The Polling Difference

After watching some analysis last night as to why the polling on the Democrats side was so off, some said that after Hillary's "emotional, humanizing moment," a flurry of older women came to her defense which wasn't reflected in the polling.

Something else that Chris Matthews and Michael Dyson were promoting on Hardball was that race played a role with people saying that they were going to vote for Obama but then when it came down to it, they were scared of the "swagger" of a successful black man (according to Dyson) so they went with Hillary. The called it the Bradley effect redux.

I have problems with this theory simply because, A) Bradley happened 20 years ago and B) this was a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. Between the polling difference and the results, Obama lost in the double digits. Bradley was a GENERAL ELECTION campaign. Democrats who vote in the primary are of the more liberal wing of their party. There are certainly racists of every race in both parties, but not that many. I have a hard time believing that that many of them are racist.

MY THEORY:

Having not heard it from anyone else in the media, I am quite comfortable claiming it as solely my own.

The reason in the polling difference was that it was the Hillary factor. With all the media fueled momentum Obama was bringing with him after Iowa, Hillary was going to be the big loser. So if a pollster asked someone who they'd be voting for, it'd be FAR easier to go with the hot, young, Obama and be on the perceived winning side.

They said they were voting for Obama because they were ashamed to say they were voting for Hillary.

That, coupled with the "emotional, humanizing moment" which brought in older, sympathetic women (and some men, I'm sure) after the utter bashing Hillary was receiving, was easily enough to give her the thousands of vote needed to edge out Obama.