Clinton Wins New Hampshire

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 22:48


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

Wow. Everyone has now called New Hampshire for Clinton. Shocking, stunning, amazing that she could overcome an 8% deficit in the polls in just one day. The huge turnout among Democratic women did the trick, as did her ability to stay even with Obama among the massive liberal vote. Over the last twenty-four hours, there were media character assassination attempts against Clinton because she showed emotion, or something. That simply must have been what put Obama over the top. Seriously--nothing else really happened in the last twenty-four hours, so that must be the cause. Looks like that attempt to take Clinton down completely backfired. And, as both Rachel Maddow and Dday said, that is a very, very good thing.

Forget all the stories about Clinton collapsing. Now, we have a really interesting campaign on our hands. Clinton once again become the favorite, but Nevada and South Carolina loom.

Obama beat McCain. Democratic turnout looks to be at about 285,000, which is an increase of about 35% from 2004. Republican turnout looks to about about 240,000, well behind the Dems but not as far behind as had been thought at one point. In 2000, overall turnout was only 363,000 in New Hampshire, so this is a massive increase. In a sign of which way the political wind is blowing, eight years ago Republican turnout was at 210,000, and Democratic turnout was at 153,000. Democrats went up 86%, while Republicans when up 12%.

We will also need some explanations as to why the polling was so utterly wrong. This almost never happens. Here are some possible reasons:

  • A last minute swing toward Clinton, as mentioned above.
  • Clinton had a superior, momentum-proof, absentee voting program.
  • Bad poll weighting. I wonder if pollsters were weighing down samples of women and Democrats in their surveys, both of which increased from 2004.
  • Return of the lying white voter?
  • Great weather in New Hampshire brought out older voters? I don't buy this one, since both the under 30 and over 65 voters increased as a percentage of the electorate.
  • Another theory: some indies thought Obama had it locked up, so they voted for McCain instead, who was supposedly ahead by less than Obama.

It is probably a combination of reasons. Also, note that the exit polls weren't wrong--they showed a 39-39 tie. The polls taken before today were wrong. People will be trying to figure this one out for a long time.

Chris Bowers :: Clinton Wins New Hampshire

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Wins New Hampshire | 122 comments
I'm not a Hillary fan but the b.s. was getting to me too (4.00 / 2)
Typified by Tweety and his "I'm not obsessed". Yeah, whatever.
Look, I'm sorry... (4.00 / 3)
...but the 'tears' moment yesterday was utterly transparent and disingenuous. It was a 'woe is me' moment, and then she had the audacity to get on to talking-point attacks against Obama right afterwards.

I'm shocked that this was the result. Utterly shocked.

This is politics, where nothing is shocking anymore (0.00 / 0)
And it doesn't hurt for them all to be subjected to some under the belt tactics--assuming that this is what this was--given that they're going to face far worse from the other side. Anyone who can't both dish it out and take it does not deserve the nomination, and will have a hard time winning the general. It'll make them all tougher--especially Obama, who needs to prove that he can take it. Sunny hope can only take you far in this bloodsport.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I'm not shocked (4.00 / 2)
  I posted here earlier this evening that there was a good possibility Clinton would win tonight.

  I didn't exactly say why. So here's my explanation:

  (a) It's very, very tough for a grassroots-supported candidate to take out an establishment-supported candidate, even if the stars all align for the insurgent. There's just too much institutional power on the establishment side. There might be some temporary wins (Lamont), but these battles always eventually resolve for the insiders. They're much better at manipulating low-information voters; that's how they get to BE the establishment to begin with.

  (b) TearGate had an impact. When I noticed yesterday that this contrived episode was getting incessant media play, my stomach began to sink. This was EXACTLY the kind of mundane, trivial crap that nonetheless ignites a backlash with the suitably offended segment of voters. And that's exactly what it did.

  I hate to say it, but Obama might be done. This was as close to a perfect storm for him, and he still couldn't pull it off.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Keith Olbermann was pushing that point (4.00 / 1)
Not necessarily claiming that she was disingenuous, but noting that the media seemed to be ignoring that she seamlessly moved from an emotional moment to attacking Obama.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Oh Yeah - And don't forget (0.00 / 1)
Obama's macaca moment when he lied on National TV and said his campaign manager was not a lobbyist. That was a giant screw up which will continue to haunt him.

If I'm Clinton I run a 30 second spot of that from now until he cries uncle.

The guy just flat out lied to the entire nation! And you still support him?

[ Parent ]
Not he first, second or third time he's done that... (0.00 / 0)

...but his job may be done. He took votes from Edwards, a guy who hasn't lied about anything, at the critical beginning. Paving the way for...

Clinton/Obama and 'More of the Same' 08!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
how do you really know? (4.00 / 2)
I love Edwards. I like trial lawyers. I have no idea what he really thinks about his war vote repudiation.  I don't believe in conversions.  So I think you may have been hoodwinked.

Your constant assertions that he's the only honest person in the race puzzle me, because I would guess you aren't naive.

[ Parent ]
Macaca moment?! What the hell is wrong with you? (0.00 / 0)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
more about how the media reacted to it (4.00 / 2)
than the incident itself.  If it was an act, it's not one she can do again, and both candidates are tied at the quarter pole.  I'll take the media having a massive amount of egg on their face.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.
[ Parent ]
This is good, whoever one supports (4.00 / 6)
Well, obviously if one supports Clinton, it's good. But the adversity that they'll all be subjected to by having to fight it out for the nomination will only make the winner stronger in the general. It'll toughen them up, make the public respect them more, and vett them for the much tougher campaign against the other side. People tend to trust people who've been through adversity and had to earn it more than people who've coasted to success.

