-
Posted
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:16 AM
| By
Juliet Lapidos
With all due respect to Chris Matthews, and a few of Slate's very own pundits, I don't buy the theory that the "Bradley Effect" explains why Obama lost New Hampshire—that voters "lied" to pollsters to seem progressive.
Here's why, via Marc Ambinder: "the pre-election polls did NOT overstate Barack Obama's support. He averaged 36.7%, according to Mark Blumenthal's compilations," which is just under his actual piece of the pie—37 percent (with 95 percent of precincts counted).
So, what happened? The people who said they would vote for Obama probably did so, and undecided voters chose Hillary. Big whoop.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?