Iowa and New Hampshire -- Race and Process

To preface this blog, I feel it necessary to remind you that I don't know shit about shit. But, of course, if you're reading my drivel, you probably know that already. Not to worry -- the following political analysis will be highly speculative.

Much ado has been made over the results of the Democratic party's Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Theories explaining first why Barack Obama won in Iowa and now why Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire have been so plentiful that it would be meaningless for me to even link to a few of them. I am nothing if not a slave to popular fads (plus, I'm right and everyone else is wrong...) so, here's my theory.

The results of Iowa and New Hampshire tell us nothing other than that people pretty much like Obama and Clinton equally and (thankfully) that they like Edwards a little less, at least in the Northeast. I am convinced and a little bit afraid that the winning margins in Iowa and New Hampshire can be explained by examining the voting processes of the two contests and thinking about race and racism.

In New Hampshire, the primary contest is an election, a process which is fairly familiar to most of us. The Iowa caucus, on the other hand, is a funny thing. People who are about to vote gather publicly in groups of their families and neighbors, friends and enemies, and then through a process involving debate and attempts and verbal persuasion, they more or less cast their votes. I believe that this would aid a Black candidate in Iowa and hurt him or her in New Hampshire.

As I believe pointed out by Malcolm Gladwell in one of his books, people tend to represent themselves in public as making choices less dependent on race as they actually do. He used the example of people on online dating sites declaring that the race of their date matters very little, but then almost always choosing to "approach" people of their own race. In Iowa -- voting in public, I believe people (basically everyone voting in both of these contests were white) were less likely to NOT vote for Obama because of his race, even if at the last second they felt unsure or uneasy because of it. Conversely, I am afraid that in New Hampshire, in the privacy of a curtained voting booth, people may have allowed their racial prejudices or simply their doubts about the racism of the rest of the country sway their votes from Obama. This would explain why polls (a public statement of your voting plan) would have shown Obama roughly 15% ahead of where he ended up placing in the actual, (and private on an individual level,) vote.

Since most of the rest of the contests are primaries and not caucuses, I still think Obama will have an uphill battle to climb (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) I know that Clinton is a woman (this Clinton) and that there are still tons of people who don't think a woman should be president, but I would argue that these people are less likely to lie to pollsters about this feeling. Either way, I am glad that the results in New Hampshire and Iowa have been so inconclusive. Extending the race for another month and another 20 states at least will get us more experienced candidate, chosen by a more educated and representative group of voters.

After I wrote this, I came across this article which explains my gut theory in possibly more eloquent languege. Apparently this isn't a new idea, and even has a name, the "Bradley/Wilder/Dinkins effect."

The (First?) Ten Commandments of Ezism

1. Don't watch the weather.
2. Don't buy water.
3. Don't trade in currency.
4. Don't ever write ten commandments without an elastic clause like "Don't do stuff you shouldn't do."
5. Don't do stuff you shouldn't do.
6. Deodorant and electric razors are scams and should be treated as such.
7. Shake your ass, but watch yourself.
8.
9. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, two, the dentist, three the psychiatrist.
10. Sleep well.

They're really more like guidelines...