I'm paraphrasing Elizabeth Edwards here, whom I enormously respect and admire.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

I Agree 100% (4.00 / 1)
These people are not our playmates.  They are our warriors.  They need to toughen up.  And when we criticize them, it is also to make them stronger.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Thought you didn't buy into the (0.00 / 0)
..........Nietzschean meme? Oh, wait....I think that actually you were doubtful it was still valid. I'm pretty down with that one.

One good thing. All the candidates have moved left as they've campaigned. I'm sure the influence of Edwards is felt here but really I see in his 'get them away from the table..' meme a reflection of the what the voters are feeling and thinking. Thats' what makes it appealing. Obama got it. Let's see if Hillary does.

No matter if you like Edwards or not the national conversation can go on a little longer and....

Who knows what might happen!

I'm starting to think the general might approach JFK vs. Nixon.

Here's a clip of JFK for ya:

http://takeaction.wo...

Talk about yer 'red meat'!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Actually, Yes (0.00 / 0)
I am down with a lot of Nietzsche. Not all of him, of course.

But I'm the one always criticizing Obama for being all kissy face, remember?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Neitzsche is one of the most misread philosophers (0.00 / 0)
Most of the ties that were made between him and fascism were unfair and done by the Nazis themselves.  He despised German nationalism, and most of his talk of struggle had more to do with overcoming weakness in the self, not purging the weak from society.

[ Parent ]
I Read TONS of Kaufmann (4.00 / 1)
And not just on Neitzsche.  But he's invaluable for cutting through BS on Neitzsche.

Of course, you could just read Neitzsche for yourself.  But Kaufmann gives you insight into how Neitzsche has been misread, both intentionally and through sheer carelessness.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yes.... (0.00 / 0)
...I remember. Kinda hard to miss although I do think you might have to get in line behind me in that regard.

All I have to do in make one comment at dKos and you can hear the baying of the hounds!

Heh...fun at times

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
What I wrote over at mydd (4.00 / 5)
I know there are some Obama supproters who may think that Obama coming in second is a bad thing.

I know there are probably some Clinton supporters who are thinking "thank god, Clinton is the new come back kid!"

I am an Edwards supporter, and all I have is his message which I hope he continues to bring to the race.

But, this isn't about that. This is about a principle that I've slowly developed since 2004. I love contested elections. Let me give you 10 brief reasons why below the fold.

1) Exhibit A-- Kerry. We annointed Kerry (or at least, I feel that we did). He went into the general election a weaker candidate untested by the hard questions and campaigning that he would face from a bruising Bush campaign. This time around we need our GE candidate battle tested and ready for combat. If you hate the metaphor- we need them ready to win from the minute the GE begins. This will make sure they don't rest on their butts for several months.

2) We test ideas and approaches by having contested elections. Were it not for Obama, Clinton wouldn't be changing, and were it not for Edwards, Obama wouldn't be changing, and etc. These candidates being tested means they have to test thier messaging, their policy assumptions, their staff, their own character- regardless of whether they win or not. THis is a good thing for the party.

3) It throws the media narrative out of whack. I was shocked by NH. That's the honest trust. But then I found mysel smiling because I realized I was shocked in a "the media narrative was wrong" ki nd of way, and thats a wonderful thing to behold. No annointing by the media narrative :).

4) I allows later voters to not jump on a bandwagon but instead to actually think about their decision. Now SC and NV and supertuesday and everything else matters. That's a really important thing.

5) It makes for a harder target for the GOP. Sure, they can guess and try to go with the generic Democrat- but a movin target is still a moving target.

6) We get to know the candidates better as voters. It's not based on snap decisions. This is really important. Political junkies know the candidates well, but I've got friends who dont pay attention until days before. Now they are paying attention because like a good season of football with several great teams- they got something to pay attention to. Never underestimate the value of a little drama.

7) As a corrolary it means a lot more free media. Never underestimate the value of free media. The longer this is contested, the longer the media will pay attention.

So- buck up- whether your guy or girl is up or down - its all good. We as a party win with this.

[ Parent ]
Good points one an all! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
10? i only count 7. all good points. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
There hasn't been a single time (0.00 / 0)
when I've criticized the Democratic candidates (and I've criticized all of them, sometimes very harshly) that a part of me didn't cringe a little inside, both because I couldn't help but wonder if it was fair, and because I worried about how such criticism might affect their chances in the general if they won (not that my puny criticisms would amount to much in the greater scheme of things, but rather as part of the collective criticisms from the progressive blogosphere).

But I invariably then realized that, fair or not, fuel for oppo attacks or not, they NEEDED to be criticized, roughed up, attacked, even abused, etc., to toughen them up, test them, vett them, and prepare them for what was to come in the general, and, if they won, as president, which would be VASTLY more brutal. So if figured that even if my criticisms were unfair or excessive (and I'm sure that some were), in the greater scheme of things it didn't matter, because they were essential to the larger process of getting us the best, toughest, smartest, most capable nominee and president, whoever he or she may be.

Tough love, basically.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
New Hampshire ignores Iowa again (4.00 / 1)
Chris, your analysis of the Iowa bounce has been fascinating, but I wonder if it went far enough back in history. If you look back at all primaries since 1980, ignoring those with incumbents, New Hampshire has had a different winner than Iowas 8 of 11 times.

DemConWatch
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
I mentioned more than a few times here how often the Iowa winner got torched in NH. No one wanted to hear it.

