What the held did happen to Obama in NH?

I found this bit of analysis by the Capital Times' John Nichols pretty interesting, too. Read it:

John Nichols: Obama and the role of race

Barack Obama was supposed to win New Hampshire big. The polls going into Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary had him running ahead of Hillary Clinton by seven points, eight points, nine points, even 13 points.

Yet, when the returns came in on Tuesday night, Obama lost by three points to fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Were the polls flawed?

Was there a dramatic shift at the last moment?

Or was it just another instance of "the Bradley Effect"?

The Bradley Effect refers to an electoral phenomenon first identified in the 1982 California gubernatorial election.

Tom Bradley, the popular mayor of Los Angeles, was the Democratic nominee for governor. Polls showed the African-American Democrat running well ahead of white Republican candidate George Deukmejian. Yet, when the votes were counted, Bradley lost by more than 50,000 votes.

The result made no sense. The gubernatorial election was one of the few Democratic losses in what was a good year for the party. Bradley was an able politician with a smooth style and a sound record. Analysts took a new look at the polls, which seemed sound.

It was then that they hit on the notion that white voters, not wanting to be thought of as prejudiced against an African-American candidate, had told pollsters they were for Bradley when they had always planned to vote for Deukmejian.

The phenomenon came to be referred to as "the Bradley Effect."

The Bradley Effect was seen again in 1989, when Virginians were electing a new governor. African-American Democrat Doug Wilder held a solid lead over white Republican Marshall Coleman -- nine points in some polls. Yet, on election night, results showed him winning by less than one point.

In 1990, when African-American Democrat Harvey Gantt challenged white Republican incumbent Jesse Helms for a North Carolina Senate seat, polls had Gantt ahead by four to six percentage points. On election night, however, Helms won by four points.

Again and again, in elections in the North and South, the Bradley Effect has come into play.

But there was no Bradley Effect in last week's Iowa caucuses. Obama led in the polls, and he led on election night. But in Iowa it was a public caucus, where neighbors saw whom neighbors backed.

In New Hampshire, as in California in 1982, Virginia in 1989 and North Carolina in 1990, the presidential primary voting took place in private -- behind the curtain of a voting booth. It was possible for voters who had said they were for Obama to cast their ballots for Clinton.

That's how the Bradley Effect works.

And if the Bradley Effect was in play in New Hampshire, then Barack Obama may face a greater struggle to bridge the often-unmentioned gaps that remain in a nation that has long been divided along lines of race and class.

It is not merely Obama's struggle, however. It is America's struggle as well.

John Nichols — 1/09/2008 10:42 am