Open Left - New Hampshire

(NH) Bob Sununu - Bush's man from New Hampshire

NoThirdBushTerm — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:43:45 GMT

We should not send Bob Sununu back to Washington. Schaffer has blindly supported the failed Bush economic doctrine of tax breaks for Wall Street, and reckless deregulation that has gotten us into our current mess.

Bob has done a "heckuva" job at taking care of Wall Street, while neglecting Main Street. He's also voted with Bush 90% of the time. How many times has he voted with the citizens of New Hampshire?

New Hampshire's main streets need a friend in Washington, but it's not Bob Sununu.

Wednesday Evening Round-up Thread

Chris Bowers — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:27:06 GMT

Here are a few items for a fine Wednesday evening:

Two new national polls, from NBC and CBS, both show Obama up by 3%, down from 6% in both a couple weeks ago. Obama continues to lead, but McCain continues to catch up.
Obama likes single payer health care:
"If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system," Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

That's cool. Although, I do wonder about single payer sometimes. I mean, France isn't single payer, and they have just about the best system in the world (not to mention a lot of private, supplemental insurance), so it isn't exactly the end-all, be-all of good health care systems.
McCain agrees with the draft:
QUESTIONER: If we don't reenact the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

[Appaluse]

MCCAIN: Ma'am, let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said.

No matter the context, a competent, properly vicious, attack minded Democratic campaign would go after McCain hard for this.
Speaking of attacks, during the Democratic national convention, just about every speaker should mercilessly attack Republicans for their convention themes: peace, prosperity and reform. That is just bald face lying, and it needs to be called such. It needs that these are the three things that have been most lacking under Republican governance. Republicans brought us nothing but war, corruption, and an erosion of our national wealth. And, to boot, they continue to lie about it, by claiming they are bringing the opposite. During the convention, Democrats must hammer this home by directly, repeatedly attacking Republicans for their convention themes. Do it.
A new poll in North Carolina shows McCain ahead 44.5%--42.8%, while a new poll in New Hampshire shows Obama ahead 47%-46%. Pollster.com shows both states slightly less competitive than do these polls, although they are undoubtedly among the thirteen swing states according to my Presidential forecast.
I have been very spotty on checking my email over the last few days. I just don't want to do it all the time anymore. Weren't there times in our lives when people would call other people if they had something important to say to them? Now, I get hundreds of emails a day, most of them I either don't want to read because they are press releases and email list discussions, or because it is just piling another hour or more onto my workday. Email has become an omnipresent source of work related stress-you are never done or free from work, because you have to check your email. Aarrggghhhh. It just never ends, and I need a breather.

This is an open thread. What are you thinking, reading, or doing tonight?

Who Votes in 2008: Four Voting Rights Issues to Watch

project vote — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:16:28 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

The debates surrounding the issue of expanding or restricting access to the right to vote are in high gear this legislative session at both state and Congressional levels. Bills filed range from proposals to lower the voting age to voter ID requirements. Project Vote's Election Legislation monitoring project has identified a surge of contentious election bills this year, but whether this is simply the result of the standard impact of a presidential election year or the byproduct of increasingly fractious partisan politics, the future of the foundational right of American democracy is being set right now.

This week Project Vote examines the progress of four hot-button voting rights issues through legislatures and the media. Youth voting in primary elections, voter identification (and its harbinger; accusations of voter fraud), felon disenfranchisement, and vote caging were all in play.

Advocates concerned with any of these issues as well as the entire spectrum of voting rights and election administration legislation can follow the progress of these types of bills through 21 state legislatures at Project Vote's ElectionLegislation.org tool (registration required).
YOUTH VOTING IN PRIMARIES
Extending voting rights to 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the general election has been the subject of numerous election bills across the nation. On Tuesday, a New Hampshire bill that allows 17-year-olds to vote in state and federal primaries "ran into a flurry of questions about it's constitutionality," according to the New Hampshire Union Leader. The debate was heated enough to consider seeking an advisory opinion from the state Supreme Court before the going to the full House. Opponents of the bill argue that a primary is not an election under state law, but supporters say this is the perfect measure to "get voters involved when they are young."

Currently, 11 states allow citizens under 18 to vote, according to state Legislative Youth Advisory Council co-chair, Brendan Bertagnoll. Among these states, he said, voter participation by young voters ages 18-24 exceeds the national average. That argument failed to sway Wisconsin legislators who voted a similar bill down in the state Senate last week.

VOTER ID

Also recently failing in the Wisconsin legislature were four bills relating to restrictive voter identification requirements at the polls. Even as the constitutionality of voter ID requirements is being examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board, several states are pushing to pass such laws, which have a disenfranchising effect on low income, minority, elderly and young voters. Most observers expect the Supreme Court to uphold Crawford, so these types of bills will almost certainly pass constitutional muster, increasing the danger they pose to the ability of underrepresented groups to fully participate in America's electoral process.

After failing to pass any of the six voter ID bills introduced in the Legislature this year and weeks past the filing deadline for new bills, the Mississippi Senate has tried an extraordinary parliamentary tactic to win voter ID restrictions. It approved a resolution "that would allow a new bill to be filed for voter identification and other election issues," according to the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. The resolution, SCR 624, must be approved by two-thirds of the House before the new voter ID bill can be filed. If the resolution passes, it will call for the requirement of voters to provide certain ID "before being allowed to vote." Only voters born on or before June 30, 1944, who do not have valid Miss. ID, are exempt from the requirement.

FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT

The resolution is a disenfranchising double whammy as it also proposes to expand the list of crimes that result in the loss of voting rights to those citizens convicted of "any felony," not just the crimes currently outlined in law.

VOTER FRAUD
The (non-existent) specter of felons, non-citizens, and voter impersonators illegally voting at the polls in droves has long been pushed by partisans seeking electoral advantage. This week, in a "hoisted by your own petard" story, AlterNet's Steven Rosenfeld (quoting Project Vote Deputy Director Michael Slater) reported on conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh's potential voter fraud scheme in Ohio and Texas. "For years, Republicans have literally made a federal case of voter fraud," he wrote. "The Bush Justice Department fired U.S. attorneys who would not prosecute cases of people who GOP politicos believed were impersonating voters to help Democratic candidates." Now, it appears, Rush, allegedly, may have been committing fraud himself.

VOTER CAGING
Partisan politics and voter suppression are an undercurrent in large-scale challenges of voters, especially 'voter caging' - an issue U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) addresses in a new bill. "Caging is the term applied to wholesale voter challenge activity, directed at discrete populations of voters, usually consisting of the poor, the minority or students," election law expert, Bob Bauer recently wrote on his website, www.MoreSoftMoneyHardLaw, regarding a Politico piece on the subject. Whitehouse's bill regulates "caging" practices by requiring verifiable proof of a voter's ineligibility before "making a blanket claim about the supposed ineligibility of a large group of voters."