Comeback Kid II anyone?

[ Parent ]
What the fuck Pollsters? (4.00 / 1)
I still just don't understand how every poll could get this so wrong. Did the tear thing really have that much of an impact? I mean, polls from this morning had him ahead by almost double digits. What the hell happened?!

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
Crowds (0.00 / 0)
Even more so, what happened with all of those crowds for Barack that were so much larger than Hillary's? Reports everywhere showed him as having much more active and intense supporters.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
I recall reading... (0.00 / 0)
...that it was standard for Obama to ask undecided voters to raise their hand.  Normally at least one third of the audience was undecided.  Then, in a report of the rally a day before the election, there was only a small number of undecideds (5% of less).

A low-information, apathetic vote counts the same as an enthusiastic one.  (Caucuses are a different story, insofar as most low-info, apathetic people stay home.)

I worry is there's only a certain fraction of whites who will go for Obama, and he basically hit the ceiling.  We'll find out soon enough I suppose.

[ Parent ]
Its very simple (4.00 / 2)
New Hampshire has a history of telling the national press and the conventional wisdom to go screw themselves. They decided that the race should not end here, and that the rest of the country should have a say in the matter. Good for them.

DemConWatch
[ Parent ]
Actually the decided (4.00 / 2)
who the best candidate was.

Look at the exit polls and see how many important categories Clinton bests Obama in.

Like Electibilty. Honesty. Leadership.

This was no protest vote. NH voters are pretty educated with 53% having a grad or post-grad education. Another 27% having some college. That's a total of 80 with post high school schooling.

This was no protest vote. It was the unsures making up their minds based on facts not emotion. Obama is all about emotions...

But fact are facts...

And lies are lies and he told a whopper of a lie in the last debate.

[ Parent ]
Thank you!!! (2.67 / 3)
Can you tell me where I can learn the objective truth about these candidates?  You are supernatural, and I'm sure I speak for all readers here when I say I'm grateful for your teachings.  Clearly HRC is superior in all ways to all other beings, but if I may ask, are you on her level?  Is that how you are able to "know"? 
[ Parent ]
Your shtick is getting old (0.00 / 0)
If you haven't noticed crabby this blog is full of opinions Because that is what blogs are about. Someone clue crabby in.

Even the front page is about opinions and on this one they were wrong. Why don't you go scold them for being wrong?

Now to answer your question on where you can learn. That's easy. Just pay attention to what is going on before your very eyes. I am seeing the same thing being played out that you are. The difference is I am paying attention and obviously you are not.

From your tone I'd guess you are part of the teenybopper vote. So I guess it isn't fair that I have about 20-25 years more political experience than you do. But still, even given that,  why is it you don't have anything of interest or value to say?

[ Parent ]
Speaking of schtick, (4.00 / 2)
I think the difference is that you are convinced that you are right, whereas most of the rest of us know that many of our assumptions are inevitably going to be wrong.  How coincidental is it that when someone challenges your assumption of uncanny knowledge, you respond that they have nothing of interest to say? Humility is probably the crowning jewel of virtues, especially for those who really are superior.
[ Parent ]
Wrong (0.00 / 0)
but you act like an arrogant know it all.  Play nice here and you'll succeed at persuading people. 

I'm past 40, by the way, and a full grown adult who has also worked in politics.  And in professional communication and marketing.  So I have a perspective that may be valuable, too.

Funny how you just assume stuff.  I would have guessed you were the young one - but I really didn't know.

[ Parent ]
Except That, Woops! Obama Won The Better-Educated (4.00 / 2)
As you can see in my quickie diary "Clinton--The Unlikely Economic Populist".

Clinton cleaned up among those without a high-school education--61%, vs just 31% among those with post-grad experience.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Baaaa...... (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
That's right (0.00 / 0)
Stats are for sheeple.
[ Parent ]
Depends (0.00 / 0)
Some college / associate degree - 40/40

College graduate - 38/37 advantage Clinton

So post-high school pre-postgrad Clinton actually bests Obama by one point.

FWIIW - post-high school pre-postgrad represented 70% of the total post-high school voters. That's a big majority in case you can't do math too well.

And Education aside - Obama lost tonight so so much for comparing educations.

[ Parent ]
You Have To Look At ALL The Data (4.00 / 1)
High school grad only: 46/31 Clinton.
Non-High School grad: 61/28 Clinton.

Cherry picking doesn't cut it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
LOL (0.00 / 0)
The cherry picker of cherry pickers saying cherry picking doesn't cut it. Too frigging funny.

You still clinging to Obam won on education even though I just watched him on TV conceding he lost. And funny thing - he didn't say a damed thing about education but he was taking about uniting the country - a category that Clinton won:

Clinton - 97%

Edwards - 81%

Obama - 70%

[ Parent ]
please stop (4.00 / 1)
reposting this kind of hard slanted limited scope candidate partisanship multiple times in each story is what completely ruined dkos. it flooded all discussion and made reading through the comments an utterly miserable experience. there are dozens of counter examples about your candidate of choice. in a comment thread on a site like this you're not likely to change anyone's mind, especially by calling a very popular candidate a liar.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
But He Did Lie (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
thanks for sorting our "false hopes" (4.00 / 1)
and correcting our "fairy tale."

Now we can use your "reality check" to get back to exactly what HRC means by change

starting with our exit from Iraq...

"the right way!!!!"

cheers!!!!!

[ Parent ]
Such sarcasm Kid! (0.00 / 0)
You know very well we'll be out of The MeatGrinder right after Hell freezes over the second time.

