Why I was wrong about Hillary in New Hampshire

Along with most of the MSM, I displayed a flagrant and egregious lapse in punditory judgment last week by letting hope overcome experience. This time a week ago, it appeared that Sen. Hillary Clinton's political goose was all but cooked, with an impending defeat in New Hampshire following so close on the heels of a stunning loss in Iowa.

As we know all to our collective chagrin, such was not to be. Despite polls showing Clinton down by double digits, she managed to eke out a three-point victory over Sen. Barack Obama. In as much as her upstart rival may have underestimated the inscrutability of the Granite State, I naively underestimated the tenacity of Sen. Clinton and the effects of the following:

The "Bradley effect" - Named for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate and former Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley, the Bradley effect (alternately known as the Wilder effect for former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder) describes a circumstance "which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate." (H/T: Wikipedia)

Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the non-white candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.

Researchers who have studied the issue theorize that some white voters give inaccurate responses to polling questions because of a fear that they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced. Some research has suggested that the race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor into that concern. At least one prominent researcher has suggested that with regard to pre-election polls, the discrepancy can be traced in part by the polls' failure to account for general conservative political leanings among late-deciding voters.

Although there is precedent for this phenomenon, my sense is that - as it pertains to Obama - this factor has the least explanatory power, as there was no similar effect seen in Iowa (although by its very nature, a caucus would allow for less expression of closeted racism on the part of white voters.)

According to Peter Brodnitz of the Polling Report newsletter, there was no evidence of such an effect in the 2006 Senate race in Tennessee between Harold Ford, Jr. and Bob Corker, with Corker winning by a 51 to 48 percent margin "which meant that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the polls actually had underreported Ford's support and not overstated it." Moreover, recent data from the Pew Research Center seems to indicate that Americans may be ready to vote for a qualified African American presidential candidate.

The tracks of her tears - A recent Rasmussen Report speculated that "Hillary's tearing-up moment may have played a role" in generating a late surge in her favor, although I would submit that it is patronizing to suggest that voters in New Hampshire are so politically labile as to be swayed by Ms. Clinton's dubious display of emotion (after all, the woman who asked her the question - freelance photographer Marianne Pernold Young - voted for Obama.) Although they hardly explain her victory in and of themselves, her "tears" did have the effect of humanizing her, and complimented her gritty performance in the ABC News debates a week from yesterday. Whatever the case, exit polling indicates that 73 percent of those who voted for Hillary made the decision to do so within three days of the election.

Obama as victim of expectation - With internal polling data from both the Clinton and Obama camps that had Obama ahead significantly, as well as external polls showing him having a significant lead, it may be possible that Obama voters sat this election out. ABC News' Gary Langer proposed as much last week.

I'd add another theory – admittedly again lacking supporting data. The Iowa and New Hampshire contests were compressed as never before. Obama rode a wave of enthusiasm out of Iowa; Clinton was deflated. Obama supporters in New Hampshire may have been encouraged, Clinton supporters demotivated, to express support for their candidates. And Clinton voters may have been less apt to pass likely voter screens based on expressions of intention to vote, enthusiasm, strength of support or attention to the contest.

Alternatively, the independents that fueled Obama's victory in Iowa may have swung to Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire (although more independents voted for Hillary than McCain.)

The Clinton machine - From Hillary's comment to the Today Show's Matt Lauer referring to Obama not having done the necessary "spadework" that she has, to Bill Clinton describing Obama's opposition to the Iraq war - and his campaign more generally - as a "fairy tale" to Hillary's seeming disparagement of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. last Monday (How can a politician be so tone deaf as to do this just prior to MLK's birthday?), the Clinton camp shows that there is little to which they will not stoop in their brutish pursuit of power.

And the Clinton's own "spadework" continues: Bill Clinton contented himself with claiming that his "fairy tale" remark was misconstrued, while Hillary followed in the master's footsteps by accusing the Obama campaign of distorting her comments vis-a-vis MLK's legacy. And earlier today, the founder of Black Entertainment Television took shots at Barack Obama in South Carolina in the service of Sen. Clinton. Robert L. Johnson cited Obama's past drug use, and expanded upon Hillary's unfortunate juxtaposition of Obama and MLK. (H/T: The Caucus)

What remains to be seen is whether the Obama/MLK kerfuffle will raise the ire of South Carolina Rep. James E. Clyburn, the highest ranking African American in Congress. Up to now Clyburn has pledged a studied neutrality, but the New York Times reports that "recent remarks by the Clintons that he saw as distorting civil rights history could change his mind."

Having recently scored several big endorsements, to include those of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Sens. Claire McCaskill and former Democrat nominee Sen. John Kerry, Obama will do well against Hillary. But he may yet lose because he has nothing to lose. While a defeat in either the primary contests for the nomination or the general election would be a staggering blow to the Clinton legacy, it will serve as no defeat at all for Obama to go back to his safe seat in the Senate, presumably to burnish his credentials in national security, military affairs, economic policy, taxation...

Rest assured gentle readers. As it pertains to the eventual demise of Clintonism, my crystal ball was only in error as far as the timing. For Hillary, one of three things will take place, two of which have an equal and undetermined likelihood. She will either be blown out - hopefully early on after a series of defeats in the primary process - or she will win the Democratic nomination and be destroyed in the general election. (If Virginia voters are any indication, present trends make that a distinctly likely possibility.) Both less likely and less desirable is the possibility that Hillary will win the nomination and the general election, only to befoul the Oval Office to the point where she and her party are run out of Washington in a rout come 2012.

Four More Years!