Project Vote believes that a strong democracy must represent all its citizens - or some groups will have a disproportionate impact on the public policy choices facing the nation. When considering bills that affect the electoral process, legislators must consider whether their choices will expand the ability of all citizens to participate in the process or whether their choices will create barriers and restrictions in accessing the ballot box. Strong protections for voting rights coupled with clear, coherent, and transparent election administration procedures are the minimum requirements for an America that consistently lives up to its democratic promise. The activities in state legislatures and the Congress in the run-up to the 2008 general election will help determine how close we come to that ideal.

Quick Links:
Contact
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Miss. Sen. Terry Burton (R-Newton)
N.H. Sen. Joseph Foster (D-Nashua)
Reports
Restrictive Voter ID Requirements. Project Vote.
Restoring Voting Rights to Former Felons. Project Vote.
The Politics of Voter Fraud. Project Vote.
Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters. Project Vote.
Websites
ElectionLegislation.org
Young Voter Strategies

In Other News:

Floridians who register as new voters must properly complete an application 29 days before an election to qualify to vote, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. More of this Miami Herald story here.

COLUMBUS - Amid voting machine uncertainty, Ohio's elections chief wants a fraction of the state's Democratic and Republican presidential primary vote recounted. More of this Associated Press story here.

New Jersey is finally coming up to speed on a 15-year-old law aimed at making sure every licensed driver is also a registered voter. More of this AP story here.

Raleigh, N.C. - A company that claims to take a hassle out of registering to vote is under scrutiny from state officials. More of this WRAL.com story here.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

It Worked Out Just As Planned (Almost)

Chris Bowers — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:30:00 GMT

I don't entirely trust poblano over at Daily Kos, because the way s/he uses numbers sometimes reminds me as much of a partisan as it does of an electoral analyst. However, I still think poblano put together an incredibly salient bit of analysis on the composition of the Obama coalition this season:

What follows is a multiple regression analysis that attempts to predict a candidate's 2008 vote share based on the 2004 vote shares of candidates in the same city. I've run the regression on all New Hampshire towns that had at least 100 Democratic voters in 2008, weighting larger towns more heavily.

This regression produces a number of coefficients that represent how much support was transferred from one candidate to another. For example, if the coefficient between John Kerry and Hillary Clinton is .73, that means that for every percentage point that Kerry had in a district in 2004, Hillary tended to pick up .73 percentage points in 2008.(...)

Liberman
.66 Clinton
.15 Obama
.05 Richardson
-.16 Edwards

It might also be helpful to turn these numbers around and look at where each of the '08 candidates' support is coming from.(...)

Obama
.93 Dean
.45 Clark
.38 Edwards '04
.15 Lieberman
.09 Kerry

Poblano's analysis means that Barack Obama is winning virtually all Dean voters from 2004, and a plurality of Clark voters from 2004. In other words, Barack Obama has combined the coalitions of the two main netroots fueled candidates in 2004. It certainly shows, too, given that Obama has raised more money from small donors than Dean and Clark combined from four years ago, and that he is drawing crowds even larger than the ones for Dean that caused the media to ooo and aaahhh four years ago.

So, let's see here: a campaign that uses extensive internet organizing, huge campaign rallies, heavy youth and creative class support, a record breaking number of small donors, a fulfilled promise of record turnout, and combination of Dean and Clark voters to force the best possible candidate the Democratic establishment could offer down to the wire?. Correct me if I am wrong, but in terms of structure, that seems to be exactly what the emergence of the progressive blogosphere suggested could happen in a Democratic Presidential primary in 2004. Just because the campaign in question was not, seemingly, single-handedly plucked from relative obscurity by a few prominent bloggers does not mean the Obama campaign is not using the exact same energy and exact same new, political trajectory that the blogosphere was riding back in 2003-2004.

Barack Obama's campaign is the manifestation of the contemporary progressive movement after it exploded from its original early adaptors and disseminated widely into American culture at large. What Obama is doing would simply not be possible without the explosion of new progressive activism that started in the late 1990's with such seemingly disparate events as the founding of MoveOn.org, the Seattle WTO protests, and the multiple outrages over the 2000 Presidential election. Hell, no matter the problems we have with him at different time, Obama was really the first netroots candidate to be elected to the Senate. In Chicago in early 2004, I saw him use the Dean coalition plus African-Americans (and a colossal, timely, flame-out by a self-funded front-runner) to win his Senate primary. Obama was also the only top-tier candidate who opposed the war from the start this time around, and I don't think you will find Obama's campaign is to the right of Dean's on pretty much anything.

It feels like the butterfly effect, the Frankenstein monster, or some sort of self-mutating computer virus. The political zeitgeist that the progressive blogosphere first seized upon five or six years ago was released into the population at large and came back, unexpectedly, as the Barack Obama campaign. That energy certainly didn't turn out with the same rhetorical approach it started with, but otherwise it is nearly structurally identical. In other words, the whole people-powered thing turned out exactly the way we planned it would, only that it sounds a little different. It is like a bunch of loose molecules forming a cloud, once the energy that started almost ten years ago grew, it took on a like of its own, reached a critical mass, and seized onto the first available nucleus. Soon enough, we will find out whether that could covers the Democratic Party in a flood.

Intra-Party Coalition Questions

Chris Bowers — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:55:10 GMT

Looking at exit polls from Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, I am left with several questions about the coalition many of the candidates seem to be building:

In all three states, Clinton lost the under 40 vote, but won the over 60 vote. Considering the amounts involved in these swings, sometimes as much as 30%, age is shaping up to be an even bigger divide in the Democratic primary than gender. Why do older and younger Democrats have such sharply divided preferences of Clinton and Obama?
In all three states, McCain has done better with voters who say they are either "dissatisfied" or "angry" with the Bush administration. He has lost those who are "satisfied" or "enthusiastic" with the Bush administration in all three states. If McCain has really made his comeback on the surge, then why are his voters so unhappy with Bush? Also, he has also virtually swept newspaper endorsements. Would McCain have any chance at all without the established media?
Ron Paul does much better among younger voters, and among those who are "angry" with the Bush administration. In fact, if you are a young Republican who is "angry" with the Bush administration, you seem almost guaranteed to be a Ron Paul supporter. Is there a new generation of Republicans coming through the ranks that is very different from the current generation?
There does not appear to be any divide in the Democratic primary between union members and non-union members. As such, do union endorsements mean anything outside of the resources they provide for campaigns?
There is simultaneously an income gap, education gap, and race gap in the Democratic primary. Lower income, lower education voters prefer Clinton, while African-American voters prefer Obama. This means that Clinton is really racking it up among low-income, working class whites. Why is this, and why isn't Edwards doing better among this group?

Anyway, I have to run, but these and other questions about the emerging coalitions in the primary are very interesting. A lengthy primary campaign should provide us with continuing insights to the intra-party coalitions for both Democrats and Republicans, something we have lacked for quite some time the recent string of primary season blowouts.