And not a minute sooner. Not unless we get rid of Hoyer, Emmanuel and Reid.

Hell, give Pelosi the boot too!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Return of the lying white voter (4.00 / 1)
Sullivan has a scary possibility :

People get to vote in a secret ballot - not in front of their largely liberal peers, as in Iowa. They may have told the pollsters one thing about voting for a black man, but in the privacy of the voting booth, something else happens. I don't have any hard evidence for this, but the discrepancy in the polls is remarkable.

[ Parent ]
Yeah.... (0.00 / 0)
this was exactly what I expected. If you snuffle around the polls somewhat before this election season you will find several polls which asked the questions:

Would you vote for a black man for President?

Would you vote for a woman for President?

From 40 to 60% depending on the poll said no. Polls taken after Obama and Clinton announced show a completely different tale. Social scientists are well aware of this 'shame' effect. It exists and I guess we are gonna find out just how real.


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Don't nominate Obama or Hillary (0.00 / 0)
If you want to win the general, is it? My thought though, is when do we challenge that effect and really put forth a candidate we believe in who is a woman or a person of color? If you don't like them for other reasons, that's how it is. Hell, if you don't want to nominate them out of pure bigotry, that's your right, really, but I'm saying how would we know if it can't be done if we keep hesitating? Doesn't that fulfill the prophecy itself?
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the bigotry charge... (0.00 / 0)
.........that's very much appreciated.

First, I oppose both on the basis of their stated policies for 'change' which really are nothing of the sort. I'm not going to list all the things they both have stated they favor which I find unacceptable as a progressive American.

Second, I do believe that there is a high chance that neither one of them can win against say, McCain/Huckabee.

Third, the idea that somehow identity politics is okay if 'we' the Democrats do it as opposed to the nasty ReThugs is when you unpack it and take a good look at it....

Just as racist or sexist as anything Reagan or Nixon ever did.

Voting for someone because of their race or gender is just as heinous and reprehensible as voting against them for same. Many fail to see this but that makes it no less true.

I gracefully accept your apology for accusing me of being a bigot.

On to Nevada!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
I can't apologize for something I didn't do (0.00 / 0)
I did not say you were a bigot. I merely stated my belief that for those who believe in Hillary or Barack to hesitate because of fear about their gender or race hindering their electability is an obvious self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe I should've added words to make that clear to you, but I did not accuse you or any person of being a bigot and so I guess you're not getting any apology from me. Please show me how Edwards PROBABLY beats McCain/Huckabee where Obama and Hillary PROBABLY won't. Personally, I think the electability stuff is based more on party excitement and we have a huge edge on the Rs.

I wonder if you could really show how voting for and being excited about the first woman President or first black President (because, even in part, of their gender/race) is as bad as saying you will because you like their message and then not doing so because of their gender or race. Put less confusingly, can you really unpack identity politics so?

[ Parent ]
Weather is a part of it (0.00 / 0)
New Hampshire usually has dreadful weather for its primary. If it isn't snowing, its very cold. This almost always keeps the older voters home.

Today was unseasonably warm, almost spring-like. Those senior citizens, who usually don't vote and are thus under-represented in polls, were coming out of the woodwork in droves, and seem to have overwhelmingly voted for Clinton.

[ Parent ]
Thank god (4.00 / 2)
No coronations.
Spot on (0.00 / 0)
Hillary didn't take Iowa, so definitely no coronations.
[ Parent ]
I'm back to thinking that poll prognostication is simple astrology. (0.00 / 0)
I swear, this reminds me of 2004.  All the exit polls say one thing, something completely different happens. 

"Momentum", "movement", poll predictions - half the time it's bull.

The difference between Iowa and New Hampshire (4.00 / 2)
In Iowa it was very cold and had snowed for several days.  Many of the roads still were covered by snow.  On primary night I could not get my car up a hill.  Many of the women over the age of 65 that I spoke with told me they would not caucus.
  Remember in Iowa you must show up at 7:00 PM to your precinct meeting place.  If you are old, sick, out of town, or working you can not vote. 
  Older women were more likely to vote for Hillary but they were also more likely not to go out to Iowa Caucus.
  Today you could vote all day and it was warm.
  I am so surprised this is not brought out more in the analysis.
this would also suggest (0.00 / 0)
the pollsters did a poor job weighting their polls. they certainly should be considering weather.

thats not snark.

I also saw in a report on cnn that Hillary won college students by 1%, which would also suggest poor weighting by pollsters.

not that I would have gotten it better. but I would find pollster weighting mistakes more likely than a 10% swing because of one campaign appearance - even with a lot of media attention.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Can't be a swing. (0.00 / 0)
I have a hard time believing that there was a last minute swing. Obama had all of the momentum. I just can't see it turning around so quickly. Plus, in the CNN exit poll, it said that voters who made up their minds in the last day voted for Clinton only 40% to Obama's 37%.

I would suspect that the polls weren't picking something up. Either absentee ballots, or something related to turnout.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

Can't prove it (0.00 / 0)
I still think older women were under represented in Iowa and that is a strong voting block for Clinton.
[ Parent ]
I think you're right. (0.00 / 0)
My liberal 63-year-old mother, who recently moved to Canada but follows the Dem. primary with interest, keeps saying over and over "It's time for a woman" and refers to Barack as "Osama." 

It's going to get uglier.  I only hope that if Obama does win that these people will still vote for him and not vote Republican or stay home in a fit of pique.

[ Parent ]
No offense (0.00 / 0)
but I get irate when I hear people voting on non-issues like that.

