A Theory re Obama in Iowa and NH: depressing, but plausible

[Plaid Adder]

My partner works in a labor law firm, and one of her partners worked on Harold Washington's campaign for mayor of Chicago. He ran a theory by her about why Obama did better in Iowa than in New Hampshire, and while I find this theory depressing and ominous (for him, and for all of us who would prefer not to have to support Hillary Clinton in the general election), I am not sure it's not right:

Harold Washington became Chicago's first black mayor for two reasons: 1) the Democratic machine vote was split between two rival candidates and 2) there was increased African-American turnout. (I hope nobody is going to try to claim that there is no Democratic machine in Chicago. There is. It is still huge and formidable. Republicans did not invent election-tampering and corruption; they merely perfected them.) One of the big disappointments for Washington's supporters was how few white liberals actually voted for him. Plenty of white liberal voters had stated publicly that they supported his campaign, but in the voting booth, that was not followed through. And that's because there are more white people who are ashamed to admit that they don't want to vote for a Black candidate than there are white people who will actually vote for one.

How does this affect Obama's results? The theory is that because in Iowa, everything is public, white liberals were basically shamed into standing for Obama, whereas in New Hampshire, white liberals were free to defect at the last minute when their hands were actually poised over the levers (or chad, or whatever they use in NH) without anyone ever knowing of their fecklessness. This would also explain why the polls reflected more support for Obama than actually materialized--because some of the same people who felt they *ought* to support Obama when asked by another human being *didn't* support him when they were in the voting booth alone with their consciences and, I guess, their fears.

I really hope this theory is not correct. However, if it is, we'll know soon, because it will mean that Obama's support will continue to disappoint in states with secret ballot primaries, which if I am not mistaken is pretty much all of them.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[dsc]

1. I thought that might be the case to some extent

but apparently his numbers were accurately predicted. It was her number that was way off. That blows the theory totally out of the water.

[global1]

2. I Don't Know If I Buy This Theory - Maybe Back In Harold Washington's Day .....

that was the case.

Why I don't buy it is because - how would you explain the large turnouts of supporters at campaign events that Obama got in both Iowa and NH and continues to get.

I don't think people would go as far as coming to a campaign event because they felt they 'ought' to support Obama. In my mind - these people just wouldn't go.

I don't think that we the people have stooped that low or are that vain that we feel that we should go out and cheer for Obama at a campaign event in order to feel they did the right thing - and then vote against him when they're "alone with their consciences" in the voting booth.

Can't buy the theory in this day and age. Sorry.

[aquart]

5. Good point. Nobody forces them to turn out. Or send money.

And they HAVE been sending money.

[Demeter]

12. Do You Know How LITTLE There Is To Do In NH?

I lived and suffered there, in Nashua, second largest city. If you don't care for soccer or hockey, and there's nothing on TV, you are stuck.

I spent a lot of time at the library.

[lurky]

32. Yeah, but why the huge throngs at Obama rallies,

and not at Clinton, Edwards, McCain, etc. If it was just boredom, you would think people would be less picky.

[Demeter]

33. The Others Had Been There Before, Previous Primaries

[aquart]

3. Bradley Effect.

But that's a hoot about the caucus system shaming them into voting as promised. Any other caucus states?

[Tatiana]

10. Good point about the caucus system. n/t

[Zueda]

4. I don't buy it...

When taking a poll from a major pollster I feel a sense of privacy and I'm sure most people do. If your mentioned theory was true I think it would reflect more in public opinion polls. While watching the caucus event on c-span I certainly did not see anyone who remotely looked shamed while standing for him. At one point I saw a young man whose candidate was not viable say "Come on! Let's go make history!" as he headed over to Obama's group.

[aquart]

6. Nope. Bradley effect is documented. It's a known phenomena.

<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bradley+effect&btnG=Google+Search>

[Zueda]

11. The electorate was much different in the 80s....

Where was the Bradley Effect in Harold Ford's 2006 Senate race? There was none. The final results matched-up with what the polls were saying. And that was in Tennessee of all places!