Why Did Obama's Progressive Coalition Fall Apart from Iowa to New Hampshire?

Matt Stoller — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:49:00 GMT

If you compare Obama's victory in Iowa with his loss in New Hampshire, the story by the numbers is pretty simple. In New Hampshire, Obama tied Clinton among the very liberal, and lost the somewhat liberal, the moderate, and the somewhat conservative groups by 1-2%. That is within the margin of error for all groups. In Iowa, Obama tied Clinton among conservatives, beat her by 2% among moderates (within the margin of error), beat her among 'somewhat liberals' by 11% and crushed her among the very liberal by 16%. This tracks the angry with Bush block that Obama lost from the Iowa to New Hampshire, as angry with Bush voters are probably more liberal than not.

And now, Chris isomewhat despondent that voters are choosing candidates based on identity and not issues. I think though that what has happened is not that identity is paramount, but that ethnic identity and not ideological identity has become paramount. To some extent you can't disentangle these, but if you look at what happened from Iowa to New Hampshire, it's clear that the contest is not between ethnic groups but between competing identities among voting blocks themselves. If the contest is ideological, Obama wins. If it is based on ethnicity and gender, Clinton has a bigger coalition.

The exit polling in New Hampshire on Iraq war is clear proof that substantive distinctions on major issues isn't how the electorate in the traditional coalition blocks are making decisions. Those who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq went for Clinton, while those who want to keep troops in Iraq or to bring them home gradually went for Obama (or to a lesser extent, Edwards). Not only has Clinton not paid for her vote on Iraq and her generally hawkish posture, but Democrats actually think she is the most liberal on Iraq. This is precisely the opposite of what elites like Matthew Yglesias believe. This misinformation also clearly breaks Obama's ideologically victorious Iowa coalition into pieces Clinton can pick off.

Clinton is framing the electorate right now, and Obama is letting her. With attack dog Bill Clinton casting doubt on Obama's position on Iraq using his enormous megaphone, and Obama running commercials on his mother's experience in the health care system and his position on fuel efficiency, why shouldn't they believe that Clinton is the most progressive on Iraq? And Iraq just isn't a very serious point of contention in the race, even though it is a top issue for voters. This blurring of issues, in fact, the irrelevance of issues, is by design. The person who is running Obama's race doesn't believe in ideological campaigns.

Axelrod's is a less grand, postideological approach, and his campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate's life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity. It is also, more and more, the way of the Democratic Party. Its 2006 Congressional campaign strategy - run by Axelrod's close friend Emanuel, with the Chicago consultant acting as principal sounding board - did not depend on any great idea of where the party ought to go, like the last political cataclysm, Newt Gingrich's 1994 House "revolution." As they have reclaimed power, the Democrats have done so not by moving appreciably to the left or the right; rather, they have done so by allowing their candidates to move in both directions at once. "What David is basically doing - and this is somewhat new for Democrats - isn't trying to figure out how to sell policies," says the Democratic media consultant Saul Shorr. "It's a matter of personality. How do we sell leadership?"

Rahm Emanuel's strategy for 2006 kept Iraq off the table until the Lieberman primary loss, though to his credit he offered a good amount of flexibility to candidates. Axelrod makes his campaigns tests of personality, and eschews ideology. That's why he's trying to piece together a clump of ethnic groups to bring Obama over the finish line, using a postpartisan message about hope.

The problem that Chris alluded to is that the math doesn't favor Obama in this context. Right now, a coalition of older, female, and low income voters beats a coalition of African-American, young, secular, and high education voters, at least on a national level. But somehow Obama broke up this coalition in Iowa, so obviously it's possible to get around ethnic/gender based identity politics. Or rather, somehow it's possible to craft a different sort of identity politics.

After all, identity is very complicated, and people have multiple overlapping identities. Political scientists influenced by behavioral economics, like Ian S. Lustick, reflect this in their studies of ethnicity.

Regardless of how we approach the problem of studying ethnic identity and its political meanings, we can begin by assuming we each approach the topic constructivistically. From this position, identities at both the individual and collective levels are ultimately fluid, chosen, instrumentalizable, responsive to change in relevant incentive structures, and liable to be manipulated by cultural or political entrepreneurs.

Obama was a cultural and political entrepreneur in Iowa, but somehow the older incentive structure has reasserted itself. Perhaps this quote from a voter explains what happened in New Hampshire

"But in the end, she was the one bringing up the real issues about the middle class like college loans. His speeches felt like pep rallies."

It's not that Clinton has an inviolable lock on old people, women, or low income voters, just as Obama doesn't have a lock on young people, seculars, or the highly educated. As long as the categories are sliced this way, though, Clinton will win. If you sliced it along ideological lines, 56% of the voting universe in New Hampshire is liberal whereas 36% is moderate. There are other starker differences; 78% of New Hampshire voters see global warming as an urgent problem, 21% see it as a long-term problem. And on Iraq, 94% of voters want to see troops withdrawn either ASAP or gradually, versus 5% who want to keep troops in country.

I don't really know what kind of strategy would work for Obama, and maybe his current postpartisan pattern is enough. I worry though that it is leading him down a path on which he has a disadvantage. I also wonder how he was able to break up the older coalition in Iowa and what identity groupings he was able to form that are now in tatters. Obama's strategy is set, he's not going to run an ideological campaign. But he was able to run one in Iowa, and progressive candidates (ie. future Ned Lamont's) are going to have to replicate what he did there.

Identity Over Issues

Chris Bowers — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:20:18 GMT

In the New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls, 44% of voters who said that the economy was their top issue voted for Hillary Clinton. Also, 44% of voters who listed Iraq as their top issue voted for Obama. Leaving aside the 5% or primary voters who indicated that they wanted to keep troops in Iraq, the following factors were all more determinative of someone's vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary than any of the candidate's position on any issue:

60% of those under 25 years of age voted for Obama
52% of Christians who are neither Catholic nor Protestant voted for Clinton
51% of unmarried women voted for Clinton
50% of unmarried men voted for Obama
50% of those making less than $30K a year voted for Clinton
48% of those over 65 years of age voted for Clinton
48% of those who did not attend college voted for Clinton
46% of women voted for Clinton
45% of seculars voted for Obama

Age, gender, marital status, income, and education were all more determinative of how someone voted in New Hampshire than any issue. In other words, the New Hampshire primary, just like the Iowa caucuses before it, was determined by identity, not issues. Sure, 58% of those vote took the exit poll claimed that issues were more important to them than personal qualities, but the other exit poll numbers show otherwise. People want to think that they are voting on issues, but in reality most of them are not.

Now, I have been writing about the intersection between identity politics and elections for three years. In fact, it is one of my most frequent topics of discussion, as a glance at the demographics archive of both Open Left and MyDD will demonstrate. However, I admit that most of this discussion has been triumphalist, in that I argue demographic trends point to a nearly inevitable Democratic dominance over Republicans, and to a nearly inevitable progressive dominance over centrists in the Democratic Party. What I wasn't prepared for was to face electoral defeat in the Democratic primaries as a result of the identity scales tipping against my favorite candidates.

