In the aftermath of the New Hampshire primary one ugly truth shines through. Race is clearly still a serious problem for the Democratic Party and for many Democratic and independent voters in New Hampshire and perhaps nationwide.
How can I say such a terrible thing? It's easy. Race is the most evident explanation for the disparity between all of the advance polling, the exit polls, and the actual results of the election. Virtually every poll prior to the election showed Barack Obama with a strong lead over Hillary Clinton. Even Clinton's own campaign was predicting an 11 point loss to Obama. Yet when it came down to the voting, Clinton won by a 3% margin.
There's really only one conclusion. When people were polled before they voted, they said they were going to vote for Obama. When they were in the privacy of the voting booth, they actually voted for Clinton. They wanted to look like they were open-minded, but when it came to actually acting, they chose based on race. The only explanation is the main distinguishing difference between Clinton and Obama: race. When push came to shove in a very white, very Democratic New England state, they chose the white woman over the black man.
I guess that lying to the pollsters shows at least some awareness that they ought to be voting on a color-blind basis, but clearly that moral impulse didn't go very deep and was overwhelmed by fear or caution or plain old racism when they had to make a real commitment.
The problem isn't limited to Democratic voters. Independents seem to have faced the same choice and made a similar decision. Despite telling pollsters they heavily favored Obama right up until the start of the primary, when it came to voting, independent voters seem to have flocked to John McCain, the whitest and safest alternative they could find.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Charlie
Dave, I think you're almost 100% wrong here on the race factor. Iowa was 95% white when they voted in record numbers, including for Obama. The difference in NH came down to women, and undecided voters who didn't answer to pollsters. The latter group, probably 5-10% of the total vote, likely made their voting decision in the last 24-72 hours.
The only voting trend that makes sense from a racial demographic is the over-40 voters who voted for Clinton over Obama. The elder whites voting for Hillary instead of the young African-American might be a plausible explanation for some of the voting total, but still hard to prove.
But you have to realize that Obama still got over 102,000 votes, more than any other democrat or republican with the exception of Hillary who got 110,000 votes at last count. It's pretty historic accomplishment for both of them, actually.
Also, unlike in Iowa, Clinton got a lot of the women voters this time, and the independent vote from what I hear was split something like 4 in 10 (40%) for both parties, so it was a white wash.
Race will be a factor in this election, no doubt about it, but it will be hard to figure out how much of a factor. (Exit pollsters, as far as I know aren't going to ask if you voted for someone based on the color of their skin)
I can tell you though, and feel free to disagree, that there might be a backlash waiting for republican candidates for refusing to take part in hispanic or african-american-sponsored debates.
And one other thing: Michigan is different than NH; it's getting to be more ethnically diverse than ever, with more Muslim immigrants now living side by side with the state's mix of african-americans and whites. I don't know how this will reflect on Obama's chances or any other candidate, but unlike NH, Michigan is definitely a solid blue state so look for a solid turnout and another close vote for both Hillary Clinton and Obama.
Michigan is also Romney's home state as you probably know but it's not a given he'll win there with McCain heating up again and the fact that Romney relatives haven't had much luck winning races there since George Romney was governor. So that race should be the closest republican race yet, no matter who votes. That's my best guess.
2 - bliffle
If the dems are damned for denying a close election to Obama, then, by Daves logic, the reps must be double-damned for not even having a black candidate.
Or, maybe Dave is just wrong. Again.
3 - RJ Elliott
"Race is the most evident explanation for the disparity between all of the advance polling, the exit polls, and the actual results of the election."
Why didn't this disparity exist in lily-white Iowa?
"When push came to shove in a very white, very Democratic New England state, they chose the white woman over the black man."
#1 - There are more registered Republicans in NH than Democrats.
#2 - This is very close to suggesting that voting for someone other than Obama = "racism" ... which is utter lunacy.
"Exit polling shows further support for this trend, with older voters â€" especially women over 40 â€" voting heavily for Clinton and staying away from Obama in droves. Clearly that is a demographic which may be a little scared by his message of change as well as the color of his skin."
#1 - Why would evil White racists in NH be afraid to tell the truth to pollsters over the phone before voting, but have no problem telling the truth to pollsters in person after voting?