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. That sort of statement is proof that the Wilder / Bradley effect exists

"Let's go make history" ==

"Let's demonstrate that his race is not an issue for us."

His race is part of the reason they side with Obama publically.

If he did something "race related" (like say "get involved in
that Jena Six nonsense" or repeal Welfare Reform) those white
liberals would feel betrayed and turn on him.

They see him as an exemplar, in short.

A Black man who "transcends race" i.e, appeals to white voters,
in a way most black candidates do not.

And voting in public puts the onus on the voter to experiment
on an "untested" (i.e. nonwhite) exemplar.

Just as Hillary is supposedly an exemplar of the strength and
fortitude of American women in an executive position, as if
she and Obama are somehow archetypal.

[Fresh_Start]

7. The average of the last 7 polls was Obama 38%

He got 37%. Its within the MOE.
Edwards average was 18% He got 17% within the MOE.
So it looks like ppl did what they said they were going to do for Obama and Edwards.
So I don't know that you need to look for ppl lying about their willingness to support Obama.
'

[truedelphi]

38. Keith Olberman and at least one of his guests discussed what you are saying

Obama's polling numbers were within the final vote tally margins.

What changed significantly was that Hillary's number picked up as she got more voters.

This is because (According to the Olberman's show discussion) that some of the voters stating they were for this or that candidate also stated that they were not STRONGLY for this or that candidate.

And there were also people who were undecided.

So Hillary ended up getting some of those who were not strongly for Edwards, Obama or some other, and also she picked up the undecideds.

[Hissyspit]

8. Good to hear from you, Plaid Adder!

Hope everyone is well.

[blogslut]

9. It's up to us to overwhelm the voting booth

GOTV like never before.

IMHO, this race is far from over. One second place result is nothing. Obama finished with good numbers and that should not be forgotten. His campaign had a setback. I still have faith that the more America sees him, the more they'll want him. :)

[rch35]

15. ok, dumb question, but whats GOTV?

ive been reading here for years, just got an account, and its been bugging me

[rambler_american]

17. GOTV

Get Out The Vote

[rch35]

44. thanks nt

[orleans]

39. i have a present for you.....!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x190

(on edit: so i go to the glossary and look for gotv and it's not there! anyway, i added it so it's there now...)

[rch35]

43. thank you, its a classy gift nt

[karlrschneider]

13. That's not just a theory, it's an obvious truth. I've been trying to tell DUers.

But it's not politically correct, apparently.

[CoffeeCat]

14. I'm glad that theory holds no water...

Plaid Adder, I respect your mind and I always look forward to your posts. You are
one of DU's finest.

Your friends' theory is very cynical, and it's really hard to read.

However, I understand that sometimes people misunderstand processes and that can lead to
incorrect conclusions.

First, the Iowa caucuses ARE out in the open. That is true. People publicly pledge
their support for their candidate, and everyone can see for whom you are caucusing.

However, no one is forced to caucus or pressured into caucusing for a particular person.
There would be no reason for someone to caucus for Obama to appear not to be a racist. Many
people caucused for the other candidates.

Furthermore, no one is forced to participate in the Iowa caucuses, but guess what? The Democrats
increased voter turnout 100 percent from 04--and 04 was a record year. Iowans were excited, and
they showed up in unprecedented numbers. Obama was the catalyst behind much of the enthusiasm.

I might add that the Republican participation only increased by 10 percent, from 04.

Also, other African Americans have been involved in the Iowa caucus process. They didn't do well.
Alan Keyes comes to mind and maybe Jesse Jackson. If your friends' theory was true, African Americans
would have fared better, due to the assumptions your friend is alleging.

I can happily say that those assumptions have absolutely no merit.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. That's wrong. This theory is a measurable scientifically verified phenomenon

And is taught to pollsters in entry-level statistics courses.

It is known as the Wilder effect after one of the dozens of
recorded instances. Many peer-reviewed papers have been
published on the subject. It is established statistical
observation, like evolution and global warming.