The problem I face is that it now seems to me that Clinton is positioned for victory in the Democratic primary because, as it is presently constructed, the identity politics coalitions within the Democratic primary electorate favor her. She has women, older voters, and lower income voters who are not African-American. Even though I had assumed otherwise, right now, it seems like that coalition can win a national Democratic primary against a coalition of African-Americans, young voters, seculars, and high education voters. As someone who falls primarily within the latter coalition, I admit it doesn't feel good when the identity politics are stacked against you. To put it a different way, I actually write about identity politics all the time, I just don't like when I am on the losing end of elections based on identity politics (which is, actually, almost all elections).

I don't hate identity politics, as I see it as an unavoidable factor in the American political system. If you want to play in American politics, you better be willing to play in identity politics. Granted, as we have seen in numerous recent remarks from the Clinton and Obama campaigns, it also isn't the most edifying form of discussion around. I left academia because, after several years, it seemed like a series of incredibly smart, stimulating discussions about issues that weren't really that important. Unfortunately, at least partially due to the dominance of identity politics, I have found being a political professional to be exactly the opposite: a series of pretty stupid arguments about incredibly important issues. But there is no way to avoid it, and if you want to play in American politics, you better be prepared to play in identity politics. Identity is far more determinative of ideological and partisan tendencies than any "issue" could ever be. This even goes for dominant issues like Iraq.

Whoever wins this nomination will ultimately do so because s/he put together a larger, identity-based coalition. I wish that weren't the case, but I don't think there is a way to avoid it. If you support a candidate, and want to help him or her win the nomination, you would be wise to start thinking of ways to effectively connect that candidate to the identities of those voters with whom you come into contact. As far as I can tell, on both a micro and macro level, that is the key to the nomination.

Or, Maybe Primary Polls Just Suck

Chris Bowers — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:44:04 GMT

Final seven-poll New Hampshire average in 2000 (results in parenthesis):

McCain: 40.3% (48.5%)
Bush: 31.7% (30.3%)

Gore: 51.1% (49.7%)
Bradley: 41.9% (45.6%)

Eight years ago, the final polls were off by 9.6% in the Republican campaign, and 5.1% in the Democratic campaign. That is about as bad as the polls performed this time around. As the National Council on Public Polls wrote eight years ago:

Once again the polls published before the New Hampshire primary demonstrated the difficulty of forecasting a primary. For most of his career George Gallup shunned pre-primary polling. Wise man! The problems are almost insurmountable.

Mystery Pollster has more on how large polling error of this sort is not unprecedented, especially in the New Hampshire primary. Really, with the myriad of explanations flying around as to why the polls were wrong, including my own explanations, perhaps the simplest reason is the correct one: it is just as difficult to poll primaries as it ever was. Primaries are much more difficult to poll than general elections for many reasons, and as time goes on we don't appear any closer to solving the problems associated with polling primaries.

Race Taking Center Stage In Democratic Primary

Chris Bowers — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:59:21 GMT

So far in the blogosphere, opinion on whether or not a Bradley / Wilder effect n New Hampshire contributed to Clinton's victory seems drawn along racial lines. Yglesias and Digby don't think so, or at least hope it didn't play a role. Among African-American bloggers such as Jack and Jill Politics, Field Negro and Skeptical Brotha, the Bradley effect is cited as one of the major reasons, if not the major reason, for Obama's defeat. I'm still undecided on the matter, but I lean toward a mushy middle position of a mild Bradley / Wilder effect, that was a partial cause but not a majority cause for Clinton's victory. I offered a thorough breakdown of what the causes of the polling to results gap in an article yesterday.

No matter what was the actual cause, it is probably accurate to say that African-Americans are more likely than whites to think that white voters lied about supporting Obama in New Hampshire. There has been long-standing semi-anecdotal, focus group evidence that African-Americans were more concerned than whites about white Democrats nominating Obama. Also, to no one's surprise African-Americans do perceive greater racism in America than do whites, as its easier to pick up such things when you are on the business end of them. My question in this post is not to definitely determine whether or not there was a Bradley effect in New Hampshire, but to ask if the perception of such an effect will help or hurt Obama as the primary season moves forward.

On the one hand, the perception of a Bradley effect could have a demoralizing impact on the African-American vote for Obama, which would obviously be a negative for his campaign, for the Democratic Party in general, and for the African-American community. On the other hand, it could solidify African-American support for Obama, and spur on even more African-American activist for Obama, due to a perception that more work and organization will be needed in order to overcome white racism in the primary season. I honestly have no idea which scenario is more likely. In Survey USA polls of South Carolina before and after Iowa, Obama gained 26 points among African-Americans, and 19 points among whites. He can still win narrowly South Carolina even without the boost he received from white voters, but he probably can't win South Carolina without the boost he received from African-American voters. So, this is a very important question for the Democratic nomination season.

No matter what happens, as Jack and Jill politics predicted, race will take center stage in the Democratic primary in a way it hasn't in the past year. Recent comments by Andrew Cuomo, Stuart Rothenberg, and Jesse Jackson Jr. are a testament to this. The specific impact it will have on the overall campaign remains to be seen.

Yes. We. Can.

Populista — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:24:36 GMT

When I came home to see OBAMA WINS IOWA on my hotel TV screen I started for the first time in my young life to feel hope. I was desperately hoping for it, I even thought it would happen. But deep inside I never really expected it too. Over the next few days I basked in the victory and relished the increasingly likely possibility that Obama would cruise to the nomination. Then their was New Hampshire. Again I was not prepared for the outcome. I was crushed. How could New Hampshire, the state that seemed to be Obama's base, hand him the loss? I just didn't know how it could have happened. I didn't know what to do or what to think.

Then Barack Obama took the stage.

In that speech he articulated a powerful vision for the future. He called for a New American Majority in his speech.

You can be the new majority who can lead this nation out of a long
political darkness - Democrats, Independents and Republicans who are
tired of the division and distraction that has clouded Washington; who
know that we can disagree without being disagreeable; who understand
that if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence
that's stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something
better, there's no problem we can't solve - no destiny we cannot
fulfill.

And what will that great new majority do?

Our new American majority can end the outrage of unaffordable,
unavailable health care in our time. We can bring doctors and
patients; workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together;
and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that while they'll get
a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair. Not this
time. Not now.
Our new majority can end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our
jobs overseas and put a middle-class tax cut into the pockets of the
working Americans who deserve it.
We can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame
and start putting them on a pathway to success. We can stop talking
about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their
greatness. We can do this with our new majority.
We can harness the ingenuity of farmers and scientists; citizens and
entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil and save our
planet from a point of no return.
And when I am President, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our
troops home; we will finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan;
we will care for our veterans; we will restore our moral standing in
the world; and we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes,
because it is not a tactic to win an election, it is a challenge that
should unite America and the world against the common threats of the
twenty-first century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change
and poverty; genocide and disease.

