A reader comments on Hillary's win, New Hampshire demographics, and the Bradley Effect:
I'm puzzled- who is suprised by this result? I don't watch polls much, because I'm not much interested in speculation on these matters. But to anyone who is familiar with New Hampshire at all, Hillary's coming out on top seemed almost a foregone conclusion. I'm just glad Obama came in as well as he did. New Hampshire is and always has been a home to the most peculiar kind of conservative Democrats that much of the rest of the country has never recognized or understood- it's even something of an anomoly in New England. I can't say how much race has anything to do with it, but being from New England, I can't say I'd be suprised by "the Bradley Effect" you mention- that sort of thing is classic New England conservatism at it's worst.
Weeks ago, I would have put money on Hillary taking New Hampshire- and when I heard about the polls that put Obama in the lead, I wondered what dream world the pollsters were living in. But anyway, it's one state. Obama still has a really good shot of getting the nomination. We'll see what happens, and let the pollsters see if they can predict the future any better than a $5 tarot card reader at Coney Island.
1/10/2008 10:36 AM
znufrii wrote:
Here's an interesting take on why the polling didn't accurately predict Clinton's victory. Short story is that they didn't account for voter who didn't know Biden and Dodds were out of the race, and Clinton picked up their votes. Other than that, they were generally accurate in predicting Obama's and Edwards's levels of support.