If the OP was "hard to read" it's because it wasn't asserting
Obama was hurt by Iowa caucuses, Obama was helped by open
(non-confidential) voting. This is all Soc 101 / Stat 101 stuff.

Ask any pollster.

I not only read about this theory years ago, I read about it in
high school statistics class. And current pollsters scholarly
arguments are about whether the trend line is lessening, whether
the gap between what voters say and do faced with a black man
(in PRIVATE voting booth primaries) is narrowing or not,
NOT that it exists.

The fact that the media except Tweety and his professional
pollster guests) chooses not to discuss the honking huge
magazine articles that have been published about the
Wilder effect over the years, contributes to lack of
public knowledge about the issue.

As for black on black elections, when was the last time white
voters failed to support the lighter-skinned candidate in the
race on the presumption he/she was more "inclusive"
and less of a "race figure"? When was the last time the
lighter skinned candidate (in an urban election) was not
the wealthier candidate with the white neighborhood support?

[sandnsea]

16. Under 30 in Iowa was 23%, NH 18%

Your theory might be true of older voters. I don't think it's true of younger voters, and they just didn't show up in the same numbers. That and the increase in women voters was pretty much it.

[DaLittle Kitty]

18. Ever Wonder WHY You Have Never Seen Obama's Mother in Public?

:shrug:

[CoffeeCat]

20. What does Huckabee's mother look like?

What does Romney's mother look like? Why isn't she in public?

What about Richardson...where is his mother?

Dennis Kucinich. I don't see his mother. Is he ashamed of her?

This is ludicrous!

Obama is very proud of his family and talks about his grandmother all of the time.

She was recently featured in a CNN piece. She lives in Kenya.

I can't believe what I'm hearing.

[madrchsod]

23. are you serious?

why would we care?

[Venceremos]

24. Obamas mother died in 1995

Obama's mother is dead (from ovarian cancer), probably why you never see her in public. However, his campaign has released numerous pictures of her, usually with Barack in the picture, too.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

26. Probably because she's dead.

[bicentennial_baby]

28. Because she's long dead? I've seen his Grandmother several times though...

His Grandmother is Kenyan, and I've seen her on the news at least 3x in the past week. His mother, however, has been dead for several years, afaik.

[Egnever]

45. I dont buy it.

why in a caucus system would people go to his corner in the first place?

Why would they express the support in the first place in order to be shamed into sticking with it?

It just doesnt ring true. Despite the bradley effect.

[NOLALady]

54. I thought she was dead.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. maybe because she's dead?

and has been for many years???

:shrug:

[paulkienitz]

19. From what I've heard, pollsters have known this for a generation

...that pre-election polls always overestimate the white vote for black candidates. This effect has been seen in lots of other races.

Never thought of how caucuses would play into that before, though.

Presumably the effect is not as strong now as it was twenty or thirty years ago, so it's a bit more surprising nowadays than it was then. Maybe there are some states with larger minority populations where the effect may not be very significant anymore. I have some optimism about that.

What may be the worst part of this would be that, if Obama gets the nomination anyway (which I think is not too unlikely given the steady poll slippage for Hillary), this white hesitancy could hurt him worse in the general election than in the primaries. Then we could end up with President Huckabee.

On the other hand, if this hurts Obama a lot, we could get President Edwards and widespread panic in the "business community". This vision is so tempting that it almost makes me start hoping that my optimism about a less racist America is wrong... oooh, I feel so dirty now.

[CoffeeCat]

21. I can knock these horrible theories out of the ballpark...

Frankly, I'm stunned. I'm an Obama supporter and I never even thought about
this issue. At all!

I'm just looking for someone who can kick Republican butt and he really fit the bill for me,
after much deliberation.

I do understand that when people are polled, they don't always tell the truth. I made the
argument that when asked, "Do you plan to attend the Iowa caucuses" most people say "yes"
because they don't want to appear slovenly or unintelligent.

However, when they hang up the phone, they're done lying. They don't go out and caucus
if they were never planning on going. That's why the polls get skewed.