And then he admitted

All of the candidates in this race share these goals. All have good
ideas. And all are patriots who serve this country honorably.

But that's all normal stump speech right? Next he started talking about what differentiates him. It's his message. Yes we can. Steve Rosenfeld of Alternet wrote about this powerful message on the day of the primary.

Basically, the other candidates are all saying, "I will do this," "I will do that," "I will be there in this way for you," as they recite the fine print of issues to show what they would do as president. Indeed, most of the horserace coverage from this and other debates is on the points scored by the candidates as they joust on this wavelength.
Obama, on the other hand, is not emphasizing the "I" pronoun. He is all about we and you. "We can do this." "We can do that." "If we come together, we can achieve ..." The former grass-roots organizer is making his candidacy inclusive. Obama is asking people to join him, implying that he will listen, hear them and include them in solutions that rely on the best in them and in society, not the worst.

Progressive messaging wizard George Lakoff also offered his take.

"In the brain, there are two pathways for emotions," Lakoff said, offering an explanation for Obama's charisma. "There is a negative one for fear and anger. And there is a positive one. What Obama does and Reagan did was activate the positive pathways. George Bush activates the negative ones. Obama is activating the positive ones. He makes people feel physically good just by looking at him. The guy looks upbeat. He looks relaxed. You look at him and you feel upbeat, you feel relaxed. He feels empowered. You feel empowered. That's charisma."

That's a mighty strong message and I think it's a big reason people are drawn to him. He closed the speech with that powerful message.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been
anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible
odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't
try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a
simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.
Yes we can.
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the
destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail
toward freedom through the darkest of nights.
Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and
pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the
ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and
prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this
world. Yes we can.
And so tomorrow, as we take this campaign South and West; as we learn
that the struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so
different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas; that the
hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are
the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we
will remember that there is something happening in America; that we
are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people;
we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter
in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to
coast; from sea to shining sea - Yes. We. Can.

That's a message of empowerment, a message of change. That's what we need now. Not more fear. I've had enough of the politics of fear. It's time for a politics of empowerment. Those three words are so powerful. As I watched him deliver that speech I started to get hope again. That night a lot of us supporting Obama were pretty down. But that speech got that sense of hope back in me. And New Hampshire was a wake up call for me and us. We have to keep on fighting. Those words lifted me up but now we need to fight. It's not going to be easy to win this thing.

That's why I'm starting the Yes We Can Challenge.

If you were as inspired as me. If you still believe we can beat the politics of fear then join me in keeping up the fight. From now until Feburary 5th I'm going to focus all my political activism on elected Barack Obama president. I like all the other candidates but to me Obama is the one who represents the politics of empowerment. He gets it.

I am pledging here and now to fight. I am setting some goals for myself. I'm going to try to raise or donate $1000 dollars. I'm going to try to make at least 10 phone calls a day. I'm going to go door to door at every opportunity and knock on at least a 100 doors. What will you pledge?

I'm going to do whatever I can. Before this I had stayed more on the sidelines. I had blogged and gone to a few events and handed out fliers. But I have never knocked on a door for a political canidate, I have never called someone for a political canidate. I'm only 14 years old. This is the first time I've been involved in a political campaign and it's not going to be the last. And if we're going to go down we should go down fighting. But I don't think we will. Because millions of us are dedicated. We are committed to changing America. And damnit, we're going to.

Yes. We. Can.

Debuking the Post-NH Media Narratives

worldtrippers — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:26:52 GMT

The media narratives are out. The Clinton's, once again the Comeback Kids, the race is thrown into disarray. With New Hampshire and Iowa finished, and we have no idea who will be the nominee on either side of the aisle, no clear frontrunner on either side.

So let me take a few of the media narratives and throw in some facts. You know, the basic elements of TRUTH and Reporting?
Crossposted at NithinCoca.com and DailyKos
1) The Pollsters Messed Up Completely

LiveScience.com has a great article on what actually happened with the polls. The mainstream media (MSM) wants to show a different narrative, though, that Clinton came back from impossible odds. That Obama lost his support at the last minute. But let's look at the pre-Iowa and post-Iowa numbers from Real Clear Politics.

Pre-Iowa (Jan 1-2)
Clinton: 34.4
Obama: 26.3
Edwards: 19.2

Post Iowa (Jan 4-5)
Obama: 38.3
Clinton: 30.0
Edwards: 18.3

The Pollsters got two of the three right - Obama's total, and Edwards total. They failed miserably in getting Clinton's total correct, understating her support by a large 9%, far outside the MOE. It looks as if most of the undecideds turned to her in the last day, and exit polls agree.

2) Post-Iowa: Clinton Surged, Obama Didn't

Obama DID surge. Look above at his pre-Iowa poll numbers. He finished with 37%, a healthy 11 point bump from Iowa. The story is Clinton ALSO getting a bump, moving up 5 points after Iowa, and Edwards receiving absolutely no bump from his 2nd place finish. I turn to fladem's great analysis of post-Iowa bumps. Clinton recieved the typical second place bump of about 5 points, and Obama got a slightly below average first place bump of 11 points. If you notice, Fladem's projected NH results based on if Obama came in first in Iowa, Clinton 2nd, and Edwards 3rd closely matches what actually occurred.

Clinton refused to concede second place to Edwards, and with the media acquiscence, stole the mantle of second place from Edwards. Edwards attempts to built momentum and make it a two person race failed, and he faltered into third far behind the top two finishers.

3) Edwards is Toast

It is true that Edwards recieved almost no momentum from Iowa, and as a result, he's getting almost no media coverage now. But we've heard this story before. New Hampshire has a history of voting against Southerners. Look at Clinton in 1992, or just across the ballet, at Huckabee and Thompson. Yet Huckabee isn't considered dead after finished WORSE than Edwards. I expect Edwards to regroup and come back strong in South Carolina, which he won in 2004, perhaps once again upending Clinton for second place.

Conclusion

All day yesterday, I had a bad feeling about New Hampshire. And I was right. However, I think this is a good think for Barack Obama. I think we became complacent, not working hard to beat Clinton's field operation as we worked hard and throughly in Iowa. Now, we won't take anything for granted, you can guarantee that, and our volunteers, field staff, and political team will be relentless until we wrap up the nomination. An interesting side effect of this is that now, Nevada matters. And that is a good thing for the Democratic Party, that a Western state with a large Latino population will matter, and I for one cannot wait to see if we can Barack the Caucus one more time.

Obama Lost Because Of The Angry With Bush Vote

Chris Bowers — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:03:37 GMT

Did Obama's message of conciliatory unity cost him the New Hampshire primary? Sure looks like it. According to exit polls, 30% of Democrats identified themselves as "dissatisfied" with the Bush administration. Obama narrowly won those voters, 39%-38%. However, among the 62% of participants in the Democratic primary who described themselves as "angry" with the Bush administration, Clinton won 39%-34%. And thus, we have Clinton's 2.6% margin of victory almost precisely.

