrong_were_the_polls.php
Folks in NH voted for Obama at the levels they said they were going to. But there were around 17% undecided voters going into those polls on Election Day, and it looks like they broke for Clinton.

Re: nmp – I’m not so sure. As Andrew Sullivan (who raised the possibility of a Bradley effect as well) noted, given the exit poll results this would involve believing that white men didn’t lie about their support for Obama but white women did. I don’t think one group would be more racist than the other.

I don’t believe women voted for Clinton b/c she cried. I believe women voted for Clinton b/c men kicked her while she was down.

I agree with this.

Obama made a tactical mistake in my judgment by no coming to her defense in some way.

I disagree here. If he came off as “coming to her defense” he would have been accused of being patronizing. It was a no win situation there.

BUT

He did NOT lose by a big margin and there are still 48 states left! I think Obama will take Nevada and definitely South Carolina. I think Bill Clinton’s race-tinged insults – and his patronizing tone that Donna Brazile recently noted – will hurt him with blacks – and not just in South Carolina. I don’t think the Clintons realize how they have turned many of us off with the Madrassa/Kindergarten-gate, “the Republicans – not us! – will ask if Barack ever sold drugs to anyone” debacle and the infamous “who does this n____r think he is” Charlie Rose interview.

That said, I’ve heard some folks talking up a possible McCain/Huckabee matchup – terrifying.

Could the Bradley Affect have come from White women this time? In other words, could undecided women in New Hampshire have looked into the eyes of Michelle Obama and not identified with her–on any level–as much as they could–on some level–with Hillary?

Unless you’re saying that there’s a relationship between polling and media, I’m not sure what parallel you’re drawing.

Rikyrah,

Upon further examination of the inside numbers, I think there is a less pressing case for the Bradley effect. I suspect it had an impact with older voters who would not vote for a Black candidate under circumstance, but Obama did as well with men of all ages that Hillary did with women. It’s hard to believe that White women in NH are more racist then men. I think this clearly the result of her protraying herself–YET AGAIN–as a victim. White women felt that she was on the verge of being deprived something owed to her and they swung to her side. That said, Obama needs to aim for well-educated women. He can’t compete with poor White women, period. Moreover, there was a lower than expected youth turn out. Keep in mind that NHU was NOT in session.

All that said, he only lost by 2% points in the 2nd whitest state in the country. And that has to be the message sent to Black folks in SC. Moving forward, his ground troops have to focus on higher turnout among African Americans, the youth, men, and well-educated, professional White women who might be turned off to Hillary Clinton’s professional victim act.

Keep in mind, the candidate who wins in Iowa almost never wins in NH. So, this is keeping in line with traditional results. The 2% margin is a cause of cautious optimism for Obama.

But, here’s the thing – Clinton can lose SC, but still do well enough on Super Tuesday to win the nomination. The Clintons are still the Dem. Establishment, with all the tolls that come with being that status.

If Obama loses SC, I don’t think he will get the nomination. But, if Hillary starts talking in her “blaccent” while campaigning in SC, it’s time to call her on it.

Obama can still pull in the male vote (all ages, both parties) far better than Clinton. Plus, if given a choice between Obama and Clinton, most Republican voters (not the party’s power brokers) would choose Obama. That’s why the hard right is hoping Clinton wins the nomination, since nothing rallies their base like a Clinton in the spotlight.

One thing (among many) that bugs me about the news coverage is that the media keep saying, “Women turned out for HRC”. Why not make the more accurate statement, “White women turned out for HRC”?

- KXB

I think there’s a young lady on the ground here in Atlanta who’s in charge of getting young Black and Brown voters to turn out. I’ve heard her at least once on local Black radio.