Uhh ... the image link doesn't work, at least on Firefox.

To clarify what I think is going on here, Bradley won those making over $100K 54-45, but tied or lost all other income groups. Obama won $100K, $75K-$100K, and $50K-$75K, but lost the income groups below that. In this sense the Obama coalition is an improvement over the standard "wine track" egghead liberal coalition.

The reason Clinton won despite this is (a) she won working class voters by a bigger margin than Gore did, and (b) she did better among well-off voters than Gore did, at least relative to their nearest opponent.

Is America ready for a lesbian president?

(Makes about as much sense as the previous comment.)

Thanks for the clarification, Nicholas.

There are a number of ways to slice this data. One way, of course, is to call it "Bradley Plus." By implication, that means that Obama ran an insurgent campaign in New Hampshire, picking up voters with relatively weak machine affiliation; Hillary, like Gore, relied on the establishment to drive turnout and the loyalty of lower-middle-class Democrats and seniors.

But I think that understates what Barack accomplished in NH.

Bradley won the following groups:
(a) Voters under the age of 30
(b) College/Grad School graduates
(c) Income over $100k
(d) Independents

Obama's lineup looks like this:
(a) Voters under the age of 40
(b) Grad school graduates
(c) Income over $50k
(d) Independents

Sure, there's an essential similarity. Those are the voters who are up for grabs in the Granite State. But Obama managed to appeal to thirty-somethings and to the mainstream middle-class in New Hampshire, while Hillary relied on senior citizens and union members. The essential difference, then, is this - New Hampshire confirmed Bradley as a fringe candidate, unable to capture the center of the party. But it confirmed Obama as a viable challenger, who's likely to prevail in a more demographically friendly environment (say, one in which not everyone is white.)

Fly on the Wall
great analysis

OK, point taken, but Obama lost by a much, much narrower margin to Clinton than Bradley did to Gore in '00.

Yes, Obama is a much better candidate than Bradley, but the story of this race is still Obama's class politics and whether he can reach to middle and working classes.

He couldn't start off as a fiery populist, so it's understandable.

Perhaps part of the delta can also be attributed to rising wealth in NH in the last 7 years?

The other problem Obama is going to have in upcoming primaries is that most of them will allow only registered democrats. He will not get the independents and few Republicans jumping ship. Its always a challenge for an insurgent candidate.

Besides Hillary winning the lower income group vote (which really should have gone to edwards), she also won amongst people who thought we needed to get out of iraq right away. (cf. exit polls). If you hold those positions, it makes little sense to vote for clinton as she is the worst possible candidate on both accords. Unless, you are vote put out by the machine -- which I guess is what happened. People, not really following the election, but core democrat (and by default) status quo democrat constituents.

Beaudrot’s interpretation is that Obama put together a "'Bill Bradley Plus Coalition': wealthy liberals, young voters, people of color, and as many middle class ($50,000-$100,000) voters as you can get."

Forty-three percent of voters under 30 voted in Tuesday’s primary, more than twice the18 percent who voted in 2004, according to the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement.

But, after Iowa, the surprise wasn’t that they came out — it was who they came out for.

While Democratic Iowa caucus-goers under 30 went strongly for Obama, who got 57 percent of their votes, according to CNN entrance polls, New Hampshire’s young people were decidedly divided.

Obama easily beat Clinton among 18- to 24-year-olds in New Hampshire, 60 percent to 27 percent. But Clinton surprised observers by actually edging out Obama among 25- to 29-year-olds, 37 percent to 35 percent.

Her edge among voters between 25 and 29 was a crucial component of her 39 percent to 37 percent victory.

Another blow to the conventional wisdom of pundits and camp Obama alike.

DonnaG,
A somewhat emotional moment that lasts a few seconds and you think it equals flooding all of New Hampshire with motherly tears.

Geez…

LOL. Andrew Sullivan was right on the money! There was indeed a [Bill] "Bradley Effect" at work in NH on Tuesday...

DonnaG wrote on January 10, 2008 8:33 AM:

I have been musing awhile about the Clinton tears.
When I watched the video, I was struck by the force of what I call the 'pierce and embed' emotional strategy, which would particulary hook, not just women, but many now-adult children.

In many households, when things get rough, a mother dissolving into 'tears in the eyes' will melt and motivate her husband and children like nothing else can do.
How many can recall moments like this, when one's mother, exhausted, out-voted, losing her influence, suddenly gets tears in her eyes and looks oh so vulnerable and gets quiet and the whole mood changes......

etc...

A more apt anecdote for Hillary's mist is that of a world-class Olympic athlete who spends 4 years training for the main event and then comes up just short. Hillary's loss in IA and following negative "narrative" were so devastating for her that she had to dig deep to find the energy to try to turn things around in NH in just 5 days, but even there, things looked bleak. How does one get the energy to continue? Those were the circumstances and that was the essence of the question that was put to her. I have watched that video clip over and over again, looking for evidence of artifice and saw none. That was as spontaneous show of emotion as you're likely to see anywhere(think of the Olympic athlete getting misty-eyed) and to think otherwise if to be callous beyond belief. You should be full admiration for what Hillary was able to accomplish in NH...really. Did those tears help her? Absolutely! They did for her what $5 million in ads could not: They humanized her. They allowed her, in just a split second, to give the most gripping rationale for her candidacy: Her deep love for the country and desire to see it prosper after the disastrous Bush years. Those who were less cycnical than you saw that and believed her. It resonated. Suddenly, Hillary was no longer the "automaton" with wonkish talk. She was a human being.... The MSM played and replayed that clip over and over again for nefarious reasons ("is this crybaby the person you want to be the leader of the free world?" sort of thing) but it backfired: It was the most powerful ad yet for Hillary and she did not even have to pay a penny for it!

dcshungu,
What I discussed [at 8:33am] about the 'pierce and embed' phenomenon of tears doesn't in any way depend upon those tears being 'real or faked'.

But, I will say that in the longer-run aftermath of such a phenomenon [real or faked], those who allowed/swallowed the 'embed' may also begin to feel a residual of being manipulated, i.e.,momentarily thrown off their sense of their own autonomy.