In the case of Iowa, we came out in record numbers this time! Turnout increased 100 percent!
That's so remarkable, it's almost unbelievable! People weren't forced to come out and caucus
for Barack Obama. They could have stayed home. They came out in droves.

If someone truly was a racist and didn't like Obama, guess what? They would have stayed home
or else they would have caucused for someone else.

The Iowa caucuses were evidence that Obama was judged on his ideas and his ability to be elected
President. Our state is 96 percent white, and we overwhelmingly supported Obama---when we didn't
have to leave our homes to caucus. No one forced us!

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. Look, this is a scientifically proven statistical "theory" known as the Wilder effect.

They've even measured the exact discrepancy of the exit polling shift

over 25 years of black men (mostly men) running for office.

In diverse jurisdictions, when two black candidates run against
each other,

The white voters and many middle-class black voters
ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS vote for the LIGHTER-SKINNED candidate.

He or she is presumed to be more "middle class" and less of a
"race candidate".

[Egnever]

46. Theory

Key word there.

[madrchsod]

22. different time and a different place

i can`t find anything right now that would compare to chicago of that time and the year 2008

[november3rd]

25. It was hacked

Had to be. One of every 15 votes for the other democrats was programmed to count as a vote for clinton by the program tabulator card. So Obama lost about 8 or 9 percent of his votes to Clinton. The percentage was higher for Edwards and the other candidates, though, because they got less votes to start with. So Edwards may have lost as much as 25-30 percent of his votes to Clinton, and Richardson, Kucinich and the others may have lost as much as 50 percent.

How do the (corporate) media let New Hampshire get away with holding the first primary in the country on Nontransparent computerized voting machines?

Why would anyone trust nontransparent results?

[leftynyc]

51. Obama can ask for a recount anytime he likes

Why hasn't he?

[suston96]

56. Huh? Non-transparent what?

"How do the (corporate) media let New Hampshire get away with holding the first primary in the country on Nontransparent computerized voting machines?" You mean no paper trail? There were NO "computerized voting machines".

There were paper ballots, manually filled in by voters with a marker and paper ballots are in your face physical proof of how you voted. The only "computerized" stuff were optical scanners and other tabulating equipment.

But the paper ballots (I used them in Massachusetts for many years) can be hand counted. And a couple of times I saw judges count such ballots in court to determine close elections.

For the eleventh time on this board: call Mr. Axelrod over at the Obama campaign and tell him of your startling claim. Tell him to demand a recount.

[Arugula Latte]

27. Couldn't this just as easily be the case with a woman?

People (men) say they'll vote for a woman and then won't in the voting booth...?

[Marrah_G]

29. Or it could be that NH voters actually preferred Hillary

Her campaign worked their asses of for her and she was already well liked up here. Please stop shitting all over these hard working Dem campaign workers by accusing them and their fellow NH Dems of being so racist that they voted for a white woman over a black male.

Would you be calling the vote sexist if Hillary lost?

And if this was TRULY the case wouldn't my guy have done better then 17%?

And one other thing: She won because a huge number of Democrats came out to vote for her that usually stay home during the primary. Are you saying those same Democrats (who don't usually vote in the primary) came out because they are so racist they had to go vote against a black man?

[daleo]

30. Might this hypothesis not be equally true for Hillary Clinton?

A lot of male liberals might feel a similar social desirability bias, such that they would claim to be willing to vote for a woman, but once they were in the privacy of the voting poll they back out. I think the fact that the hypothesis could apply to both major candidates (one due to sexism, the other due to racism) makes it extremely difficult to draw firm conclusions.

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. Yes, I believe it is.

How many white women will vote for Obama in the general?

How many white men will vote for Hillary in the general?

What will most white husbands say if their spouse
say of Obama, as is traditional of young insurgent
candidates, "besides, he's cute"? How many older
white women feel that way compared to Edwards or
even Kerry? How many men think Hillary's a liberal
simply because she's a forceful woman?