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...
[ Parent ]
No offense taken. (0.00 / 0)
I find it incredibly annoying too.
[ Parent ]
Re: Can't prove it (0.00 / 0)
This should have been picked up by the polls' turnout models, though. They have plenty of experience distinguishing caucuses from standard elections.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
Younger voters (0.00 / 0)
The guy who runs Pew was on NPR earlier, and one of the things he stressed was that young voters, who turned out in huge numbers for the Iowa caucuses, just weren't present in New Hampshire in any numbers above how they normally turn out in New Hampshire. (That also could be the answer to your "poll weighting" puzzle, if the pollsters were expecting this demographic in Iowa-like numbers.) Is that correct more or less? And if so, why did this happen? Note that pointing out lower turnouts for young people are normal doesn't answer the question-- if that's the answer then we need an explanation of why the young turnout was so high in Iowa.

What was happening in Iowa to turn out young voters that failed to work in NH? Did the Obama campaign not GOTV as aggressively there? Did people stay home because the polls had convinced them Obama had already won it? Is it somehow easier to get out young people to a caucus than a primary? And regardless of these options, what does this tell us about the likelihood of young voter turnout at the Nevada caucus?

Primary vs. caucus. (4.00 / 1)
A majority of young potential voters don't care, but many of those who do care enough to go through the annoying caucus process.
[ Parent ]
So what does Edwards do now? (4.00 / 2)
He didn't finish second as Chris Bowers earlier said that he needed to.  I'm not sure if he is going to amass enough delegates to be a kingmaker. (Will he even get any in NH?)  What level of support does he need?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
He's already earned three of the pledged delegates in NH (0.00 / 0)
plus what he got in Iowa. 

In his NH concession speech, he claimed that he's in it until the convention.  Whether or not he means it is anyone's guess, but I doubt that he will officially concede until super tuesday at the earliest.

[ Parent ]
That's wierd (0.00 / 0)
I checked CNN and it was 8-8-0 for delegates with 80% reporting and I check again and it's 9-9-4 with 82%.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Edwards can't control where his voters go in the event he drops out. (0.00 / 0)
If he thought he could actually deliver all of them to Obama, he MIGHT consider doing it, but he can't.  And in a field that is white-white-black, and even discounting that factor, a lot of his voters are going to break to Clinton and I don't think he wants that. 

Rather, if he can gather his voters, turn them into delegates, and then deliver his delegates to Obama, presumably after a mostly-tied Super Tuesday, then he might do that.

At any rate, continuing on doesn't hurt any of the goals he has for himself.  Until it does (for instance, by helping guarantee Clinton's nomination), he's not going to drop out.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
It's not like he needs to get back to Washington to make votes or anything.  He accomplishes a lot more as a candidate than he would otherwise. 

Though if I were him, I'd want to spend time with my dying wife and not eating food on a stick. Absolutely no one could blame him if he dropped out right now.

[ Parent ]
Dude!! do we have to go over that again?? ... (0.00 / 0)
Didn't Elizabeth say she didn't want to stay home? .. that she'd rather live her life ...  maybe they believe in what they are doing
[ Parent ]
But it's not her decision, (0.00 / 0)
it's our decision.
[ Parent ]
so he can deliver them (0.00 / 0)
if he stays in all the way, but not if he drops out?

boy, i've always had a hard time imagining Edwards voters going to Hillary. but after seeing all the exit numbers suggesting her support was self described as more liberal and more concerned with the economy, i can maybe see it now. weird - the online Edwards community seems so vehemently anti-Clinton.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Edwards' high-info voters would mostly break to Obama, (4.00 / 1)
but who are Edwards' low-information voters likely to be?  Folks who know very little about all three except their basic identities, their commercials, and memories of the Clinton presidency?

In a field where Edwards is the only white guy, you know that some of his low-info voters are the ones who would kindof rather be voting for a white guy.  They're not going to break for Obama if pressed.

And to resolve the confusion, I was saying that Edwards can't direct his voters to do anything, but he can sure as hell control the delegates that he gets.  He can stay in the race, turn his uncontrollable voters into controllable delegates, and then direct them as he pleases.

Of course, he can't actually throw them to anyone who is clearly in second place, if the two front-runners aren't extremely close.  So he can't count on having the opportunity to coronate Obama if Hillary beats Obama badly on SuperTuesday.

I expect he'll stay in through Florida, and depending on how things look then, it's conceivable that he'd try to pitch his voters to Obama just before Feb5th.  Who knows what the scene will look like at that time though.  And a #3 cannot cannot prop up a weak #2.  Doesn't work.

[ Parent ]
I was in Iowa (0.00 / 0)
Obama had an impressive get out the vote in Iowa but I wonder if you hit on something about the caucus.
  Because the caucus is a community event and all happens at 7:00 in the evening it is more social.
  The campaigns had food at the caucus and parties scheduled after.  I wonder if that caused more younger people to turn out?
  Just showing up a polling place may not have been as attractive to the younger voters.
Fascinating thought ... (4.00 / 2)
...that polling place secret balloting itself is alienating, unattractive.

When I heard academic elections researcher Donald Green speak on turning out voters, he pointed out that the highest sheer turnout elections in US history were in the late 19th century. City politics was machine driven, voters were entertained with parades and lured with food and drink. The social aspect of voting was paramount. Progressives cleaned all that up for the people's own good and we've never had as high a percentage voting since.

I haven't done the work to research whether this is just hot air, but your observation reminded me of it.

