Judis On The Wilder Effect: Kohut Is Irresponsible

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:05:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

One of the more irresponsible takes on why the pollsters got it wrong in New Hampshire was discussed earlier by Jeralyn. Andrew Kohut of Pew Research's attributing Obama's loss to white racism was incredibly irresponsible. I refer Mr Kohut to the words of James Clyburn. CYA-ing for pollsters is no excuise for what Kohut has done. Worse than that, Kohut has no basis for saying what he said. John Judis dismantles Kohut's irresponsible speculation:

As you can see, Obama's support among New Hampshire Democrats without college degrees slightly increased from the pre-election poll to the exit poll. There was an increase in Clinton's support among voters with only a high school degree or less, but there was also a slightly smaller increase among Obama voters from this group. Where Clinton dramatically picked up support from the pre-election poll to the final poll was among voters with college degrees and higher. That's exactly the opposite of what Kohut's version of the Bradley effect would predict. Here we come to a far more likely explanation (albeit one of several) for why the pre-election polls were wrong: Women--and college-educated women in particular-- shifted to Clinton. The polls show that while four percent of men switched over to Clinton, 12 percent of women did. Since there was very little change among voters without college degrees, one must infer that the bulk of the change came from women voters with college degrees. And it seems unlikely that racism can help to explain that, since well-educated women may be the least racist sub-group in American society.

The answer to what happened is staring people in the face but some do not want to say it. The Media Misogynists, led by the execrable Tweety Matthews, galvanized women voters to support Hillary Clinton. It is hilarious to watch Media Establishment figures stab wildly for some other explanation. What is not hilarious is when people like Kohut grasp at irresponsible and incendiary speculation to defend the Village. Mr. Kohut should be ashamed of himself.

< Chris Matthews' Bias Against Women Spurs Protest Campaign | The Tweety Effect Goes National >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Judis On The Wilder Effect: Kohut Is Irresponsible | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think Bob Herbert got it wrong today (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:07:57 AM EST

The Obama camp has tried to spin their NH loss as race-based. some people are eating that up.

Sure (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:16:42 AM EST

Bob wrote this without irony:

It may not be fair that the Clintons seem to be forgiven every sin while Mr. Obama's margin of error is tiny at best. But it was Jack Kennedy, one of Mr. Obama's important models, who liked to tell us that life is not fair.

Ok Bob. We can see he can not see straight in this race.

He is still great.


: Yup. (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM EST

Wasn't Kohuts point that you can't poll (none / 0) (#4)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST

that demographic accurately in the first place?

If that's correct then it wouldn't matter how BO polled.

No that was not his point (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:34:01 AM EST

Because if you cannot poll that demo accurately, then you can not poll period.

I am pretty sure that was NOT his point.


Hmm (none / 0) (#7)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:51:20 AM EST

I'll have to take another look but I recall him saying that you can't accurately poll that demographic as they are more likely to refuse to respond and that the demographic is also more likely to vote against a black candidate.


If he is saying that then (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:58:41 AM EST

he is saying polling is a crock.

I do not believe Andrew Kohut would say that, as that is his profession.


Here is a small quote (none / 0) (#11)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:02:32 AM EST

"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."

Personally I think polls aren't great and this shows one reason why. They have to guess about things and they might get it right or they might get it wrong.


In NH (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:08:31 AM EST

Kohut is irresponsibly speculating when he says:

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."

And indeed, Kohut's speculation was wrong as Judis demonstrated. Obama OVER PERFORMED the polling in this demographic.

Obama UNDERPERFORMED with WOMEN!

This is just irresponsible nonsense from Kohut. And he is trying to avoid the bitter truth - the Media Misogyny won NH for Clinton by galvanizing women voters to support her.

This is so plainly what happened that it is undeniable. Only people with axes to grind could deny this.


But that's the ypoint isn't it? (none / 0) (#14)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM EST

How can you tell if he overperformed or not? Based on exit polls? Why assume that demographic is any more likely to answer an exit poll?


But the whole cotroversy is based (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST

on pre-primary polling!! Your comment makes no sense.

