Can you think of a prediction that this theory would make? A prediction that, if not fulfilled, would falsify the explanation? Why would not be the same for voting for a woman? America is a sexist society...

Obama and Huckabee were in the late polls predicted to take Iowa, and they did.

What time / place other than New Hampshire are you referring to as evidence that Obama doesn't do as well as he's polled? I think the pollsters were under the influence when they put out the Obama wipes Clinton numbers yesterday for New Hampshire.

There are a lot of ('hem )no longer young people who always show up to vote in New Hampshire.

Or are you referring to black contenders in general?

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

There are too many reasons why this is a cheap shot at Americans and American voters. The simplest reason is that the vote situation was extremely volatile. After Iowa there was an enormous shift towards Obama. At least that's what the press was telling us. Oh. Let's not forget - the woman hating press. That's a given whereas the implied "Bradley effect" is a hypothesis or even more likely a planted smear.

Obama has been running on race and at the same time having his handlers scream racism whenever anyone dares to point out that fact. Geez! The man is opposed to affirmative action. People can oppose him without being racist. People can actually come back to reality from a media driven Iowa caucuses wave. People can go with an anti-media driven tear induced wave and see that Hillary Clinton was, and has been for years, maligned and smeared for being a woman. Maybe those voters wanted to feel good about themselves and vote for the first American woman president.

Ask yourself this. Everyone believes that Obama is a certainty to win the South Carolina primary. Why is that? Is it racist? Is it based on race. Should that be called racist? Again, Obama is against affirmative action.

Race is a factor in America (as it is everywhere in the world). So is sex. So is wealth. There's got to be much more proof than an Andrew Sullivan (he's probably squeezing his butt cheeks right now in self satisfaction) post before I'll take that sort of smear seriously. People can actually vote for someone other than Barack Obama without being racist. They can even change their mind, twice, on short notice, especially when the platform differences are intentionally slight between the two current leaders.

The sad fact is that the only thing progressive about Clinton and Obama is that they both have to pretend to follow Edwards' progressive platform or they'd be left in the dust. Two con artist pseudo-progressives, both heavily funded by America's mega-wealthy, are leading in the run for the nomination and we're supposed to be worried about racism and sexism as unconscious factors.

As long as Obama is still on his metaphorical feet, racism is going to be a major factor in this campaign, but I wouldn't be surprised a bigger factor this time around was a backlash against all the media-types gleefully dancing on Hillary's supposed grave.

I'm just hoping at this stage that things get drug out as long as possible, giving as many people as possible a chance to vote.

is that telephone polling isn't going to work for measuring Obama's support because his supporters - new voters, voters under 25, liberal professionals, highly educated voters, etc - are basically unreachable by phone unless they want to be - unlisted, screen their calls, mobile only, etc. So pollsters have to use multiplicative fudge factors for the few that they do reach.

Still - a 12% swing. That's usually reserved for last minute revelations of serious impropriety. Backlash against sexist reactions to emotional Hillary? A pamphlet on Obama's poor pro-choice record? Backlash against some of Obama's supporters playing the race card? These don't read as a 12% swing for me, but I'm interested to hear other people's impressions.

Maybe the type of person who tells pollsters what they want to hear is the same type of person who is easily peer-pressured in a caucus situation into standing with the cool, young crowd (Obama). I'm sure racism had its role, but you can't deny the pressure of having to choose between standing with a bunch of old ladies and standing with a group of cool, younger people.

"...I'm not a fan of Obama's, but the Bradley effect would be a very sad and unfair way for him to lose the nomination."

For someone that's bashed Obama here, in more ways I can count, I'm unimpressed with this straw man remark.

Did the tears do it? Apparently Hillary got a lot of the late deciders and 57% of the women. Did those women see the tears, and think, "Oh, the poor dear, the men are really mean to her, lets give Hillary our support."

(should probably call them factors, because I'm sure there were many):

- The momentum of winning Iowa was undone by the rushed schedule - NHers don't like feeling rushed and can get cranky and ornery (I know whereof I speak).

- NH didn't want to be the graveyard for Clinton's (or McCain's) career.

- NH independents had more loyalty to McCain than enthusiasm for Obama.

The Bradley effect probably played some role, but NH has a tiny black population. Racial equality was established in theory many, many years ago and they've really never had to confront it in practice. Gender equality (also long established in NH) is something they do deal with, and I think Hillary may have gotten the egalitarian vote.

Finally, NH is a really weird state. Kind of answers the question "What do you get when you cross a Vermonter with a Texan?".

update: TPM publishes this reader comment:

I have been an Obama supporter since 04, gave money to him this year, own the t-shirt, etc., etc. But the sexist bullsh-t these past days (I am a woman) from the media is making me root for her to win this tonight. The only thing I dread if she wins tonight is the inevitable story from the media that this proves that white america really won't vote for a black man, the resulting made-up defection of Obama's made-up new found black support, etc., etc.

I was just reading this over at Yglesias:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_wrong_were_the_polls.php

It appears that Obama showed with error margins to his polling, but that Clinton surpassed her polling to come up with the win.

If Edwards was Afro-American,

This theory might make sense, otherwise everybody who said they were voting for Obama did.

Another theory to consider is both IA and NH are open primaries, Republicans have been sending signals that they would prefer Obama [anti-union, pro-big business, privatize SSI, compromise with Republicans in congress...et al.] to Clinton. With the corporate owned press declaring Obama a shoe-in. Republicans felt free to vote in their party's primary.

Normally, I'd be for an open primary system, but due to the fact that certain states are first, it allows one party to dictate the others party's candidate choices...which is bad for the Democrats as the MSM is already working to limit choices to those that corporate-america deems acceptable.

If you notice, MSM hardly involves itself in the selection of Republican canidates.

Who knows? But it's going to be a good old horse race now.

You go to K-Mart determined to buy a Panasonic stereo. But when you get there, they've got kewl new iPods, and some other stereos you didn't know about before. You juggle all the different gadgets for awhile, falling in and out of love with each one, but when you leave, you're carrying the Panasonic stereo.

Dating and marriage would be a similar comparison, but the candidates are different sexes this time, so it gets too confused.

Soft support that tends to return to its original attraction. That's why politicians are always fishing for the magical alchemy of things to say and do. If Obama said just the right things (and he's damn good at it), he might have won New Hampshire. But maybe he said one little thing wrong (like belittling Hillary, just a bit?) and poof, most of the soft support snapped back to its original - Hillary.

We're liable to see this happen more than once, because it's difficult to criticize your opponents without sliding in a cut about their sex, race, their personal wealth, their grooming, etc. Maybe voters are looking for whichever candidate seems the most like a mature adult. Relapses into playground behavior appear to be an instant turn-off.
.
"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.