Color-blind humanists

email this story
read comments (49)
post a comment

In yesterday's N.Y. Times Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut wrote that a "possible explanation" for the perplexing difference between the Barack Obama poll numbers just before the New Hampshire primary (way ahead of Hillary Clinton by at least 7 or 8 points) and his actual vote tally (which resulted in a loss to Clinton by three points) "cannot be ignored."

He was referring to "the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor. Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here's the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews."

Kohut has to state his case carefully, this being the N.Y. Times and all, but he's obviously doing a very careful dance.

Let's try some plain language. If Will Rogers was still around and was trying to say the same thing, it might come out like this: "The common folk aren't stupid. They know how things work, so when some fella calls 'em on the phone and asks how they're votin', they're gonna play it like anybody else. But it's a different story when it comes to the privacy of a voting booth.'"

Mel Brooks said it this way about 40 years ago. The fact that people laughed at this scene -- jokes aren't funny unless they connnect to something real that Average Joes instantly recognize -- tells you almost the same thing that Kohut is saying.

I've been saying it all along -- go outside the cities, the affluent suburbs and the college towns, and America is a nation of enlightened color-blind humanists. Or, as Gene Wilder says to Cleavon Little...

First "Cloverfield" reaction<< previous | next >>Picturehouse/Cotillard party

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM

comment #1

christian says ...

Kucinich is asking for a NH recount.

I mean, it's not like Diebold machines could ever be tampered with...A Republican owns the company!

Posted by christian at January 11, 2008 11:54 AM

comment #2

Monument says ...

Article about Kucinich recount demand:

http://www.newsobserver.com/1566/story/873929.html

Posted by Monument at January 11, 2008 12:01 PM

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

Okay, Jesus, we get it. So where to all us ignorant shitkickers report for sterilization, Mr. Mengele?

Posted by Rich S. at January 11, 2008 12:01 PM

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

Okay, Jesus, we get it. So where do all us ignorant shitkickers report for sterilization, Dr. Mengele?

Posted by Rich S. at January 11, 2008 12:02 PM

comment #5

Walter Sobchak says ...

Perhaps people who were going to vote for Obama instead stayed home to watch their DVDs of "Zodiac". This entire situation involving polls that say one thing and actual results saying another makes me think about the upcoming release of "Cloverfield". Will we see the monster and if so, will it be scary? As scary as say, the opening scene of "Zodiac"?

Posted by Walter Sobchak at January 11, 2008 12:06 PM

comment #6

christian says ...

If ZODIAC wins the nomination, I will vote for CLOVERFIELD.

Posted by christian at January 11, 2008 12:07 PM

comment #7

Josh Massey says ...

Gene Wilder was born in Wisconsin. Cleavon Little, in Oklahoma.

Inbred hicks.

Posted by Josh Massey at January 11, 2008 12:08 PM

comment #8

Dirty Harry says ...

As much as I would get a thrill out of labelling hard-core liberal primary voters as racist, it's just not the case here. Why lefties get such a thrill out of this kind of self-important, fuzzy soul-searching is beyond me.

If you look at the votes, Obama got exactly what the polls said he would -- 38% as averaged out at Real Clear Politics compared to 36% of the actual vote. Well within the margin of error, Obama got exactly the percentage predicted. Meaning, no one closed the vote curtain and put on a white hood.

It's Hillary who outperformed because of turn-out and late deciders. She was predicted to get 30% and got 39%.

Some polls had 40% of NH undecided. The media was too busy gushing about HOPE to talk about that and Hillary got most of those votes.

Other factors the hysterical-with-Obama-love the media didn't consider in the sampling:

1. Days of media excitement about an inevitable win for Obama made independents think it was safe to vote for McCain.

2. Remember all that college youth vote talk? Well, becuase NH moved their primary up the college kids were still out of state on break -- that's if they're even registered to vote in NH as opposed to their home state.

3. They stopped polling to soon. The last NH poll was taken on 1/7 -- missing the move towards Hillary.

No evidence of racism, just more liberal media incompetence as they shoot themselvesin the foot hurting their own guy.

Posted by Dirty Harry at January 11, 2008 12:15 PM

comment #9

Monument says ...

Walter, that Obama/Cloverfield/Zodiac joke wasn't funny the first time you posted it.

Posted by Monument at January 11, 2008 12:16 PM

comment #10

sweet_billy says ...

this site is fucking hilarious. it's so off-the-wheels at this point, there's going to be no stopping the full-on pileup after the voting is over.

stick to badly postulating on movies, jeff. it suits you.