#2 - Is it possible that female voters felt sympathy for Hillary due to her very public "crying" episode, and swung in her direction at the last minute for that reason?
"The bad news for Obama is that as the primary season moves into the rust belt and the south, race may become a bigger issue because voters are older and more conservative. If he couldn't win New Hampshire with all of the kids of Dartmouth and UNH behind him, what chance does he have in Michigan or South Carolina?"
Michigan and South Carolina have a much, much larger percentage of voters who are black than either Iowa or New Hampshire.
I give your political analysis 2/10. :-/
4 - G. Chell
Charlie: Iowa is a open caucus. Other people know who you are voting for. NH is a primary with the privacy of the voting booth. Probably some racism played a role, perhaps at the margins. However, the situation would be reversed if Clinton and McCain were the nominees. I think people will tell the pollsters that they are ready for a woman President but inside the polling booth they will vote for McCain, especially so in Ohio, PA and perhaps MD. Watch for these trends, because either Obama or Clinton would be the Dem nominees with the GOP nominee being white.
5 - Arch Conservative
First of all Obama is not even on the ballot in Michigan.
Second, with all due respect to Nalle, he is way off.
This wasn't about race at all.
The reason Obama lost Nh wasn't because he's black. There are actually a couple of factors that converged to see hime lose. The first is that Hillary really did do a good job of motivating her minions up here. The second is that we in NH were told by the media that Obama was going to win huge. I think many of us, being the crusty old yankees that we are did not like that and did not really see any substance behind Obama's incessant "change" mantra.
Believe it or not not everything is about race Dave.
6 - Dave Nalle
Dave, I think you're almost 100% wrong here on the race factor. Iowa was 95% white when they voted in record numbers, including for Obama.
Iowa didn't show anything like the kind of shift against the polls. I can't absolutely explain why it only happened in New Hampshire, but I'd guess it was the difference between a caucus and a secret ballot.
The difference in NH came down to women, and undecided voters who didn't answer to pollsters. The latter group, probably 5-10% of the total vote, likely made their voting decision in the last 24-72 hours.
Except that exit polls indicate that most voters had made up their minds more than 72 hours in advance, or at least claimed to have.
The only voting trend that makes sense from a racial demographic is the over-40 voters who voted for Clinton over Obama. The elder whites voting for Hillary instead of the young African-American might be a plausible explanation for some of the voting total, but still hard to prove.
Right, and that's exactly what I said.
But you have to realize that Obama still got over 102,000 votes, more than any other democrat or republican with the exception of Hillary who got 110,000 votes at last count. It's pretty historic accomplishment for both of them, actually.
No question that turnout was great. Could have been the result of people turning out to vote both for and against the first major black and female candidates.
Also, unlike in Iowa, Clinton got a lot of the women voters this time, and the independent vote from what I hear was split something like 4 in 10 (40%) for both parties, so it was a white wash.
An even split of independents is a victory for democrats because normally a lot more independents vote Republican.
Race will be a factor in this election, no doubt about it, but it will be hard to figure out how much of a factor. (Exit pollsters, as far as I know aren't going to ask if you voted for someone based on the color of their skin)
They ought to at least ask it, even if they're unlikely to get an honest answer. They could even ask a trick question like whether people think OTHER voters were influenced by skin color.
I can tell you though, and feel free to disagree, that there might be a backlash waiting for republican candidates for refusing to take part in hispanic or african-american-sponsored debates.
I'm not sure that that situation is as cut and dried as it appears. If I recall correctly those groups didn't offer to sponsor republican-only debates at all.
And one other thing: Michigan is different than NH; it's getting to be more ethnically diverse than ever, with more Muslim immigrants now living side by side with the state's mix of african-americans and whites. I don't know how this will reflect on Obama's chances or any other candidate, but unlike NH, Michigan is definitely a solid blue state so look for a solid turnout and another close vote for both Hillary Clinton and Obama.
The 'Dearborn' factor ought to be interesting. I bet Obama will do well there.
Michigan is also Romney's home state as you probably know but it's not a given he'll win there with McCain heating up again and the fact that Romney relatives haven't had much luck winning races there since George Romney was governor. So that race should be the closest republican race yet, no matter who votes. That's my best guess.
Mitt Romney's current politics and George Romney's politics from 30 years ago are radically different.
