Did Racist Voters Cost Obama The Primary? - The Guardian UK

[WillyT]

Did racist voters cost Obama the primary?

Barack Obama's shock defeat in New Hampshire is being linked to the so-called Bradley effect, which suggests that although voters claim to support black candidates they will vote for the white runner on the day

Haroon Siddique
Wednesday January 9, 2008
Guardian Unlimited

<snip>

It seems strange to be looking for the reasons for Barack Obama's shock defeat in the New Hampshire primary. Just a few weeks ago Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to contest the presidential election but that was before the Illinois senator stormed to victory in the Iowa caucus.

His campaign seemed to have built up an unstoppable momentum, which was reflected in opinion polls that had him comfortably ahead. So how did the pollsters get it so wrong?

One possible, if unsavoury, explanation is the so-called Bradley effect.
The phenomenon was named after Tom Bradley, the long time mayor of Los Angeles, and describes the difference between what members of the public will say in relation to a black candidate when asked by pollsters and the change in their behaviour when they actually vote.

Bradley, who is black, ran as the Democratic candidate for governor in 1982, but, after polls showed he was consistently in the lead, he was a surprise loser.

It was suggested that voters may have told pollsters they supported the black candidate, because they were embarrassed to admit they were racist, but that when it came to voting in private they supported his white opponent, precisely because he was not black.

The Bradley effect was also cited in 1989 when Douglas Wilder won the contest for governor of Virginia by a razor-thin margin after leading comfortably in all the pre-election opinion polls.

There is even a precedent in a Democratic primary. In 1988 a huge number of Democrats told pollsters they supported the black candidate Jesse Jackson but actually voted for Michael Dukakis.

The same pollsters who predicted Obama's victory yesterday correctly anticipated a victory for John McCain - but there was no black candidate to distort opinions in the Republican primary.

Obama may have triumphed in Iowa but that was a public caucus where there was no opportunity for voters to surreptitiously change their stated intentions in the comfort of a polling booth, as they could in New Hampshire, one of the whitest states in the US.

But before jumping to the conclusion that racist voters cost Obama the primary, there is evidence that contradicts the impact of the Bradley effect in New Hampshire.

<snip>

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/barackobama/story/0,,2237808,00.html

It's the swing number that gets me. Both Obama and Clinton camps had Obama winning by 14% and 11% respectively. With Clinton winning by 3%, that means a 17% and 14% error.

That's a bit tough to believe.

:shrug:

[Zynx]

1. Oh fuck the British on this one.

They have one of the most homogeneous countries in the world and a small racial minority issue causes them to have fits. They have no room to talk about racism.

Besides this argument is garbage as I have written about here: http://bqreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/vote-in-new-hampshire-did-not-reflect.html

[HEyHEY]

3. You don't know much about Britain's ethnic make up, do you?

Plus, the article wasn't written and approved by the entire country... so why condem them?

[Zynx]

11. I hate it when European countries with far less diverse populations

criticize us on our handling of racial issues. 90% white http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity

This country is less than 70% white and in terms of other ethnicities and religions we are far more diverse.

[HEyHEY]

16. First off, it's not an entire country - it's one columnist!

Plus, Britain's major cities are extremely diverse, and that's where much of the opinion comes from.

[WillyT]

17. Well... Here's A Book You Could Read For More Perspective... And It's Free !!!

Link: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3770698#

:shrug:

[depakid]

34. You may hate it, but racial prejuduce is far more prominent and pervasive in the states

than it is in the UK.

Of course, certain regions are worse than others- but as the article notes, the Bradley effect was coined after a California election, and cropped up again in Virginia.

These were objective observations based on American data- not opinions based on Bitish sensibilities.

[WillyT]

5. Well... They Ended Slavery Before We Did...

Just sayin.

:shrug:

[Zynx]

13. They sure as hell kept a racist empire abroad.

[Kutjara]

12. Whatever the merits or demerits of the article...

...Britain is not "one of the most homogenous countries in the world." Quite the opposite. In addition to very large Afro-Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese, and Irish communities, new immigration from Eastern Europe has brought Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Serbs, Croats, Armenians, and dozens of other nationalities and ethnicities into the country. The influx has been so large that Catholicism has recently overtaken Anglicism as the largest religious group.

Urban British life is a mix of just about every kind of person in the world. And Britain has done a pretty good job of welcoming them all. The recent "fits" you mention are the predictable rantings of far-right extremist groups who believe that every single immigrant is a terminal threat to "the British Way of Life." The average Brit couldn't care less, because the average Brit is used to living in a multiethnic society, and knows that racial diversity brings incredible cultural benefits.

[ursi]

2. sadly there is probably some truth to this. we have people who are weak and racist

who have wrapped themselves in different ways on the surface.

[rwheeler31]

4. yuk

[Marrah_G]

6. So either the Democrats in NH had to be Sexist OR Racist?

Just MAYBE the people of NH preferred Hillary and her ideas.

The whole premise is pretty fucking insulting to our NH Democrats.

[HEyHEY]

HAHA! Perfect

[WillyT]

9. I Don't Know... Do You Think The "Bradley Effect" Is Gone ???

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

20. I think there would be more cause to look at it if Obama was beaten in a landslide by a white guy

Instead he was beaten narrowly by a woman. So close that they got the same number of delegates.