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
And, back in those times, (0.00 / 0)
you had a remarkable turnout from dead voters.  I believe that there were more votes cast during the 1872 Election in West Virginia than there were citizens of West Virginia.
[ Parent ]
in many other countries (0.00 / 0)
particularly latin american, there are huge street parties after an election in all the cities. mostly after presidential elections.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Iron her shirt (0.00 / 0)
She'll be the best president for women, minorities, children, the poor, families, the environment, the world, everyone.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
Yes (0.00 / 0)
She'll bomb them all to bits. Just what they need.
[ Parent ]
Centrist (0.00 / 0)
I think she played centrist to get along because she's a woman. I've followed her career and think she'll be more progressive than Bill Clinton or Gore on most issues once she's in office.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
Her two terms of warmongering were just a clever ruse!
[ Parent ]
Nice To Know (0.00 / 0)
It's nice to know that you think that she'd help to organize the killing of tens of thousands of people as a political trick. Golly! What a savvy politician she must be!
[ Parent ]
She represents New York (0.00 / 0)
where 9-11 took place. I'm a Clinton-watcher because they fascinate me. She shapeshifted herself to get to this point. I think it's a centrist ruse and that she's not really a hawk.



Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
isn't that... (0.00 / 0)
deplorable in and of itself?
[ Parent ]
Representative government (0.00 / 0)
We expect that the individual members of Congress pay attention to the beliefs of their constituents.  That's why we write and call them.  Representative government, anyone?
[ Parent ]
There Are Also Other Expectations (0.00 / 0)
Such as, the expectation that our government won't present us false intelligence in an attempt to go to war.

Hillary failed that expectation by lying to us in an effort to start a war, and she's trying the same thing again.

[ Parent ]
I noticed something (0.00 / 0)
Clinton and Obama are centrist because they're a woman and black. Edwards is progressive because he can be.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Results Count (0.00 / 0)
She pimped the war in Iraq. She voted for it. She spread misinformation about the war for years.

This is all some ruse? And then she'll change her evil ways once she becomes President?

I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd love to sell you.

[ Parent ]
Primaries aren't over and.... (0.00 / 0)

...............she's gotta win the GE.

As far as how great she'll be for the groups you mention...why would that be?

If she makes it to the WH it won't be with a SuperMajority and her triangulating style will find tough sledding in a Congress dominated by right wing enablers such as Reid and Hoyer. Emmanuel is a Clintontista but may not be in good odor due to no....

Supermajority.

She'll play it safe just like Bill did. Results....

Not so much.

Identity politic is the greatest tool the right has as they can use it even if they lose.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Her lifetime progressive rating (4.00 / 1)
based on all votes of Senators or Congresspeople since 1991. She's 16th in the Senate, Obama is 24th. Edwards rating was apparently much lower when he was Senator. I've followed her career and know she does well on domestic issues.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
If you've read any of Paul Rosenberg's diaries here... (0.00 / 0)

..........on 'Versailles' , what it is, and how it operates you would understand more easily where I'm coming from.

First,I know the guy who created and runs Progressive Punch. They are tearing their hair out over their rating system because they see such as Clinton and Obama placing too high on the scale. Have you looked at Lieberman's lately.

Second, Clinton occasionally votes, as does Obama, in a way that undercuts her 'progressive' stance. Kyl-Leiberman would be an example for her. For Obama it's 'missing' such important votes as the one on Telco Immunity relating to FISA. These are not isolated instances of voting to the right.

Edwards, as a Senator from a deeply RedState is not as bad as his opponent's supporters would make him out to be re: his voting record.

No one commenting here 'knows' how Clinton will go if elected. But her cadre of advisors gives one pause. Union-busters, fair-traders and good, good friends of the MIC fill her posse.

I am not confident that she will fufill her supporter, those who are progressive at least, expectations.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Why (0.00 / 0)
Are you confident Edwards will fulfill your expectations?
[ Parent ]
Having watched many minutes of video... (0.00 / 0)

...........read his policy statements and discussed him at length with one of my blogmates, a politically astute grandma, who now works on his campaign in FLA I've come to think that he truly means what he says and we all know what that is.

His refusal to take PAC and lobbyist money is what I want to see in a candidate also.

Bottom line, I'm just like those who support Obama or Clinton I believe in my candidate as they believe in theirs.

It's down to who you trust. I don't fault others for trusting their pick where they and I part ways is in the analysis of the candidates. Given what I know about who supports Obama and Clinton, how they've voted and everything they've said about anything of substance....

I don't think they'll advance the agenda I want to see advanced. Which for lack of a better word I'll label: Progressive.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
It does come down to who you like and trust (4.00 / 1)
and for some reason, I don't trust Edwards!

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Lieberman is 47th (0.00 / 0)
and...?

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Doesn't that seem high? (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Why the zero, tough guy? (0.00 / 0)
what's your rationale for zero rating me, Citizen?

It couldnt' be because I insulted that poster - you do that all the time.  I really want to know the precise reason.  I think it's ratings abuse, but maybe I'm blind here.  I'm trying to communicate with you, not bait you.

[ Parent ]
He's a Democrat (0.00 / 0)
or a DINO. Half the Senators are Democrats.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Anyway (0.00 / 0)
Clinton has the highest lifetime progressive rating of Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

So she should be President.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
you mean free-traders, right? (0.00 / 0)
What's the problem with fair-traders?
[ Parent ]
That's what he meant (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
American politics: incredibly important questions resolved by the stupidest, most superficial process imaginable. (4.00 / 4)
I'm not just speaking of this particular two-day Clinton bounce.

For the entire year-long primary of 2007, stupid superficial crap have been the main events.

