Racism is why the race is close

[Jonas Grumby]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I don't know about strong evidence, but the difference in Obama's showing in caucus states vs. secret-ballot states in the primary provides weak evidence for this hypothesis. People who voted publicly were vastly more likely to vote for him.

That could have been for reasons other than his race, of course, which is why I call it weak evidence. But I certainly thought it was suggestive at the time.

?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I don't know about strong evidence, but the difference in Obama's showing in caucus states vs. secret-ballot states in the primary provides weak evidence for this hypothesis. People who voted publicly were vastly more likely to vote for him.

The problem with that observation is that it is evidence of both racism and reverse racism. Was the public voting causing people who liked Obama not to be racists in private, or did it cause people who actually prefered Hillary to vote Obama so that they would publicly be seen as non-racist? Or a little bit of both?

Originally Posted by Jonas Grumby

?

Sorry, it's something my husband and I noticed and discussed at the time, but I don't have any printed references.

Originally Posted by Person Man

The problem with that observation is that it is evidence of both racism and reverse racism. Was the public voting causing people who liked Obama not to be racists in private, or did it cause people who actually prefered Hillary to vote Obama so that they would publicly be seen as non-racist? Or a little bit of both?

And there are problems among different dimensions altogether. Perhaps Obama's core supporters were more enthusiastic and worked harder to drag people to their corner of the floor. Perhaps the charismatic Obama tended to attract charismatic supporters, and more of the "not quite sure" joined their groups in the high-school-clique setting of many caucuses. Caucuses are weird beasts.

[Jonas Grumby]

Originally Posted by Lucy

And there are problems among different dimensions altogether. Perhaps Obama's core supporters were more enthusiastic and worked harder to drag people to their corner of the floor. Perhaps the charismatic Obama tended to attract charismatic supporters, and more of the "not quite sure" joined their groups in the high-school-clique setting of many caucuses. Caucuses are weird beasts.

Indeed, polling before caucuses is very difficult because of the complete inability to identify likely attendees (while the GOP uses a straw poll rather than formal caucuses in Iowa, anyone recall Pat Robertson in 1988?). I've attended 3 Democratic caucuses that were non-binding (including as a Jesse Jackson delegate - Run, Jesse, Run!) and have to say that I never saw anyone change their mind, even after all the arguing back and forth.

[tan]
My favorite recollection from 1992, when I was for Clinton:

A guy for Tsongas: "I just don't trust Clinton, you never know what other skeletons he has in his closet."
Me: "I'm sure with all that scrutiny he wouldn't do anything stupid once he was President!"

[/tan]

[E. Blackadder]

If no Americans were racist, would Obama be five points behind... or ten?

[Jonas Grumby]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Sorry, it's something my husband and I noticed and discussed at the time, but I don't have any printed references.

Here's some commentary on why Barack outdid polls in Iowa, and why polls are unreliable in particular for caucuses. The whole article is good, but note the bold in particular:

The explanation for the difference was even more stunning. "Obama's rise," the Register reported, was "the result in part of a dramatic influx of first-time caucusgoers, including a sizable bloc of political independents." The poll showed 60% saying this would be their first caucus and 40% identifying their party preference as Democratic. No other poll that disclosed similar results to Pollster.com came close on either measure.

Within an hour or so of its release, the Register poll had been condemned by the Clinton and Edwards campaign pollsters as inaccurate, "at odds with history" and based on an "unprecedented new turnout model." The only way the poll would be accurate, Edwards consultant Joe Trippi said later, is if "220,000 people vote."

Despite the dark insinuation, Selzer had not changed her methodology. She had "assumed nothing" about the demographics or party allegiance of the likely caucus goers interviewed by her company. Instead, as she explained it to the News Hour, "we put our method in place, and we let the voters speak to us." In the face of massive skepticism, some of which seemed to come even from the Register's most prominent columnist, she stood by her numbers.

And yesterday, those findings were vindicated. Obama won by an 8-point margin in the official results and by approximately seven-points on the (more comparable) entrance poll head count estimate. The turnout was 239,000, nearly double the number from 2004. And the entrance poll put the share of first-time caucus participants at 57%. The only mismatch was on party -- 23% were independent or Republican on the entrance poll as compared to 45% on the Register survey.

"Get out the vote" indeed.

[SirVLCIV]

Originally Posted by Jonas Grumby

Here's some commentary on why Barack outdid polls in Iowa, and why polls are unreliable in particular for caucuses. The whole article is good, but note the bold in particular:



"Get out the vote" indeed.

Yup - fivethirtyeight.com is detailing the volunteer operations of Obama and McCain around the country. Sounds like November 4th is going to be a surprise to many.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Originally Posted by SirVLCIV

Yup - fivethirtyeight.com is detailing the volunteer operations of Obama and McCain around the country. Sounds like November 4th is going to be a surprise to many.

Go on...

[sweetiepie]

I'd say the fact that I get disapproving glances when I hang out with a black girl is evidence enough. :-/