Dave
7 - Dave Nalle
If the dems are damned for denying a close election to Obama, then, by Daves logic, the reps must be double-damned for not even having a black candidate.
Absolutely. The GOP has, however, had both women and black candidates in the past.
As for this year, can you say Vice President Michael Steele...
Dave
8 - BP
I think it is about race - in Iowa it was public voting, so people couldn't say one thing and hide and do another thing.
Also, regarding the whole 'experience' thing, it seems a bit of a smokescreen to hide one's racism under some notion of rational thinking. If people really cared about experience, they would have voted for Richardson.
9 - Michael J. West
Dave, I'm frankly surprised and expected more from you. What you've written here is based on little to no evidence except for a DRASTICALLY stretched and unsupported interpretation of the exit polls.
In short, you've taken an (extremely) wild guess at what happened in New Hampshire, decided that it was "the most evident explanation," and posted it here without the benefit of a single fact.
10 - Maskay
Obama and Clinton will not win Michigan--They are not on the ballot because Michigan changed their primary date. None of the front running Dem's will be there. In Michigan if you vote in the Democratic Primary and you want a Obama or Clintion the best you can do is vote "Undeclared".
11 - Arch Conservative
As for this year, can you say Vice President Michael Steele...
And we all know how the tolerant left wing bloggers treated Michael Steel......
What was it they called him......oh yeah uncle tom, oreao cookie, little black sambo.......
I can honestly say that I have not seen or heard even one republican/conservative who opposes Obama use any racial slurs
12 - Arch Conservative
Did anyone happen to see Chris Matthes on Tv this morning crying in his coffee because America is such a racist place?
It was priceless.
13 - Maurice
Well written, Dave. I have to confess a certain amount of racism myself. Even though I am conservative by nature I am drawn to Barack because he looks like me.
Skin color goes deep.
14 - Al Barger
Brother Nalle, this is not your best analysis. Curiously for an evil right-wing nutjob, you seem to be buying right into the most lame PC racial nonsense, ie if they weren't racist more NH voters would have supported Obama. What, like there aren't any other possible reasons to not support him?
In fact, I'd argue that the racism is exactly the other way around. This guy does not even vaguely have the qualifications to actually be president. Really, the main reason that he's a contender is simply because he's black and won't pee on the carpet. Looks more to me like the racism was all the white folk in Iowa voting to prove how not-racist they are.
Also, there is the particular place and moment of this NH vote. NH voters are highly conscious of their place in the presidential process, and often act as a corrective to Iowa. NH voters knew that if Obama won their primary after his victory in the Iowa caucuses, it'd pretty much have been all over but the crying. Even some NH voters who would tend to look favorably on Obama might have figured that he needed a little speed bump before handing the nomination to this featherweight.
15 - BP
Dave, I'm frankly surprised and expected more from you. What you've written here is based on little to no evidence except for a DRASTICALLY stretched and unsupported interpretation of the exit polls.
In short, you've taken an (extremely) wild guess at what happened in New Hampshire, decided that it was "the most evident explanation," and posted it here without the benefit of a single fact.
Michael,
I am curious on what would constitute 'proof' to you - would it be a voter coming out and saying "Yeah, while I am telling you I voted for Obama, I actually voted for a white woman because in my heart I am scared of black men beating up old, defenseless white women.."
Exit polls are usually very reliable, especially if they are in line with pre-vote polls (as they were in this case). So it is probably one of two things -
1) Some type of vote rigging
2) Bradley effect
I think it is the latter - you take your pick...
16 - RJ Elliott
"First of all Obama is not even on the ballot in Michigan."
Good point, Arch. From the Detroit Free Press:
Neither [Clinton or Obama] will be campaigning in Michigan for next Tuesday's Democratic primary, though Clinton remains on the ballot. Both agreed not to stump in Michigan when the state violated party rules by moving up its primary to Jan. 15 -- and, among the major candidates, both Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards took their names off the ballot.
That said, Obama's Michigan supporters have been working to get Democratic primary voters to vote uncommitted, rather than support Clinton. A significant percentage of uncommitted votes would not only potentially reserve state delegates for the party's eventual nominee -- it also could weaken Clinton nationally, given that she's the only major candidate on the ballot.