Ad the exit polling is much more accurate BTW and PREDICTED a Clinton victory.

There is a amzing amount of misinformation being spread about the exit polls.


Why would that demographic (none / 0) (#17)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST

be anymore accurate in the exit polling? How do we know that their historical reticence to answer polls - requiring compensation by pollsters - wasn't an effect in exit polling?

That's my point. If you can't poll them you can't draw conclusions based on polling them.

Though I have to say that I saw exit polls that had Obama winning by 5 points and tied so I don't have any faith in those either.


what's your point? (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM EST

Suppose it had the same accuracy as the pre-polling?

then what?

I have no idea what you are driving at.


Then you can't use the exit polls to conclude (none / 0) (#20)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST

that Kohut was wrong...


What can I use (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:55:41 AM EST

to evaluate Kohut's claim then?


We have nothing to use (none / 0) (#22)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST

to evaluate any of these claims. People are just guess. That's why polls suck. You can't accurately poll when complex issues are involved.


: Um (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:18:43 PM EST

so it is an unsupportable incendiary comment from Kohut?
Whatever.

What's also interesting (none / 0) (#18)
by JayR70 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:35:00 AM EST

is that if it's accurate that some people will say that they're going to vote for a black candidate but aren't so it skews the polling why wouldn't that same issue skew exit polling?


The Open Sores (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST

Of US White Male culture are getting exposed by people like Kohut, Tweety and and Turd Blossom. Good thing that we have analysts that can see through the spin.

More to come no doubt.

And yet (none / 0) (#8)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EST

while bloggers like Jeralyn may have concluded their analysis by saying that they don't buy Kohut's conclusion, that conclusion often comes long AFTER the headline they chose themselves which stated that a well respected man thinks Obama may have lost because of race.

So the theme of the day gets spread. Obama could lose because of race.

Which helps Hillary.

Jeralyn is (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST

as you know, one of the nicest people you will ever find and finds it hard to be dismissive or harsh towards others.

I, on the other hand, like to tell my side in my title. It happens that I have to rein that in because this is J. site.

So sometimes I have to put it in the lede.


Your lede was not what I was talking about (none / 0) (#12)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM EST

Jeralyn appears to me to be a very effective advocate. If I was in Colorado and ever needed a criminal lawyer I'd call Jeralyn. I have no idea whether she's nice, I've never met her. But I have no reason to think she isn't.

I do know that she is, of intent, advocating against Obama (I don't think she's ever denied that) and my evaluation is that she's doing it very, very well. One method is for her to use ledes about racism.

She tells her side in her title too.


: I think you completely (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:18:42 AM EST

misunderstand how Jeralyn posts.

I heard some idiot (none / 0) (#24)
by BDB on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:03:51 PM EST

on NPR pushing this issue. He didn't talk about NH so much as worry about it in states that border the South, like Missouri, Tennessee, etc.

Now, maybe there will be a Bradley in these states, but there is no empirical evidence for it. Just as there is not empirical evidence the Bradley effect occurred in NH. In fact, the empirical evidence in NH suggests otherwise.

Why African Americans or Obama supporters are pushing this issue is beyond me. Under their logic, Obama is completely unelectable as it currently stands. If you assume a 10% shift in New Hampshire, then you can only think Obama is really ahead against potential GOP nominees if polls have him way up - more than 10% - in polls. He isn't anywhere near that far ahead for the most part.

So basically, by pushing this argument - which is all theory with no factual evidence supporting it - folks are basically saying Obama cannot win. This has the potential to be devastating to Obama. It could become a self-fulfilling prophecy - whites won't vote for him because they think he can't win because people are telling them that whites won't vote for him (same thing for African Americans and other groups).

I understand that Obama supporters are upset about NH. And I understand why African Americans are suspicious about the willingness of white America to vote for a black candidate. But so far there is no evidence that Obama is unelectable. Indeed, I think he is very electable, but that won't stay true if folks continue to push this theory. (And I'm not even going to go into the stupidity of calling the white voters they need to win over racists. Insulting voters isn't generally the best way to gain their support.)