Democrats are pissed off at Bush, I mean really pissed off and angry. There simply isn't anyway to win this primary without winning the support of those voters. It appears "change" isn't enough to put one over the top in that category, at least here. Clinton won the angrier voters, and so she won New Hampshire.

Update: I should note that this does not necessarily mean Obama is behind Clinton among the "angry with Bush" voters in all states, just that he was behind in New Hampshire. That made the difference here, as I imagine it will make the difference pretty much everywhere. However, I am not drawing an conclusions outside of New Hampshire, since we don't know who leads the angry demo in other states.

PPOTV: Peer Pressure Out the Vote

Living Liberally — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:58:04 GMT

Drinking Liberally Shot of Truth by Justin Krebs

Voter turnout in yesterday's New Hampshire primary surpassed previous totals. Without getting into how independents split, why polls were proven wrong or who out-maneuvered whom, we want to posit one factor (besides the warm weather) that boosted these numbers: peer pressure.

If you're monitoring techPresident's Facebook, Myspace and YouTube tallies, you know that web-based social networks are lighting up over the elections. If you follow the work of sites like Future Majority, you know that a major component to youth turn-out is peer-to-peer communication. If you attend chapters of Drinking Liberally, you know that people everywhere are talking politics and pulling each other to the polls.

Peer pressure works. That's what it's so scary in junior high school. And that's why it's so awesome in voter turnout (although sometimes scary again, depending on whom peers are pressured to vote for).

But as we all know, peer pressure works best when it's easy to give in to, and that's the real hero in the turnout story so far: Election Day Registration.

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, you can show up, register and vote...all at once!!! Inconceivable to folks like us in New York who have a labyrinthine calendar to determine when you need to register by. Efforts to pass EDR in places like Iowa (an initiative to which our friends at CREDO Action were integral) have made peer pressure easier...and that makes it work.

Say for example that somebody came to Drinking Liberally for the first time, and we told them they had to wait 3 weeks to have a drink. Doubtless, they would find other pursuits. But, when you make political participation as easy as buying a round, all the social networks, web 2.0 apps, and good old-fashion cajoling become that much more effective.

I feel bad for the unregistered New Yorkers who may feel the peer pressure to show up on February 5th, only to find at the polling station that they can't take the dive down the slippery slope of political engagement. At least, in their moment of dismay, they can still have a drink.

What The Hell Happened Last Night?

Chris Bowers — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:29:21 GMT

Was it massive polling error? Were women motivated by a double standard imposed on Clinton for showing emotion? Was it the Wilder / Bradley effect, where white voters lie about supporting African-American candidates to pollsters out of perceived social pressure? Was it something else? Twelve public polling organizations were in the field in New Hampshire entirely after the Iowa caucuses. One of these organizations concluded interviews on Saturday, January 5th. Seven concluded interviews on Sunday, January 6th. Four concluded interviews on Monday, January 7th.. The average of the final results from these pollsters is as follows:

Obama: 37.25%
Clinton: 29.92%
Edwards: 18.92%
Richardson: 5.75%

Now, compare this to the results, with only one precinct outstanding
Clinton: 38.99% (+9.07, +30.3%)
Obama: 36.39% (-0.86, -2.3%)
Edwards: 16.91% (-2.01, -10.6%)
Richardson: 4.60% (-1.15, -20.0%)

While Obama and Richardson both saw their support drop from the final polling average, Edwards saw his drop as much as Obama and Richardson combined. It is possible that Edwards saw his numbers drop for a different reason than Obama or Richardson, or even that all three saw their numbers drop for different reasons. However, given Obama's numbers dropped the least, both in overall terms and in percentage terms, I am not convinced of a "Wilder effect here at all. Or, at least, I am not convinced that the "Wilder effect" was the only dynamic in play. It seems equally plausible that Edwards and Richardson saw their support drop much the way third-party support always drops from the polls to the final results. The lower the perceived chance a third-party candidate has the win, the larger their expected drop from the polls to the final results. It would appear that those voters broke toward Clinton.

Here is what I think happened, in chronological order:

First, Clinton probably had a superior absentee voter program, which gave her a small boost. Likely voters are not guaranteed voters, but those who have already voted are. Before they were rebalanced, the exit polls showed Obama narrowly ahead of Clinton, 39%-38%. Absentee voters were not included in the exit poll, and a successful and strong absentee voter program can indeed account for a 3-4% net swing, especially since Clinton held a commanding 48%--31% lead among voters who had their minds made up the longest. This is also, for example, is why Brian Bilbray outperformed Francine Busby in final polls in CA-50.
Second, the polls were somewhat wrong, probably due both to a very mild "Wilder effect" and to improper weighting of the electorate / measurement of likely voters. However, the polls don't have to be more than 1% wrong in order to make this scenario work (although the more wrong the polls were, the easier this scenario works). Given that Rasmussen, a polling firm that utilizes the automated, IVR methodology, showed the campaign to be a little closer than other pollsters who used live interviews, there probably was a mild "Wilder effect" of about two percent or so. IVR polls should eliminate the Wilder effect altogether, and so it is useful to look to them as a baseline when determining the presence of a Wilder effect.
Third, there was a break toward Clinton on Election Day itself, when no polls were taken. A survey of 2004 and 2000 polls taken between Iowa and New Hampshire shows there is a tendency for Iowa bounces to begin to recede after three to five days, meaning that by Election Day Clinton should have been pulling back on Obama anyway, with or without a sympathy vote. Exit polls back this up. Among voters who decided who to vote for in the last week, Obama led Clinton 43%-28%, probably due to a huge surge in the two days after Iowa. Among voters who decided in the three days before the election, Obama still led by a smaller amount, 37%--34%. Among those who made up their minds on Election Day itself, the bounce had faded entirely, and Clinton pulled into a 39%-36% lead. That accounts for at least another half of a percent. Of course, the sympathy vote probably didn't hurt.
Fourth, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Clinton as a second choice disproportionately broke away and choose Clinton, since the narrative implied both that she was the only other candidate who could win and that she needed help to do so. We all saw this, for example, in 2000, when Nader was a factor and Gore was in a position similar to Clinton. In the end, Nader underperformed his final polls by 1.2%, and Gore outperformed his final polls by 2.0%, providing Gore enough of a boost to win the popular vote. By way of contrast, Edwards and Richardson supporters who favored Obama as a second choice probably didn't think Obama needed any help. This could have added as much as 3% to Clinton's total.
Fifth, Clinton was assisted by the ballot order, probably to the tune of about 3%. Clinton was at the top of the ballot, and it is a well-known long and long-studied phenomenon in politics that placement at the top of the ballot provides a not insignificant edge to any given candidate.

