Did public venues of Iowa vote pressure white women to vote for Obama?
By Michael Donnelly
Fraud?
I was talking with Jeffrey St. Clair when it became apparent that Hillary Clinton was going to take New Hampshire. My first crack was, “Uh, Oh. The ‘Live Free or Die(bold) State.’ How soon before the stolen election charge is raised?”
After all, New Hampshire is one of the states that came under fire for questionable election results from its array of Diebold election machines back in 2004 — results that failed to match up to pre-election polling. Hmmm? (Say, by the way, what ever happened to the Green Party’s $150,000+ Ohio recount that was supposed to get to the bottom of Diebold, once and for all?) Well, the polls weren’t even closed in the Granite State, when the first “Stolen Election” e-mail arrived in my inbox.
But, as the polls have turned out so monumentally wrong this time, as well; indicating a ten-point swing in one day, one has to ask, “What happened?” At the same time, the actual results for every other candidate on either side were within 1% of the pre-election polling results. OK. Let’s rule out fraud… Tears and Sexist Stunts?
Mainstream media blowhards are attributing the turnaround to Hillary’s weird, teary-eyed performance a day earlier; claiming it made her “look more human.” (Of course, that she needed to look more human is telling, in the first place. You don’t supposed they focus-group tested the tears, do you?)…
Could an election really turn ten points on such tomfoolery? Of course, the “Hillary for President” sticker on Gemellli’s briefcase adds to the intrigue.
It Wasn’t the Wars
Neither of those incidents can explain the ten-point swing. It appears that some other dynamic was at work in New Hampshire. Polling indicates that NH women voted for Clinton over Obama on a 47% to 34% ratio. Women in Iowa voted 35% Obama to 30% for Clinton. Iowans said the war(s) and Hillary’s war votes were the number top issue for them.
So does this mean that New Hampshire women are more pro-war, less for peace, than their Iowa sisters? Not really…
Could it Be?
So, just what is the difference? Well, in Iowa voting was out in the open with neighbors, way more youth than usual and the whole-world’s-watching media. If one had any misgivings based on race, it would be very hard (for a Democrat anyway) to admit it in such a public venue.
On the other hand, with the privacy curtain of a voting booth providing anonymity, no one would ever have to account for their vote. Both states are overwhelmingly white – 93% in Iowa and 95% in New Hampshire. Its one thing to adopt a race-neutral, progressive facade for pollsters; but when that facade crumbles in the voting booth one has to ask: Are anonymous New Hampshire women less able to give a black man their vote than their on-public-display Iowa sisters?
http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly01102008.html