The "Hillary faltering" narrative that the press pulled out of their ass around Labor Day, assisted only by 1) Clinton's answer to a question about driver's licenses for illegals and 2) her mistake in sending the "Politics of Pile-on" press release.

I wasn't terribly impressed by the substantive heft of Obama's key argument, but given how much it increased turnout and among which generations, and how much the press seemed to love it, I kept my mouth shut.

In 2006, all kinds of stupid shit threw elections.  The Mark Foley extravaganza for starters.

The mere fact that 30-sec ads are considered not only effective, but one of the fundamental units of the campaign, annoys me.

2004, 2002, 2000.  2000 was especially bad.

I mostly think it's a problem with television.  The behavior of the press doesn't help much.  But something is wrong with the way American politics is contested, because these are mega-important issues at stake, and the skirmishes that determine who gets to be in charge are almost all pretty vapid.

Sorry, I'm too irritated to make a coherent argument at the moment.

Hey.... (0.00 / 0)

.................I thought that pretty coherent. But then I'm not popular so you might want to keep this under yer hat!

On to Nevada!

YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwww!

But remember folks, 'Yer politics has conseequences'

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
It's an old phenomenon (0.00 / 0)
This goes way back before 2000.  It hasn't been Lincoln-Douglas for a long long time. 

And in a world of billions of people, i dont' think that's coming back. 

[ Parent ]
They Didn't Have American Idol Back Then (4.00 / 2)
Or, rather, Lincoln/Douglass was American Idol.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Lincoln vs. Douglas was about.... (0.00 / 0)

.............slavery after all. An issue the importance of which was perhaps a little easier to grasp than how much Edward's haircut cost or whether The Hill's tears were real.

Not to worry as the environment loses it's ability to support anywhere near the number of folks now alive we'll get back to the 'good old days' when one Senator beat another's head in with his cane on the Senate floor in a disagreement over 'Free States'.

Hell, might even happen when gas hits $10.00/gal and President Clinton goes on TeeBee and declares that she's 'fighting for us all.'

The Sheeple are waking up and seem kinda grumpy. If a million sheep ran over your ass.....

You'd feel it.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
One interesting (4.00 / 1)
set of numbers from the exit polling is Clinton beats Obama on experience 71% to 5%.  Depending on how many people voted on experience, that may be telling.
it's certainly not a magic bullet or anything. (0.00 / 0)
But it shouldn't be ignored, they vote on electronic voting machines in New Hampshire don't they.

The exit polls were way off in 2004 too.

-C.

field (4.00 / 2)
Clinton had really, really solid field in NH. Clearly Obama had good field in NH as well, but I think it was Karen Hicks' deep field preparation, and absentee program, that pulled this off. That and a truly tough, hard-working candidate.
My Pet Theory (4.00 / 1)
There's a pretty consistent pattern, in Democratic primaries at least, of voters backing away from the frontrunner just when it seems he's invincible. See Jerry Brown beating Clinton in Connecticut a week after the Illinois/Michigan primaries or Kennedy's landslide over Carter in New York in 1980. Even in '04, which everyone remembers as a complete Kerry wave from Iowa forward, Edwards came surprisingly close in Wisconsin a few weeks before Super Tuesday. I'll point out that none of these victories/near-victories, like Clinton's tonight, were at all predicted in the polls.

So my theory is that the accelerated schedule of the primaries has produced an acceleration of the anti-frontrunner movement (early "buyer's remorse") that fladem has alluded to elsewhere. That's especially true when Iowa, post-'04, has been cast as The One That Decides It All. In an ironic way, Obama was probably hurt by the five-day gap between IA & NH and the assumption that he would seal the nomination with a win here.

I think that's a really good analysis, (0.00 / 0)
plus, I have a theory that New Hampshire residents have lingering resentments that Iowa has shoved in first in the process, giving them subliminal motives to contradict what Iowans have voted for.  I also think it's fairly obvious that the weather played a large part.

The most perplexing thing about all this is that both Iowa and NH are open processes, meaning non-Democrats can vote in the Democratic process.  I don't see why that's not illegal, and I really think the party should contest the state laws that mandate it, in court.  Meanwhile, there is no knowing what the motives of Indys and Repigs are in voting in the Democratic Primary, but you can bet there is a certain amount of intentional chaos fostering involved.  I know some people who change their party affiliation back and forth in order to vote for the candidate of the party they actually don't favor, just to tilt that party in the direction of weakness. That's in a closed primary state, of course, so probably even more of that is going on in the open process states.

[ Parent ]
My theory as a mother and Clinton supporter (3.00 / 4)
Democratic women to Obama supporters (many of whom are college kids who bring home their laundry from college): "Iron your own f---ing shirts; then talk about 'change'!"

It wasn't the "tears", it was the misogyny.

Hold up (0.00 / 0)
What on earth does Obama have to do with any of that?
[ Parent ]
No connection (0.00 / 0)
besides the purely factless.

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...
[ Parent ]
So we are going ...... (0.00 / 0)
to attack young people because some old white guys were holding up misogynist signs?  Talk about eating our young.

As a hardcore feminist, I am really getting sick of the whole "if you don't vote for Clinton, you're a traitor".  The best thing women can do is become informed. 

Our corporate-run society is what needs to be attacked and dismantled.  That in itself would hugely effect how we treat women as a society.  Clinton is big business elite.

Why is no one offended by how we are talking about the youth (teenyboppers, uninformed, naive)?  I don't understand how you can fight for equal rights and yet attack college age people. 

