Megan McArdle

« Bush, then Clinton. Rinse. Repeat. | Main | Heather has two processors »

Wilder? Wait . . .

09 Jan 2008 10:47 am

Steve Teles offers another hypothesis for Clinton's victory:

I don't buy the idea that Obama lost due to the "Wilder effect" (that voters told pollsters that they'd vote for a black candidate, but secretly voted for white candidates in the secrecy of the polling booth). The main reason is that there's a plausible alternative hypothesis, which is that the large Obama lead in the polls sent independents into the Republican primary to vote for McCain. But we'll have to take a look at the data tomorrow, when we'll have fine-grained information. More soon...

Comments (5)

It's not an either/or. Part of his margin could be due to Independents voting for McCain and part due to the Wilder effect.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Wilder effect was actually bigger for Obama than it normally is, given how strong Obamania has been.

grumpy realist

Don't discount the Tweety Effect, defined as ”where the misogyny of a talking head in the MSM [in this case MSNBC’s Chris Matthews] so enrages a demographic that they go out and vote in a manner that will put egg on the face of the talking head”

It also may have been NH simply saying: "no coronations."

At first glance, the McCain hypothesis seems plausible. But then when you can consider that Obama and McCain are polar opposite candidates in just about every way, it seems less likely. Who are these voters who like a young, inspirational anti-war candidate but decide instead to vote for an old curmudgeon who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years instead because their preferred younger candidate has too big a lead in the polls? I'm not sure such people exist, and if they do, I want to know what the hell is wrong with them.

caveat bettor

If NH is, in fact, 75% pro-Iraq War like I've been reading today, of course a Hillary victory would be a fait accompli in this state.

I couldn't imagine even 1 of the 50 states being that pro-war, myself.

NH is weird.

People don't always vote on issues or exclusively on issues. Internet wisdom aside I think there are independents who would lean to those two.

As people one is an older war veteran and the other a younger man of Kenyan ancestry. It's certainly possible for a person to find both kinds of people likeable. The older veteran could have kind of an uncle or grandpa type likeability. The younger man is exciting and new. I certainly have friends who are old people and also friends of other races.

Plus they're both perceived as people who work well with people who think differently than them. Many independents I think dislike parties bickering or feel partisans don't really listen to independents.

Comments on this entry have been closed.