Independents and Undecideds

mgp wrote:

Frank Foer of TNR has a theory that the caucus format worked against Hillary Clinton in Iowa because a voter has to openly declare his/her support:

If you're a Hillary Clinton supporter, it must not be easy to admit in public. You risk the ire of the omnipresent Clinton haters; you look like an establishmentarian square. And it must be even harder to admit in a social forum like the Iowa Caucuses. But in the privacy of the voting booth, it's a lot easier to say that you're bucking the Obama swoon and prefer HRC.

Not to cast aspersions on the good people of New Hampshire, but isn't it also possible that in the privacy of the voting booth it is easier to vote against a candidate because of the color of his skin? I personally think the Clinton victory is attributable to the number of independents who opted to vote for McCain rather than Obama, and I hate to think that Obama's race (or Romney's religion or Clinton's sex) would foster opposition to his candidacy, but this is a factor that still bears watching.

I would agree with the McCain statement. If you are an independent voter and leaning towards Obama, doesn't an 8% to 13% poll lead heading into the primary give you confidence that you can vote for McCain and still have Obama win? I saw some interesting stats that the polls correctly predicted Obama's vote total, but understated HRC's total. Considering the press didn't really talk about the 17% of undecided voters, is the "upset" as big as it really seems? It was definitely a most impressive close by HRC, but if the press were a little lighter on the hyperbole and a little sharper on the analysis, would we be this surprised?