Maybe they threaten you, but it is still horrible.

And yes I am a mother....and I think no one should iron f---cking clothes, its a waste of time (how subversive is that?)

[ Parent ]
Now... (0.00 / 0)
Weren't the last-minute, late-to-the-game voter preferences in NH hyped all along? I'm an Obama guy, but I honestly could see  the polls being wrong, not THIS wrong for sure, but I thought the win would be much more narrow than in Iowa. I had thought that part of the point in having NH vote now was because stuff like this could happen. I guess the system works.

To those who feel good because now there is "no coronation", I only wonder where you were when Obama won Iowa and the "inevitable" candidate was third. Hmmm.

For those Edwards supporters, this has to be GREAT news. The field is wide open, they're close in numbers of delegates, and hopefully for them this would dispirit some about Obama's campaign, possibly killing it altogether.

I think the Obama speech was great tonight, but his campaign has more work to do to bring out independents and try to talk to women about important woman-specific issues. I've seen him talk about these issues with clarity and so I know he can. He just needs to get to it. Also, the debates are tough on him. He, not unlike HRC or Edwards, was tired, but only he seemed to show it. I thought he swore off extraneous debates so he would be rested for these? Oh well, Barack needs to be well-rested and bring passion to the debates.

I also think Brother Barack can make contrasts with Sens. Clinton and Edwards, if he will just engage them. I tire of seeing him sometimes go after them for their votes and sometimes just stand back and do the ole' Rope-a-Dope. It's annoying and offputting. He can push Hillary and John without being unpleasant, and I think if he tries, he'll win more Dems.

Clinton dropped a mailer on choice (4.00 / 1)
the weekend before the election, claiming without much in the way of facts that Obama was not to be trusted to keep abortions legal (manufactured from those "present" votes in Illinois).  It was truly disingenuous.  I believe the media misogyny backlash had an impact to a certain extent, but let's also include this very ugly, scaremongering mailer into the mix.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.
Clinton's win: Absentee ballots, lying white voters, TMI (0.00 / 0)
I think Clinton's win was due to
(in order of relative importance on her making up the deficit)
3: absentee ballots (some fraction of voters had voted for Clinton when he NH lead was huge prior to the Obama bounce from Iowa)
2: Lying white voters telling polllsters they would vote for Obama and then not being able to do it when they got to the polling booth. Heck, they even lied when they came out of the booth! (exit polls put the vote split at 39-39--Obama got 2 percentage points less--that's your lying deficit)
1: Too Much (Polling) Info: all the polls saying that Clinton was going to lose big made NH voters (especially women and white voters) who would have voted for Obama decide that they could risk voting for Hillary. I think if we lived in a country(i.e. France) where publication of polling data within 72 hours of the election is illegal, Obama would have won.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Mad Professah Lectures
Liking both clinton and Obama (0.00 / 0)
I think it is that most people voting like both clinton and Obama and thus a decision between them is easily switched. 

Probably the best narrative that Obama could pick would be the lying white voter.  If that becomes dominant I'd expect momentum to turn back to Obama the way the media tearing into clinton helped her.

That being said Obama took a gamble on pulling out of Michigan and it will be interesting to see how that plays out. 

Bradley effect (0.00 / 0)
There is not much evidence for that, after all Edwards is the one who lost support compared to polling. Undecideds from the final polls broke for Clinton.

But regardless calling NH Democrats racist is not going to help Obama.

[ Parent ]
Another theory (4.00 / 1)
Off of firedoglake

There could be many explanations for this, but Obama held his women voters -- Clinton took them from Edwards. Did his pivot against her during the last debate and his comments yesterday contribute to what happened?

This makes a lot of sense to me.  Edwards was really being an asshole in the NH debate and afterwords and he pissed me off quite a bit.

If I was choosing between Edwards and Clinton theres no doubt that I would have switched away from him after that.

See also (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Nixon??? (0.00 / 0)
Hearing Hillary's victory speech in NH I am struck by the populism found in it. I could hear echoes of Nixon's Silent Mayority in the Invisible Americans she mentioned time and again. I'm not making a negative comparison on her ethics... just commenting on her appeal and message, against elites, and they both have a kind of a persistence that kind of ticks some people off.
fladem How about (0.00 / 0)
that Iowa bounce and all those years of analysis you were bragging about last week?  :-)
ARG poll versus exit poll (0.00 / 0)
As I discuss in a diary, here are some cross-tabs that might illuminate some of Chris's possible explanations.

  . . . . . .  ARG  . .  Exit Poll
  . . . .  HRC BO  . HRC BO  .  Diff
Men . . .25  44  29  40  -19->-11
Women 35  37  46  34  -2 -> 12
Dem . . .34  37  45  34  -3  -> 12
Indep . . 25  44  31  41  -19->-10

Clinton did much better with women and Democrats than expected. But interestingly, Obama didn't drop that severely -- rather, Clinton's boost seems to have come at the expense of other candidates.  Also interesting, ARG's likely voters were broken down as 63% Dem, 37% Indep, whereas the actual voter breakdown was 54% - 44%.  So although Obama didn't do as well with independents as predicted, there were more independents to ameliorate that.

The pollsters may have gotten the demographic distribution of their polls wrong too, but even if they had gotten that totally right, the error in measuring the (ultimate) preferences of women and Democrats is enough to mostly explain the mis-prediction of the outcome.

(More in the diary; the diaries, by the way, seem a bit moribund compared to the fpp's, perhaps due to repeating the fpp's in the "Featured" section...)

Clinton Wins New Hampshire | 122 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox