Explaining the Inexplicable

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Among the ranks of the growing unemployed may well be pollsters and pundits -- ALL of whom blew the call on who would win the Democratic race in New Hampshire. Not only did they predict that Obama would beat Hillary by close to double digits, but they said that, as in Iowa, women would support Obama. They were horribly wrong. Interestingly, the pre-primary polling on the Republican side was close to spot on, as was the polling for John Edwards and Bill Richardson. The numbers that were wrong were those for Hillary and Obama.
 
What happened Well, it seems that 15% of those who voted made up their minds Tuesday. In the pre-primary polls, Obama lead Hillary among women by about 3%. Yet, Hillary ended up securing a 13% advantage over Obama among women who voted. If women made the difference, why did they break so late for Hillary? I suspect that the new found sisterhood solidarity grew out of intense frustration over the endless playing of the footage of Hillary "crying." Younger women, who were not energized by the mere notion of a female candidate were mighty pissed off at the fun male pundits had with Hillary's display of emotion. Those of us with two X chromosomes know all too well what it is like to have men make light of our emotions, frustrations and feelings. These male pundits did for Hillary what she could not do for herself -- they made gender a defining and important issue.

There's more...

Photo courtesy Comedy Central.