[WillyT]

22. Again...

Both Obama and Clinton camps had Obama winning by 14% and 11% respectively. With Clinton winning by 3%, that means a 17% and 14% error.

Just finding it tough to believe under the current explanations.

And I do not necessarily believe that is racism. But I also don't believe this last minute mind-changing either.

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

27. I wasn't going to do this but I will try one last time

The polls you are talking about poll "likely voters" These are people who routinely vote in primaries. There was a massive turnout of "unlikely voters" in NH Tuesday. These voters were never included in the polls you quote. A big chunk of these voters came out to vote for Hillary. Her campaign did a huge GOTV on election day ( starting at 4:30 am)and were calling people up until 8 pm last night encouraging them to go to the polls and vote for Hillary. She is well liked in NH and it showed.

The exit polls did correspond with the results and during the entire night local radio was very surprised at the exit polls and the voting numbers and were all a buzz checking precincts and coming up with reasons. The people I see that are the most disturbed by this are not from this area. People from here that I have talked to were not surprised at all. The only surprising thing here were the record numbers of voters.

THAT is the real story. It is VERY good news for Democrats because it means our people are pissed off enough to come out and vote when they normally skip this part. But no one here is talking about THAT good news.

[WillyT]

28. I Agree That Huge Turnout Is Wonderful For Democrats, But...

all the pollsters and such are saying it's gonna take a while to find out what really happened in NH.

IOW - It's not as simple as ANYBODY is saying.

So I'm gonna be reading and posting whatever theories come up, and hope for some sort of consensus, one way or the other.

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Non-Democrats are permitted to vote in the NH Democratic primary

[jlake]

7. Unfortunately, there is probably some truth to this.... and this is why I question

Obama supporters when they claim he will "take the South" and "flip states" and "Draw huge numbers of Republicans to vote for him".
I just don't see it happening. .....but maybe I am too cynical.

[LibDemAlways]

29. Obama will not take the South or draw huge numbers of

r's. Gore couldn't do it. Kerry couldn't do it. Obama can't do it. Hillary can't do it. I don't even think Edwards can do it, and he's from North Carolina.

A couple of years ago c-span showed then Sen. George Allen addressing a group of country club republican types at a dinner somewhere in Virginia. It struck me then that the only black faces belonged to the help, those in the waiter uniforms serving the rubber chicken.

Republicans are not going to vote for a black man for President of the US any more than they're going to vote for a white woman. They'll hold their collective noses and vote for whatever set of pasty white guys ends up on their ticket. How many Dems and Independents join them remains to be seen. One thing's for sure. With Hillary or Obama heading up the Democratic ticket, we'll learn either how far we've come as a nation or how far we still have to go.

[jlake]

30. I agree. And I hold no illusions on how hard it will be for Hillary - or even Edwards.

I just cannot stand the rhetoric about how EVERYONE will vote for Obama..... the people who believe it are good people, but they overestimate the tolerance/acceptance of our electorate.

[LibDemAlways]

31. All of the idealists aren't stopping to give much thought to

the relentless republican attacks that will start before the last drop of confetti hits the floor at the Dem convention. They will be brutal. Democratic success will depend on the ability of our candidate to fight back hard and return each and every punch.

[NOLALady]

33. Or maybe you are a realist.

[msongs]

8. does this also mean that racist blacks will cost Hillary any elections? nt

[WillyT]

10. Racist Blacks... Interesting Concept

Please go on.

[msongs]

18. a person votes for someone because of their race or against someone because of race.... nt

[WillyT]

19. I Do Neither... But Then Again, I'm A Progressive\Liberal

:shrug:

[Rydz777]

14. The Democratic Party of New Hampshire is racist? No. Neither,

it seems, is it sexist.

[Pavulon]

15. Response bias..

well documented thing.

[AX10]

21. So Obamites are now claiming racism.

The Obamites told us that race was not an issue and now it is?!? :wtf:

Sounds like a flip flop on their behalf.

[WillyT]

24. No... This Is Written By A Guy From The Land Known As England

It was an article in a respected newspaper called "The Guardian"

Glad I could help.

:wtf:

[AX10]

25. But Obama's people are using it to their advantage.

[WillyT]

26. Actually... I'm Pretty Sure They Wouldn't !!!

They DO NOT want this to be the narrative.

They are not looking for the pity vote.

That would turn off many of their supporters, and ruin his chances for the nomination, let alone the general.

:shrug:

[Hutzpa]

37. Please, Please....

he is not from England, he is actually from CANADA, next door neigbour,

check this out


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haroon_Siddiqui

[rwheeler31]

23. Yes.

[Hutzpa]

35. This is total fabrication,

SOMEBODY IS WETTING THEIR PANTS

Read about this journalist, besides he lived in Canada, but paper print in UK, I'm there is a

perfectly explanation for this, which only he can respond to.


there is something about this story that just x(


here is his image





check his ass out. These are your new wave new world order, you know what a'mean!!

its them, thats for sure.

[Swamp Rat]

36. Bah!

:D