Texas caucus vs. election results
Mar. 5th, 2008 06:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tagrynThe Democratic results in Texas from last night showed an interesting dichotomy: Hillary won the general primary, but Obama won the caucus vote (assuming current trends hold). This reflects a general trend of Obama doing much better in states utilizing a caucus system than a straight primary vote.
I do wonder if Hillary is suffering from an effect that showed up in the Philadelphia mayoral races of the '70s and '80s. Frank Rizzo, former police chief who had multiple accusations of racism made against him by his opponents, always polled much lower than he actually ended up winning in elections. Larry Kane, longtime Philadelphia reporter, attributed it to people not wanting to admit that they voted for Rizzo, because they didn't want to admit to a pollster that they supported him, but in the privacy of the voting booth they pulled the handle for him.
In Hillary's case, the strong enthusiasm of Obama's supporters plus his general popularity- and, yes, not wanting to be openly seen as voting against the black candidate lest their neighbors view them as racist - may make a certain percentage of the Democratic electorate feel intimidated and not want to admit their support for Hillary in a public forum like a caucus, but behind the curtain they vote the other way*.
Of course, the rest of the caucus results could come in and things could switch around, in which case this speculation will be worth the paper its printed on, literally.
* - which is not to say their motivation is racial at all, mind you, more a matter of not wanting to admit they like Hillary a little bit more than Obama. For swing voters, the risk of public ostrication may be all it takes to make a difference vis a vis caucus vs. primary.
I do wonder if Hillary is suffering from an effect that showed up in the Philadelphia mayoral races of the '70s and '80s. Frank Rizzo, former police chief who had multiple accusations of racism made against him by his opponents, always polled much lower than he actually ended up winning in elections. Larry Kane, longtime Philadelphia reporter, attributed it to people not wanting to admit that they voted for Rizzo, because they didn't want to admit to a pollster that they supported him, but in the privacy of the voting booth they pulled the handle for him.
In Hillary's case, the strong enthusiasm of Obama's supporters plus his general popularity- and, yes, not wanting to be openly seen as voting against the black candidate lest their neighbors view them as racist - may make a certain percentage of the Democratic electorate feel intimidated and not want to admit their support for Hillary in a public forum like a caucus, but behind the curtain they vote the other way*.
Of course, the rest of the caucus results could come in and things could switch around, in which case this speculation will be worth the paper its printed on, literally.
* - which is not to say their motivation is racial at all, mind you, more a matter of not wanting to admit they like Hillary a little bit more than Obama. For swing voters, the risk of public ostrication may be all it takes to make a difference vis a vis caucus vs. primary.
