Lazy media calling New Hampshire Democrats racists...

[SaveElmer]

Unable to come up with any other explanation for their spectacularly ARG like miscalculation last night, pundits, without a scrap of evidence or without even bothering to think about what they were saying, have decided Hillary's result was due to the "Wilder factor" referring to the 1989 Virginia Governor's race which showed him leading by 10 in pre-election polls but which he only won by 1 point. The theory being that whites would tell pollsters they were voting for a black man, but actually had no intention to do so...because they didn't want to be seen as racist..even though they were.

Rather than examine the relative merits of this comparison, they simply decided to put it out there for the ONE AND ONLY reason that it matched in terms of the disparity of polls to results...without a scrap of anecdotal or empirical evidence to back it up...

The argument is bogus...and two minutes of contemplation would have told them that...

1. Bradley in California, Wilder in Virginia, Harvey Gantt in North Carolina were general election races including Republicans...2 of 3 in southern states..

2. If 14% of New Hampshire Democrats were worried enough about being called racists that they lied to pollsters over the phone, what makes you think they would suddenly tell the truth to pollsters interviewing them in public at the polling places. The exit polls were spot on...no "Wilder" factor there..

It requires you to believe that there are a higher percentage of racists in the Democratic Party in New Hampshire, than with the general voting population in North Carolina and Virginia...

It's ridiculous and simply an effort at CYA on the part of the big media...

[IndianaJones]

1. I see it as a plausible reason. Later primaries will tell one way or the other. nt.

[jasmine621]

2. I agree with you. The MSM is shameless and shameful.

I hope people will finally wake up and see how much the media shapes their thinking in misguided ways.

[cali]

3. They really are despicable.

This was obviously not about race. She won. Yes, the Clintons did some questionable things in NH, but that, unfortunately, is politics. And they play hardball. Obama needs to play hardball with them if he's to compete- even if that means playing their game.

[truebrit71]

4. I agree...the media whores are drumming up a bullshit story out of nothing...

...this had bugger all to do with race...

[Arkansas Granny]

5. I heard an analyst this morning on CBS who said it was the voters

who made up their minds at the last moment. Before the primary they didn't show up for any of the candidates, but after casting their ballots, they showed up correctly in the exit polls and the ballot counts. I haven't heard anyone suggest that it had anything to do with race.

[Bitwit1234]

6. They just asked the wrong people who they were voting for

now people won't vote for Obama because he is black give me a crappy break. People didn't vote for Obama because they didn't think he was the right person so go sit on a tack.

[Lyric]

7. I learned about this in Poli-Sci 102

It's not that far-fetched. People tend to give "socially respectable" answers to pollsters. As someone who used to work for Zogby International as a pollster, I have some personal knowledge of this.

Why is it so hard to imagine? There's a lot of racism hiding in mainstream America, even in such bastions of independence as New Hampshire. I'm no Obama supporter, but even *I* can see that. It's not right, but we get nowhere by closing our eyes and refusing to acknowledge that the problem exists.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. If there is a general tendancy to lie to pollsters

There should be statistically accepted "fudge factors" that can be applied to polls to make them reflect reality. Polling "science" should be pretty well tested by now, so that these factors can be fairly accurate.

Blaming the voters is just a lazy way of avoiding blame for bad polling.

[NOVA_Dem]

12. Edith Bunker Voters

The polling got EVERY other part of the NH primary correct except...Clinton/Obama.

It's just that Democratic white women lied to pollsters. The freepers are calling them "Edith Bunker" voters. They're not all THAT prejudice but they want a woman and afraid to speak honestly to pollsters.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

14. Edith was way more liberal than Archie

Didn't have a prejudiced bone in her body. Anyone with any familiarity with the show would view the term as contradictory and completely inaccurate.

[NOVA_Dem]

15. Bias in favor of your own gender/race is still bias

not necessarily in the sense of the pejorative meaning but in that you would like to see one of your own succeed for once. Edith was the type that wouldn't always stand up to Archie (not until the end of the episode) and would say to his face what he wanted to hear and then go follow her heart. Edith is one of the prototypical Clinton supporters demographically. I think you're being thrown off by the "Bunker" part.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

16. She wouldn't have been biased in favor of her own race either

There's a lot of people who complain that Edith was depicted too saintly, but that she was, she was saintly. I don't for a second believe she would've had a preference for a white candidate over a black one. When her transsexual friend was murdered in a gay-bashing around Christmas time, she refused to celebrity the holiday (even to accommodate her young grandson) and questioned whether she could still believe in God. She was not prejudiced even in the slightest.

The only thing that wasn't liberal about her was that she accepted the role of a traditional housewife. But they showed her becoming increasingly liberated with Gloria's encouragement. It was the early 70s and it reflected housewives everywhere becoming liberated.

This whole thing is a minor point of course, but no, Edith was not even the slightest bit prejudiced.

[Little Star]

18. And do you think that sexism also exists? just askin'

[Lyric]

19. Of course I do

Having been a victim of it a myriad of times throughout my life.

[Little Star]

20. Thanks. I agree on both...

They both exist. No doubt about it.

[potone]

8. When Obama won Iowa, how was that explained?

Was it because the voters were too sexist to vote for a woman? No, of course not. Sexism remains far more acceptable than racism. I don't support Hillary but she worked her heart out in New Hampshire, and my impression is that Obama did not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. she was far more organized in NH

[NOVA_Dem]

13. You have to take the "socially acceptable" position in public caucuses n/t.

[ieoeja]

11. Had racism reared its ugly head, Obama would have won.

But it did not. Misogyny did, however, turn up at the last minute which in turn brought out last minute voters to repudiate it. Can't say as I blame 'em.

[moriah]

17. Iowa bump...

Remember that historically the Iowa bump only lasts so long.

The NH primary came right on the tails of Iowa and earlier than in previous years. There was not as much time to "normalize" the Iowa bump in the polls, and just because a poll comes out on the day of the primaries doesn't mean it is up to the minute in accuracy.

If we had more time between Iowa and NH, we might have seen the bump normalize in the polls. If it'd been on Monday, we might have seen Obama win from the "bump".

[progressivebydesign]

21. That is beyond stupid, but not surprising. n/t