Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Remember when all the polls were wrong on the eve of the NH-Primary?
(I was so snookered by them that I voted for Edwards (my man Dodd having just dropped out) thinking that Obama would win and carry the nomination quickly, and that Edwards surviving for a couple more states would help pull health care and a few other things in the debate to the left for Obama.)
And remember how we were accused of all sorts of whackadoodle-ism, from vote fraud to - my least favorite - charges of racism along the lines of the Bradley effect?
Well, a report (warning: truly massive .pdf) came out today from the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), pointing to an aggregate of small factors that helped create the worst polling fiasco in many years.
But it's a point from Pollster's Mark Blumenthal's summary of the report I want to highlight, since the racist NH Dems storyline has been sticking in my craw since two Januarys ago:
The report also produces evidence that rules out a number of prominent theories, among them the so-called "Bradley Effect." The authors claim they saw "no evidence that white respondents over-represented their support for Obama," and thus, no evidence of "latent racism" benefiting Clinton. Fair enough, but they do report evidence of a "social desirability effect" that led respondents to report "significantly greater" support for Obama "when when the interviewer is black than when he or she is white" (although Obama still led by smaller margins among when interviewers were white -- see pp 55-59 of the pdf report).