Posted by sweet_billy at January 11, 2008 12:18 PM

comment #11

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Rich S.: Yeah, the Nazi liberals are spinning the truth again. Thanks for exposing Kohut as an unreliable spinmeister.

Wells to Dirty Harry: I'll go for #1 and #2, but otherwise read Kohut's story again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10kohut.html?scp=1&sq=Andrew+Kohut

Posted by gruver1 at January 11, 2008 12:20 PM

comment #12

storymark says ...

'1. Days of media excitement about an inevitable win for Obama made independents think it was safe to vote for McCain. "

if so, McCain is really in trouble, since the Rep. winner still pulled fewer votes than 2nd place Dem. Obama.

Posted by storymark at January 11, 2008 12:22 PM

comment #13

Bocephus says ...

It's really too early to interpret the hows and whys of this election. One caucus and one primary do not make a presidential candidate.

Right now, since it's pretty much all baseless speculation, why don't I throw mine in?

Obama won Iowa because the media had already written Clinton off as the inevitable winner. The people are tired of our ineffectual media and out-right rejected her because we are tired of being told what to think.

After Iowa, the media did a complete 180 and threw everything behind Obama. Suddenly HE was the one being hailed as the inevitable winner. So, out of spite alone, voters decided to vote against the media again. Hillary got the votes because pundits were being mean to her and made her cry.

Posted by Bocephus at January 11, 2008 12:30 PM

comment #14

Rich S. says ...

Nope, sorry. You don't get a pass on this one Wells. The only logical extension for your constant carping against the great unwashed - who had the audacity not to vote for your chosen messiah - is to take the vote away from them and ideally render them unable to reproduce and spread their ignorance.

When an "elite" ultimately decides that it "knows best" how the planet should be run, well, that sounds awfully familiar to me. Cloak it in all the state-colored euphemisms and Mel Brooks blurbs you want.

Posted by Rich S. at January 11, 2008 12:33 PM

comment #15

Marcello says ...

Ah yes. All those poor white racists... just LOVE Hillary Clinton!

I don't understand why anyone's confused. Did NOTHING happen in that last Monday after the polling was complete? Did no one cry? Were the numbers not fluctuating wildly from day to day leading up to that point?

Posted by Marcello at January 11, 2008 12:34 PM

comment #16

T. Holly says ...

Baruch Atah H. O-ba, you need to lay off the preaching, you're starting to freak us out. Christian, can you pick someone who has a chance of winning? Please.

Posted by T. Holly at January 11, 2008 12:37 PM

comment #17

T. Holly says ...

wait, wait... Baruch Atah H. O-ba-ma.

Posted by T. Holly at January 11, 2008 12:40 PM

comment #18

storymark says ...

Does anyone EVER understand what the hell T. Holly is saying? Just wondering.

Posted by storymark at January 11, 2008 12:47 PM

comment #19

Bocephus says ...

Nope.

Posted by Bocephus at January 11, 2008 12:53 PM

comment #20

JHRussell says ...

There is a silver lining here - the Democrat party could be destroyed by this blatant racism...tee hee!

Posted by JHRussell at January 11, 2008 12:54 PM

comment #21

rocco says ...

You say you will vote for a man named Barack Obama...then it comes time to pull the lever and you look one more time at the extremely un-WASPy "Barack Obama"..."President Barack Obama"...you say to yourself "I'm about to vote for a man named Barack Obama for President of THEE United States of AMERICA!?" You change your vote to Hillary Clinton.

This isn't difficult to understand. I'm not agreeing, just saying...

A caucus doesn't carry the same visual confirmation.

Posted by rocco at January 11, 2008 12:56 PM

comment #22

Me says ...

Seriously, is this what we're in for everytime Obama doesn't win something? Just start crying 'racist,' 'racist' until the Democrats fall back into line?

Posted by Me at January 11, 2008 12:57 PM

comment #23

Abbey Normal says ...

Remember just a few weeks ago when everyone was talking about how far we've come, with the leading Democrats being a woman and a black man? How great it was that nobody was even really talking about these facts, and how enlightened we were in this beautiful new age?

So much for that.

Posted by Abbey Normal at January 11, 2008 1:14 PM

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

My problems with the Kohut problem are two-fold:

One, he tries to act like he's making a startling new insight, while completely failing to mention Tom Bradley,Doug Wilder or the "Bradley Effect", which is an extremely well known political event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Two, he fails to mention that Iowa is not a secret ballot, and someone is much less likely to seem racist in public then they are the in privacy of the booth.