This is a "perfect storm" scenario that requires no significant polling error, no significant Wilder effect, and no significant sympathy effect for Clinton. The top of the ballot, a superior absentee voter program, a naturally fading bounce, and an also somewhat typical "third party effect" from Edwards and Richardson supporters can, in and of itself, account for the ten-point swing from Obama to Clinton. However, that it requires all of these less than mysterious pieces to fall into place makes it somewhat dubious. The most likely scenario is that the four reasons I provide all played a role, but by less than the amounts I suggested here. Further, the three most common reasons being given for yesterday's shocker, Wilder effect, sympathy effect, and massive polling error, all also probably played a role, but less of a role than is being trumpeted by major news outlets. It was probably just a perfect storm for Clinton incorporating all seven rationales.

Still, this result should give real pause to anyone like me who believes pre-election final poll averages are almost always a very accurate predictor of final results. If a whole host of factors fall into place, clearly it is possible to bust up final averages by as much as 10%. Clinton got a perfect storm, drawing on as many as seven different factors. It will take a long time to sort this out with any certainty. In fact, certainty may never come. The future performance of polls in predicting final results will now be watched closer than ever. I guess they are "on notice" now.

Hillary - Not Clinton - Prevailed Last Night

paulhogarth — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:31:42 GMT

While everyone's still in shock about N.H., I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

The polls in the final days showing Barack Obama with a double-digit lead in New Hampshire were not wrong, and I was not unreasonable - though a bit cocky - to gloat that the Clintons were history. Instead, what happened was 17% of New Hampshire voters made up their minds on Election Day. And Hillary Clinton's huge gender gap suggests that last-minute media attacks on her "crying" swayed women to her side. Just like Iowa, New Hampshire voters said that change was more important than experience - which continues to be her Achilles heel as the race moves to Nevada and South Carolina. Last week, the New York Senator was in danger of losing because voters saw her as "Clinton" - the establishment candidate who will carry on a political dynasty when voters want something new. But on Election Day, enough came to view her as "Hillary" who would create change by becoming the first woman President. This explains the unexpected result, and the tide of public opinion can still shift back.
It's hard to remember now (since in politics a week can be a lifetime), but two months ago Hillary Clinton was the prohibitive front-runner - who was supposed to grab the Democratic nomination by "inevitability." Despite efforts by progressives to show that she is truly not one of us, people were just buying her campaign line. Women were flocking to her candidacy as a historic first, and attempts to re-invent herself as an "agent of change" were actually working.

But in late November, while campaigning for his wife in Iowa, former President Bill Clinton lied that he had always opposed the War. This moment reminded everyone what they didn't like about the Clintons: their disdain for the Left and their efforts to minimize Iraq, and became a turning point in the campaign. Bubba's visible presence on the campaign trail - and his inability to avoid the limelight - became the issue, as voters started seriously wondering whether they really wanted to start a dynasty.

On the day before the New Hampshire primary, right after her humiliating 3rd place finish in Iowa, two things events that could have had an enormous impact on the race. One was when Bill Clinton told a group of supporters that he "can't make [Hillary] taller, younger, male" - debunking the notion that her status as a woman would make her a "change" candidate. It also exposed the former President as a jerk who only cares about himself, his legacy, and is delusional enough to think he can save her floundering campaign.

But not enough people heard about this - and the other campaigns never made it an issue. It had no impact on the result, which could have sealed the deal for Obama. What instead dominated the news coverage was the famous incident where Hillary Clinton cried. When asked by a reporter "how do you handle it," she choked up and gave an emotional speech in a New Hampshire diner - which is very unusual for her to do while campaigning.

The media didn't know what to make of this. Some compared it to the Howard Dean scream and said it made her look weak. Others questioned her sincerity, calling it a calculated, cynical move to make her look human. I had a different interpretation: it was real, and to suggest otherwise would be tasteless and cold. The Clintons were just cracking under pressure - after building their dynasty without standing for anything, the Democratic voters were rejecting their agenda. And Hillary was at a loss on what to do.

But the media's reaction had a huge effect on women - especially middle-aged women - who generally felt that it was sexist and unfair. How dare you question whether her crying was sincere, they felt, and women did not appreciate the suggestion that it made her look weak and vulnerable. For months, my sister had complained to me that Clinton gets attacked in the media in a way that they would never attack a man. Enough came to see her as Hillary - not Mrs. Clinton - and decided that her status as the first woman president embodied "change." So they voted for her as an "agent of change."

Obama won Iowa by eight points, and beat Clinton among women by a 5-point margin. For women under 25, Clinton got a pitiful 11%. But in New Hampshire, women picked her by a 47-34 margin. Among older women, the gap was even wider -- while she still lost women under 30. It would be way too simplistic - and sexist - to conclude that women voted for Hillary "because she cried." But they voted for her because the media attacked her and questioned her about it, which backfired.

In what will go down as one of the stupidest moments in campaign history, John Edwards chose to respond to the crying incident. "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve," he said, "and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business." You do not run against a female candidate - especially one as formidable as Hillary Clinton - and play that card. Someone should have told Edwards to just shut up.

Barack Obama was wise enough to stay above the fray, which hopefully means that he can pick up support among women. But Edwards took a hit from what happened, based on his poor third-place showing. While not all women were swayed to vote for Hillary Clinton, enough did. My hunch is that her last-minute support came from undecided women - or those who were supporting Edwards.

You know that Edwards really screwed up when Amanda Marcotte, an ex-blogger from his campaign, reacted like this: "Completely unacceptable amounts of sexism. It's bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she's too feminine or too scary, but if she's more stoic, she's a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much."

But despite the surprising result, it's naïve to assume that last night changed everything and voters will stay with Clinton as a "change" candidate. Just like Iowa, exit polls showed that 50% of New Hampshire voters picked change over experience. Enough women may have rallied to Hillary's defense for now, but voters are still not comfortable with the idea of "another Clinton." Especially if the former President keeps on drawing attention to himself.

Yesterday in New Hampshire, the ex-President again put his foot in his mouth. When asked about "judgment" at a campaign event when choosing a candidate, Clinton went on a three-minute rant that was defensive, angry and hostile. He again implied that he had always opposed the Iraq War. His contempt for Obama was visible, like his infamous interview on "Charlie Rose" last month. Bubba just can't help making himself the issue, and it will hurt his wife.

Obama can still take the race to Nevada, South Carolina and Super Tuesday on February 5th - and a narrow defeat in New Hampshire could help him come back. The Culinary Workers Union is expected to endorse him today - which would make him competitive in Nevada. Blacks in South Carolina will still turn out for him. What could stop him is the media rushing to crown Hillary Clinton as the "inevitable nominee," just like they do for every establishment candidate who gets an upstart challenger.

