My theory is that he was a plant. That shows you how low an opinion I have these days of the people running the campaign that he heckled.
The Democratic returns in New Hampshire so far aren't quite what pollsters expected. A few theories are plausible:
1. People were actually sympathetic to {"Iron My Shirt" + crying jag}. I would mourn for the world if so.
2. Bradley Effect (plus Iowa's "reverse Bradley Effect," as suggested by Mickey Kaus)
Neither of those is fun to contemplate, though the former is much more horrifying to me.
Posted by Matt Bruce at January 8, 2008 06:10 PMIf you can refer to such a thing as "the reverse Bradley effect", doesn't that pretty much mean every race in history can be judged by this standard?
The idea of Hillary Clinton drawing embarrassed racist votes like Jesse Helms once did is pretty funny. I understand people's frustrations with Obama's unexpected loss, but primaries are extremely tough to poll and people's opinions are volatile. Most people just won't jump from Democrat to Republican or vice versa, but huge numbers will switch at the last minute between two candidates they like for different reasons. Exhibit A: The N.H. results are almost exactly what they would have been if there'd never been an Iowa caucus and Obama hadn't suddenly jumped 15 points in the polls in two days. I do think that Clinton's debate performance and tears is the reason she rebounded.
I don't dispute the Bradley effect has existed on occasion, but I just can't see it happening in this race, with these candidates. Obama himself outperformed the polls going into the 2004 Illinois Senate primary against multiple white candidates. In 2006, Deval Patrick outperformed his polls in both the primary and general election, and Harold Ford did better than predicted. You need to reach further and further into the past, into racially polarized situations, to find the Bradley Effect in action.
Posted by: M.S. at January 9, 2008 02:10 PM