Bottom line though, Obama lost by only two points, and things still look very good in Nevada and South Carolina. It's concievable that New Hampshire didn't just want to be an afterthought but a vital part of the debate, which would mean not giving Obama another brass ring on his way to the nomination.

Oh and by the way us "poorer" whites? We've usually got shit to do.

Posted by BurmaShave at January 11, 2008 1:18 PM

comment #25

Walter Sobchak says ...

"Walter, that Obama/Cloverfield/Zodiac joke wasn't funny the first time you posted it."

Monument, once again you are wrong. The first time I posted that joke it was universally regarded as hilarious. (A.O. Scott of the NY Times called it "one of the funniest posts in recent memory", David Ansen of Newsweek called it "...nothing short of a revelation" and Roger Ebert reflexively gave it four stars)

After receiving numerous "best post of the week" awards, it was re-released on this particular thread, nearly trebling its initial success.

So suck on that, dick-munch.

Posted by Walter Sobchak at January 11, 2008 1:36 PM

comment #26

lazarus says ...

Nice try, Walter. It was the guy from the Chiago Tribune who gave you four stars; Ebert said "I hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this post."

Posted by lazarus at January 11, 2008 1:49 PM

comment #27

Sean says ...

Walter - after good reviews like that, you should've expected the inevitable backlash. Surely, over time, your joke will be remembered more for what it is and less for who said it where and when.

Posted by Sean at January 11, 2008 1:50 PM

comment #28

T. Holly says ...

In case I haven't made it clear by now, I don't have an original thought in my head, not really anyway.

Posted by T. Holly at January 11, 2008 2:18 PM

comment #29

Dirty Harry says ...

Wells: You're right about 3, I got my dates confused and should've checked.

But 1 & 2 are enough. Obama got the percentage the pollsters (I can't believe I'm sticking up for hard-core liberals -- no it's logic I'm defending, dammit!) predicted. He got the votes he was polled to get.

I also heard that younger women were undersampled and ended up turning out higher than norm. But I heard that on FOX, so it won't get much play here.

I'd love to call liberals bigots, but the only bigotry I see is in the automatic assumption white lower-income people are racist.

Obama lost by a mere 3 points in a state that's 96-97% white. He won in the party of Jim Crowe and George Wallace -- the party that opposed Lincoln. That's pretty amazing.

What all this talk really is about is politics. It gins up the black vote for Obama. Pretty smart. Cynical but effective.

Posted by Dirty Harry at January 11, 2008 2:21 PM

comment #30

le corbeau says ...

Strictly looking at the numbers, what happened seems to be that Obama stayed stable and Edwards voters substantially defected to Hillary.

However, they seem to have told pollsters they were defecting to Obama, not Hillary. So Obama got what he was always going to get, but people thought it was going to be a lot more. So either they moved toward Hillary after she choked up (they're focus-grouping PMS and post-partum depression right now to help on Super Tuesday), or they told pollsters what they knew the whole fricking media wanted to hear, many of them probably before they had really decided, and later went for Hillary instead.

Posted by le corbeau at January 11, 2008 2:24 PM

comment #31

T. Holly says ...

Oh, that's why he's preaching. He turns it on and off when he speaks. JJ Abrams is a pretty good actor too. I'm down with that.

Posted by T. Holly at January 11, 2008 2:28 PM

comment #32

christian says ...

T.Holly, it's the Dems to lose, but McCain is the only GOP guy who could win.

Still, I dislike Obama supporters more than Obama, and this kind of HOPECHANGEINSPIRATION But Edwards You Better Drop Out You Loser screeds from DLC hack/West Wing Producer Lawrence O'Donnell is exactly what we don't need from team Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/john-edwards-is-a-loser_b_81045.html

Posted by christian at January 11, 2008 2:33 PM

comment #33

rocco says ...

I'm with christian...gasp...Obama supporters are more harmful to Obama's campaign than the man himself...just as the Paulites (before racist comments surfaced) made it difficult to talk objectively about Ron Paul...

...I don't like that Obama acts as though he invented the words "hope" and "change," and all this emphasis on changes is beginning to remind me of a grade-school run for class president, but then even 6th graders promised things like new basketballs and better pizza in the cafeteria...I STILL don't know what Obama is offering. Hope. Change.

Posted by rocco at January 11, 2008 2:45 PM

comment #34

SpinDozer says ...

I heard Gary Hart endorsed Obama today. I think "change" is the "new ideas" of this race. Only everyone seems to be playing this time.

Posted by SpinDozer at January 11, 2008 2:55 PM

comment #35

christian says ...

