By David Bositis
Senior Policy Analyst
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies

The polls preceding the primary vote in New Hampshire on Tuesday missed the mark somewhat, but there apparently was no "Bradley" or "Wilder" effect in Hillary Clinton’s unexpected victory over Barack Obama.

Those special designations came into use after elections where the late Tom Bradley ran for governor of California and Douglas Wilder sought the governorship in Virginia. In each case, white voters told pollsters they would vote for a black candidate and then, in the privacy of the polling booth, voted otherwise.

In the New Hampshire primary, the evidence says that’s not what happened.

Pollster.com, which is the best and most reputable site on polling information, had as their pre-election polling estimate of Obama's New Hampshire vote 36.7 percent. The estimate was based upon a statistical analysis of many pre-election polls. Obama got 37 percent, which means their estimate was spot on--could not have been better.

Clinton's pre-election polling estimate was 30.4 percent -- so her victory with 39 percent was attributable to voters breaking for her on election day.

At least one analysis suggests the extra Clinton votes came at the expense of former senator John Edwards.

Tell us what you think about the disparity between the projections reflected in the polls and the actual vote totals in New Hampshire.