17 - RJ Elliott
"the reps must be double-damned for not even having a black candidate."
Uh, Alan Keyes?
18 - RJ Elliott
I don't understand why some "closet racist" would supposedly be terrified of telling an anonymous pollster that he intends on voting for someone other than Barack Obama over the telephone. There are any number of perfectly valid reasons for voting for a particular White candidate over a particular Black candidate other than racism. So why would a racist even bother to pretend to support Barack Obama? It makes no sense.
19 - Phillip Winn
Sorry, Dave, I must say that I'm not convinced skin color is an issue here. That's one possible explanation, but another is simply that New Hampshire voters didn't like having their votes counted before primary day. Still another is that many independents thought Obama was so obviously the winner that they voted for McCain to avoid having Romney win. There are others as well.
I know that the Bradley Effect is a popular hypothesis, but the disparity between Iowa and New Hampshire suggests something else is at play, I think. Also, some polls *did* reflect a much tighter race, so it's also possible that it was just poor poll questions from companies excited about Obama!
20 - BP
JR Eliott,
I don't understand it either...but I think it is people wanting to be open-minded, but staying within their comfort zone when it comes to translating their words into action (especially when no one is watching what they are doing inside the voting booth)...
They probably realize they are being a bit racist but don't really want to face up to it...obviously this applies to the 'closet racist' not the rabid ones...
21 - Mark Saleski
my goodness, the condescension around here is amazing. going late into the weekend, there were a ton of undecided voters. a lot of them broke toward the clinton camp. there were of course a lot of reasons but i seriously doubt race was on the list.
true enough, new hampshire voters don't like being led around and often vote to "send a message".
i also suspect that a fair number of people switched over and voted for mccain just to give romney a kick in the pants.
22 - Maurice
Lets say the racism dial goes from 1 to 100. I am going to say my dial is set at 33. In other words I am mildly racist. If I go into a store and see 2 store clerks, one is white and one is black, I will ask to be assisted by the black clerk because he looks like me and I am more comfortable with him. Also note I said "him". I am more comfortable speaking with another male. These traits are built in.
I can claim to be non-racist all day but I have a certain amount of racism built in because of my skin color. I have to believe there is racism built in to everyone and that Dave is right about the NH results.
Don't make me go William Raspberry on your ass!
23 - RJ Elliott
RJ's theory:
Telephone polls that were conducted between the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary showed Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton by a comfortable margin. Most of these polls were taken on the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th of January. These telephone polls are usually conducted in the morning and afternoon. The primary election was held on the 8th of January.
Can anybody tell me something major that occurred between the afternoon of the 7th and morning of the 8th, when voting began? Something that received almost wall-to-wall coverage in the national media, so presumably saturation coverage in New Hampshire? Something that was probably the topic of discussion at dinner tables across New Hampshire Monday night, and at water coolers Tuesday morning?
I can: Hillary cried. She cried, publicly, and with cameras present. And it received massive coverage.
As Dave himself wrote: "Exit polling shows [...] older voters â€" especially women over 40 â€" voting heavily for Clinton and staying away from Obama in droves."
It seems pretty clear to me that this could be explained by older female Democrat voters - who identify strongly with Hillary Clinton - giving Hillary a strong "sympathy vote," which of course would not have shown up in the telephone polls because they were conducted pre-tears.
That makes a lot more sense to me than suggesting that New Hampshire Democrats are a bunch of closet Klans(wo)men because they only gave Obama 36% of their vote instead of the expected 39%, or whatever.
24 - BP
LOL,
It is really interesting that people assign strategic thinking to voters - "they vote to send a message"...how do voters know their message will shine through?
The reality is, as voter studies indicate, that people come out and vote from their heart not because of any strategic positioning (especially as you cannot predict what the final message will be).
In NH, it seems, this translates for many people into "voting for one of my own", and that is what they will do even if they feel sheepish/ uncomfortable saying that in public.
The surprising thing is how many people seem to deny that race is involved...ok, it may not be all race, but NO race...c'mon, don't get so defensive.
25 - Mark Saleski
here's another one rj: the women are so pissed off at the time their husbands are spending talking about the patriots that they went to the polls and voted for a woman as a sort of power play.
ok, maybe not.
;-)