[JDPriestly]

31. I'm from Iowa. People there can be incredibly conservative.

But, overall, they are very down-to-earth. After all, for many generations, life was about the basics in Iowa. When do I plant? When do I harvest? Will it rain? Will it be dry? Will the river flood in the back 40 this year? Should I buy livestock and pasture them? Those were the concerns of my Iowa grandparents.

And, while Iowa has become more urban, I suspect that genuineness remains the test in Iowa. Manipulative strategy, calculating conduct, those are the things that turn Iowans off. Iowans respond to a loving smile. They judge people by how they treat those close to them. They look for honesty and integrity. Those are the strengths of Edwards. Obama is also real in those respects. The unhappy Clinton marriage might cause a lot of Iowans to feel more uneasy than the color of Obama's skin.

Remember, a lot of Iowans are from families that were strong abolitionists. My family was white as anything, gut very abolitionist. My great-great grandfather and great grandfather both fought in the Civil War. They were volunteers. That's on my father's side. My mother's family was just as staunchly pro-Union in the Civil War. So, even though Iowans may seem insulated and very "white," they are independent in their thinking.

Also, Iowa has the highest literacy rate of the United States. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_state_has_the_highest_literacy_rate

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. The Caucus system does Iowans credit as the OP was quick to point out

NH is the opposite of Iowa though.

One commentator on Tweety said NH voters were PROUD to lie
to exit pollsters and would NEVER disclose who they voted for.

Under those conditions, saying that a state populated partially
by white refugees from Boston, typical exurbanite in outlook,
and not rooted in the area at all, refugees from big cities,
have no racial biases that would motivate them not to talk to
pollsters, whom they proudly love to mislead, is absurd...

Iowa is a very different state, more rooted and more OPEN
and less POLITICALLY conservative. NH is a state founded
by Puritans who believe in tolerance, not acceptance.

That's why it's called "gritty" not "kind".

NH is the state that refused to put back together pieces
of Old Man of the Mountain (the state symbol) when it fell
in a landslide because doing so might have required a tax issue.

Yes, I'm happy to trash my own state too... I admire Iowa much
more than most of the Big Blue states, even if it is famous
for being "boring"...

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Tweety was ANGRY about this today, said Larry Sabato and numerous pollsters had PRIVATELY confirmed

that this WIDELY-ACKNOWLEDGED, SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN statistical discrepancy was at work here.

They're afraid to say so in public (they don't want to lose their jobs to a white boss (man or woman) embarassed by the polling revelation...

Which is ITSELF an example of the Wilder phenomenon !!!!!!!!

(as pollsters have called it for 25 years.)

[walldude]

40. I had this discussion earlier with a friend

and I think you are right about this. It makes more sense than "it was stolen".

[cali]

47. nope.

I take it you don't know NH very well. I do.

In the most liberal towns, Obama beat Clinton. In towns like Berlin, not at all liberal, Clinton beat Obama.

[Prophet 451]

48. I had that thought too

Maybe it's just cynicism on my part but I had a suspician that the Iowa results may amount to "some of my best friends are black". I'd like to hope I'm wrong.

[Didereaux]

49. it just doesn't square with the results...whereare Edwards lost votes? they HAVE to be ...

in the Clinton column, because Obama was still within the the statisticla range he had been polling(please do not include Zogby poll, they use dartboards to save telephone calls). Now it is a lead pipe certainty that there is some liberal 'racism' going to occur. But the Iowa and the NH results do not in any manner support the contention that it was a factor. Again it was Edwards who performed way below predictions and not Obama. I still believe it was backlash votes, and Edwards was the most aggressive in the debates, the infamous 'status quo' quote stuck in some craws, enough that when it came to pulling the handle for him some couldn't do it and went with the percieved 'victim'. That is a natural reaction, a simple explanation, it fits the facts, so I see no reason to accept more complicated or convoluted reasoning to explain the majority of those cross-over votes.

