Random Post-New Hampshire theories/observations

The Dream:

I would be delighted with a Clinton/Obama ticket. It would be good for the country and the party, but will probably not happen. So I guess I'm like the guy in DO THE RIGHT THING that walks around with the hopeful photo of MLK and Malcom X. (An Obama/Clinton ticket would make no sense... she wouldn't take it, he wouldn't offer it, and she would be a drag on the ticket as VP. As the nominee, Obama would have to go for broke on the movement message. But Hillary might do well with a unity message.)

Electablity:

Race matters to some degree, and matters more the older the voter. Gender matters to some degree, and gender divides also correlate with age, though less so. People are about 100 times more comfortable with open sexism than with open racism, but women are the majority of the electorate so the key question is whether women will rally to woman in numbers that off-set male sexism. It appears that young women are less gender conscious than we thought, but older women are much likelier to vote for a woman than we thought. This is a big generational change, as older women used to be resistant to females. Keep in mind, though, that today's old ladies are products of the sexual revolution. Today's 65 year old woman was in her early-20s when the Pill came along, and was of reproductive age when Roe v. Wade was decided.

Quality of the candidates:

Obama is marvelous at what he does, and has a real chance to attract enough young people to counter the older people who will not vote for him when push comes to shove. Hillary is revealed as Bill Clinton's real backbone... a tireless fighter and smart as hell. They both have serious GE electoral negatives, but they both have clear paths to overcoming them through turn-out.

Notes about the Bradley effect:

First, there is so much noise in the NH results we cannot say whether it is a real effect. There is another reason Obama might under-perform in a secret ballot, which is that he is a movement candidate. Caucuses involve group dynamics and infectious enthusiasm. Voting in a voting booth is more like taking the SATs... voters are surprisingly somber and deliberative.

But lets say, hypothetically, the Bradley/Wilder effect is real. I keep hearing and reading that the Bradley/Wilder effect demonstrates racism... that in the privacy of the voting booth people cannot bring themselves to pull the lever for a minority candidate. I contest that analysis. Since polling is more inexact than voting, the Bradley/Wilder effect is a really more a polling effect than a voting effect. It's the polls that are incorrect, after all. So the question is why do people over-report support to pollsters?

It is somewhat shallow to say people over-report support of minority candidates because they are racist. The over-reporting is a gesture of good-will and a concession to supporting a minority candidate as being a GOOD thing... something you want to take credit for. A person can sincerely favor Mister White, but say he supports Mister Black because he fears that if he says he supports Mister White it will be assumed he is a racist. Hardcore racists don't worry about that perception nearly as much as white liberals do. The Wilder/Bradley effect (if it is still even real) is a product of acceptance, not exclusion. Say I told all my friends I support Obama because I felt it would make me look good. I am thus accepting that supporting Obama is intrinsically socially desirable. I am sure that in surveys some people over-estimate how often they have sex. I would not take that to mean that they are against sex... that in the privacy of the bedroom they just can't bring themselves to do it. I take it to mean that they have a pro-sex attitude. They ASPIRE to have more sex. Personally, I aspire to vote for a black candidate, but Obama doesn't do much for me. But telling a stranger I support Obama would be shorthand for "I am not unwilling to support a black candidate," which is true. (I will surely vote for him if he's the nominee)

All of that said, I have no idea how it all plays out. I am of a mind that being Hillary and being black are both electoral handicaps, and probably comparable. John Edwards is the most electable, Hillary and Barack both start out with a penalty, but both are electable.

If John McCain is the nominee it will be a VERY tough race for either of them. (It was John McCain that said "Barack Obama wouldn't know an RPG from a bong," which scares me. That shit works at least as often as it fails.)

I would lean to Hillary in a McCain match-up for one really BIG reason. If people are scared about their money, the only political brand-name worth a damn is Clinton (tm). Economic anxiety will decide the election.

Obama might match up better against Romney, where his authenticity could be more of a factor.

The horse-race:

Clinton is now the favorite, but hardly a prohibitive favorite. I have no idea what would happen if Edwards dropped out. Is Edwards splitting the anti-Clinton vote, or is he splitting the white vote? Since Edwards support is overwhelmingly white, largely moderate and male, and trends southern, he is probably helping Obama more than hurting him. It was striking in the Rasmussen daily national tracking poll to see numbers after Iowa move directly from Clinton to Edwards without Obama bouncing. Again, this is not racism with a capital R. We saw in Iowa that people will vote for Obama after a long period of familiarity. But without personal contact, people rely more on stereotypes. If a white person who doesn't follow politics closely happens to identify more with a white person it is not sinister. I certainly don't condemn black voters for assuming a generic black candidate better represents their values. If a white voters first impulse to to side with a white candidate he is not necessarily saying, "I trust this guy to keep the black man down." He is saying, "I figure this guy will be more concerned with my problems." It only becomes worthy of the name racism when people set race above their self-interest even after the know the candidates better, like when working class whites vote for some Republican scumbag over a progressive black candidate... a scenario that doubtless plays out in a lot of local southern races, and in some northern urban races.

and, I am sad to say, they will both probably be their party's nominees mainly because it was already decided so by the powers that be inside the castle walls.

How about, 39% of the voters who voted for Dems thought that HC's experience and record made her the beast candidate for the job of taking on the Republicans and winning the WH?

I know, it's mind-boggling.

Actually, I don't believe an error was made.