"Clinton should thank her lucky stars that the race didn't end tonight," said a friend of mine who had flown to New Hampshire to help get out the vote. An Obama victory would have done exactly that, for two back-to-back victories would have ended the Clinton dynasty. But Clinton's narrow victory in the Granite State, though unexpected, will not. We'll just get tired of hearing she's the "Comeback Kid."

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org

Clinton--The Unlikely Economic Populist

Paul Rosenberg — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:26:16 GMT

By the two most common measures--family income and education--Hillary Clinton appears to have eeked out her narrow victory in New Hampshire by taking a populist advantage, according to exit polls. Although it certainly wasn't the overt thrust of her campaign, it certainly was a distinct, if not overwhelming result, while Edwards, he did run an overtly populist campaign, showed no appreciable class difference, and Obama skewed wealthier and more educated:

Vote By Income
Family income:	% Total	Clinton	Edwards	Obama
$15-30,000	9	51	14	30
$30-50,000	18	44	16	32
$50-75,000	23	33	19	40
$75-100,000	16	36	18	42
$100-150,000	17	33	17	44
$150-200,000	6	46	15	34
$200,000 or More	6	37	12	43

Vote By Income
Family income:	% Total	Clinton	Edwards	Obama
Less than $50,000	33	47	15	32
$50,000 or more	67	35	17	41

Vote By Education
Last grade of school completed	% Total	Clinton	Edwards	Obama
No High School	3	61	9	28
High school graduate	17	46	17	31
Some college / associate degree	27	40	16	40
College graduate	29	38	18	37
Postgraduate study	24	31	16	43

Vote By Education
Last grade of school completed	% Total	Clinton	Edwards	Obama
High school graduate or less	19	49	16	30
More than high school grad	81	37	17	40

As Chris noted:

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.

These are the people who are most familiar with the unearned humiliation and contempt that was heaped on Clinton with such evident glee, and they are the ones who gave her the edge. I am not a Clinton supporter, but I totally get the logic of their vote, and fully sympathize. Maybe the best possible outcome of this election would be a series of different, unexpected blows against the Versailles punditalkcrazy and their "conventional wisdom."

Clinton Wins New Hampshire

Chris Bowers — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:48:27 GMT

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.

New Hampshire Results Thread

Chris Bowers — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:40:20 GMT

From the Concord Monitor website:
?? / 65% of 301 precincts reporting:
Clinton: 39%: 67,826 (+5,090, Clinton starting to move clear)
Obama 36%: 62,736
Edwards: 17%
Richardson: 5%
Kucinich: 2%

Update 15: MSNBC calls it for Clinton. What an all-time shocker. The momentum swings back in her direction, now. Nevada looms as a huge, huge battleground.

Update 14 This just in over email:

One of the only real college towns (a small one) to report so far has been Keene, which went 41-27 for Obama. Durham/Newmarket and Hanover haven't reported yet.

This is going to be very close.

Update 13: Starting to wonder if Obama can catch up here. The vote margin keeps increasing, and Clinton won the cities, 41%--39%.

Update 12: I'm going to start looking more at the vote margin than anything else. Also, in 2004, Dean scored 57,761 votes. Clinton and Obama are about to pass that number.

Update 11: I also wonder how much absentee voting there was. No only would it be unaffected by momentum, but it wouldn't be including in the exit poll. Clinton could very well win this...

Update 10: Apparently, no college towns have reported yet. That is good news for Obama. Check that: Keane is a college town and has reproted.

Update 9: I'm officially stunned. The eleven poll average, taken entirely post-Iowa, showed Obama ahead by 7.8%. Polling averages are rarely off by more than a net of 3%. This is looking like at least 6% net error across the average, and possibly more. Stunning. People will guess at the reasons for this for a while. My best guess is a sharp turn toward Clinton among older women when the media, and Edwards, criticized Clinton for showing some emotion. No matter how male the punditry might be, one forgets that women are a majority of the electorate at one's own peril...

Update 8: This is really bad news for Obama if he loses. Clinton now seems like she will be OK no matter what, because she beat expectations. "Comeback Clinton," will be one of the narratives, even if she loses. However, if she comes back all the way and wins, then Obama's momentum might not only be stopped, it could be reversed. Nevada now looms as a major battleground...

Update 7: More exit poll comparisons. The liberal vote is way up, from 47% to 57%. While this should have benefited Obama, he only leads Clinton 40-37% in that category. Women also turned out at high rates, up to 57% from 54%. Again, a good sign for Clinton.

Update 6: Comparing 2004 and 2008 New Hamsphire exit polls. Under 30 vote up from 14% to 17%, but over 65 vote also up from 11% to 14%. Self-identified Democrats increase from 48% to 54%. the former is a wash, the latter is good for ~~Obama~~ Clinton.

Update 5: The CNN exit poll projects to a very narrow Obama win, 39.4%--38.1%. That is within the margin of error for the exit poll, probably. There appears to be massive Democratic, female turnout. Clinton appears to have rallied women aged 40 and over.

Update 4: ~~Apparently, the exit poll shows Obama ahead 39%-34%.~~ It might be even closer than that. I have heard that Clinton did have Dean's New Hampshire field guru (can't remember her name), and Michael Whouley working in New Hampshire. That is a helluva field team.

Update 3: Clinton is certainly doing well so far, much better than expectations. Still, one would expect that the larger, urban precincts haven't reported yet, and that those precincts should favor Obama. Also, there is no way that Edwards beats Clinton now. CNN has officially projected him 3rd.

Update 2: On the Republican side, McCain has beeen declared the winner by every news outlet.

Update: CNN has slightly faster results, but doesn't have the exact number of precincts reporting. Turnout looks huge.

Prelude to Results Thread

Chris Bowers — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:56:46 GMT

No exit polls to be released before the polls closed, at least not exit polls that have numbers for any of the candidates. Some other, less interesting data, from the exit polls can be found here. Also, apart from obvious sources like the Union Leader and CNN, what are the best sites to watch returns? Please post in the comments.

Polls close at ~~7pm~~ 8pm eastern. This is an open thread for the prelude to New Hampshire results.

Update: I think some polls close at 7pm, but most close at 8pm. Also, it appears that there has been a surge in Democratic turnout. MSNBC reports that 55% of voters in the Democratic primary are self-identified Democrats. In 2004, that numbers was only 48%. But don't worry, I'm sure we will hear about the surge of independents, rather than the surge of Democrats.

Top 5 Least Likely Headlines Coming Out of New Hampshire

Living Liberally — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:02:14 GMT

Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying

5. We, The Media, Acknowledge John Edwards' Existence (Josh Bolotsky)

4. Mike Gravel Charges State Capitol Atop White Steed (Jamie Kilstein)

3. Chuck Norris Switches Support to Obama (Lee Camp)

2. Bill Clinton Dons Wig Pretending To Be Hillary, Makes Crowd Uncomfortable (Jamie Kilstein)

1. After Victory In New Hampshire, Huckabee Tells God "Fuck Off...I'm Flying Solo Now" (Jamie Kilstein)

What are you predicting?