[Tesha]

50. There are "first order" and "second order" effects in play.

(We use paper ballots in NH, marked by pens. Some of
the bigger places then use optical scanners to read
the ballots; the smaller places count ballots by hand.)

There are "first order" and "second order" effects in play.

The "first order" effects are the closet racists who will
tell folks "Sure, I'll vote for the {racial minority}" but
then, in the privacy of the voting booth, don't.

The "second order" effects are those voters who are not
themselves racists, but are worried about the "first order"
people and so are not so likely to nominate a racial minority
for fear of losing the General Election. The "second order"
people aren't motivated to lie to pollsters, though.

New Hampshire, like anywhere, definitely has both sorts of
people. And I'm not so sure the "Second order" people are
wrong.

Tesha

[CardInAustin]

52. Why does it have to be racism or a conspiracy?

Why can't it just be the simple fact that many people had voiced soft support for their given candidate in the polls? I am sure that there are literally millions of voters in this country torn between Obama and Hillary. Obama is new, refreshing, and inspirational. But still somewhat young and unknown....exciting but perhaps a little scary to turn the keys over to the new guy. Hillary is known, competent, and will likely do a good job. However, she is not terribly inspirational and brings with her all of the same old battles, wounds, etc that we have endured for years (not all her fault of course).

I can easily see people going back and forth between these two all the way into the booth. Why do so many need to find some awful explanation for NH? Can't it simply be that the American voters are still trying to figure out who they want to vote for???? Why is that so far fetched?

Back away from the keyboard, turn off MSNBC, and simply allow the primary to take its course.

[NoBorders]

53. Polls over-estimate black candidate support

apparently, according to Andrew Kohut just now on NPR, and this has historically been the case, probably for the reason you state.

They also under-count the preferences of the poor-to-working class voter, who do not respond to polls as much as other groups--also a quote from Mr. Kohut.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

55. I worked for another candidate in the Chicago Mayoral

Chicago politics are very strange. A liberal white guy (Bernie Epstein) ran as a Republican so I think there was a fair number of white liberals who voted for him - then there were a lot of racist Dems who would normally vote Dem voted for him too. I think there was another Dem candidate who ran as an independent. The Republican Party in Chicago used to be almost more liberal than the Democratic Party. A lot of Liberals were tired of the whole Dem machine thing so they weren't always that into the Dem Party there.

There were a couple of white racist politicans who also stirred up the pot - these guys would also yank Washington's chain. Harold Washington was sort of his own worst enemy - he had a temper and would sort of go ballistic - he totally went off on Ed Bradley one time. I think he turned off a lot fo people because of that. There was a lot of sort of racist fighting going on.

So I would say you are sort of right about the racist thing but I don't think it was really that a lot of the liberal whites were being racist and not voting for Washington.

Who knows for sure what really happened. I had just moved there at the time so I wasn't really all that connected.

[question everything]

57. Except, as many have demonstrted

Obama's vote was the same as was predicted: 37%.

It was Clinton's who was predicted at 29% and ended up 39%.

I think that such a theory is offensive for both voters and for Obama.

[Bluerthanblue]

59. Sorry PA- I don't agree- and one thing that is important to remember

Obama didn't really "lose"- He has 9 delegates from here, the same as Hillary is going to get.

The margin was not very wide. If there is anything that is suspect about the results here in NH it is the results of the "pre-voting" Polling.


All a poll is is an educated guess. I believe polls are really negative tools. They work on people sub-conciously. While they are often correct- (meaning the subliminal pressure worked) sometimes they back-fire- like they did this time. People believed them, and because the media was predicting a landslide for Obama, some less committed followers chose to use their vote on other candidates.

Witness the 'exit-polling'. Polls which ask people who have FINISHED casting their vote. They are very rarely wrong. It isn't 'speculation'- it is history that is being collected.

Peace~
blu

[7horses]

60. This may be more than a theory.

Another theory is that the Republicans voted in the Democratic Primary and voted for Barak Obama because they think that white voters in the General Election will not vote for a black man. We all need to stand behind, whomever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, with our money and our vote.