And that sociopathic idiot Kos pulled out his latest ego-stroke today by telling Dems to vote for Mitt in the Michigan primaries since he thinks Mitt can't win.

Yes, I'll say it again for you righties: Kos is a moron. Always has been. But that's because he's still a repub passing himself off as a democrat.

Posted by christian at January 11, 2008 3:16 PM

comment #36

T. Holly says ...

That's a very heavy statement christian, you're making me eat sugar and ruining my dieting.

Posted by T. Holly at January 11, 2008 3:17 PM

comment #37

Bocephus says ...

Of course the media is going to focus on to the "change" chanting, they need something shallow and buzzworthy to latch on to. You won't see boring stuff like health care and foreign diplomacy on the news, you have to go to the candidate's websites to read about lame issues like that.

The mainstream media is only interested in reporting how much Edward's hair costs, how much cleavage Clinton shows (not joking on that one), and how much Obama's name sounds like those two other famous brown bad guys.

Posted by Bocephus at January 11, 2008 3:18 PM

comment #38

SpinDozer says ...

Well, its totally understandable for 'change' to be the politician's mantra coming off 8 years of incompetence and corruption (all god's chilluns wants change)and not surprising that the media amplifies this to exclusion of substantive discourse, but it don't make it any more fun.

Posted by SpinDozer at January 11, 2008 3:24 PM

comment #39

SpinDozer says ...

Here's a Dave Lindorff article which looks at the Diebold machines in NH. Interesting read.

http://counterpunch.org/

I hate those damned machines.

Posted by SpinDozer at January 11, 2008 3:35 PM

comment #40

Josh Massey says ...

So now the right wing hate machine is rigging elections for Hillary Clinton?

You must lead a happy life.

Posted by Josh Massey at January 11, 2008 3:51 PM

comment #41

le corbeau says ...

I love the Diebold machines, just because they make you all so crazy.

Kucinich wants a recount! You can't buy entertainment like that.

Posted by le corbeau at January 11, 2008 3:54 PM

comment #42

christian says ...

Of course you love Diebold. They're made by a Republican who promised he'd deliver Ohio to Bush and you can crack them and fuck over democracy in a few easy steps.

They're a laugh riot! Just as funny as the Gulf of Tonkin REALLY happening! No conspiracies here in the Land O The Free...

Posted by christian at January 11, 2008 4:07 PM

comment #43

jeffmcm says ...

Harry, it's not 'lefties'. It's just Wells.
Personally, I'm highly amused at the 'cool black imaginary friend' theory of Obama's success.

Posted by jeffmcm at January 11, 2008 4:09 PM

comment #44

le corbeau says ...

And then I, Saruman of Many Colors, will have the Halfling's ring and rule over all with my Uruk-Hai!

Posted by le corbeau at January 11, 2008 4:10 PM

comment #45

christian says ...

Or "cool black imaginary boyfriend" in Andrew Sullivan's case...

Posted by christian at January 11, 2008 4:13 PM

comment #46

SpinDozer says ...

'So now the right wing hate machine is rigging elections for Hillary Clinton?

You must lead a happy life.'

Reasonably so. I didn't say that Diebold were FOH. I DO think they have played hanky panky in previous elections on a partisan basis. But the reason I hate them is because 1)they have been shown to be easily manipulated and 2)whenever there is any evidence that would tend to support the notion of hanky panky (exit polls, etc.), the perception is that hanky panky DID occur. It just ain't good for democracy.

Posted by SpinDozer at January 11, 2008 4:22 PM

comment #47

le corbeau says ...

Spinny, if Democrats as well as Republicans know the secrets of fixing elections with Diebold machines, then what the hell good are they?

Posted by le corbeau at January 11, 2008 7:22 PM

comment #48

Major Calloway says ...

Here's an "affluent, better-educated" white who seems to have - or at least momentarily express - a rather unfavorable view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkiKG1v8YTU

This can only be described as a huge fuckup that would have seriously wounded any campaign on the other side. Except in this case everyone sort of whistled and looked down at their toes until the moment passed.

Considering the context doesn't neutralize the issue, either (not that those who criticized Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" line give a damn about context). He may have surrounding arguments that are just fine and dandy. That's beside the point, and doesn't change the meaning of these particular words, or make them any less injurious.

But he really means well, you say? He addresses injustices? So did "Mississippi Burning". How's that one going over in post-colonial film studies these days?

christian: "Or 'cool black imaginary boyfriend' in Andrew Sullivan's case..."

Imagine these words having come from a Hannity or a Robertson, as a further example. It wouldn't even mean anything different, but you can believe we'd be hearing about it.

And speaking of Alan Parker: