Exit Polls: Hillary Regained Ground Among Late-Deciding Voters

Comments (82)

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 9, 2008 9:37 AM:

Hillary Clinton, the Boo-Hoo-Wah President.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 9:40 AM:

I'll say it again, it was the Tears and the abortion mailer. It had to help her with women voters, where she crushed Obama by 13 points.

steve wrote on January 9, 2008 9:44 AM:

Or, how about this: Voters really thought about who could do the job best, who had a record, who was prepared, and who had action instead of just talk. And they voted for Clinton. Obama gives great speeches and is very inspirational. That's not enough, not at this level.

Tom wrote on January 9, 2008 9:46 AM:

The numbers don't match your conclusion Greg. 39-36 is not really much of a difference and those voters only made up 17% of the total. That's not where she gained her advantage.

She dominates 48-31 among those who decided more than a month ago, which is 34% of the total voters. So I think the story here is that she was able to retain most of her earlier support and the Iowa win didn't have much effect on them.

Scared Stiff wrote on January 9, 2008 9:47 AM:

So you're telling me that a only losing one group by a small amount, and winning the other by a small amount turned the results 15% points? Something tells me if this were Kerry vs Bush, the tone would be a bit different.

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 9:52 AM:

Keith,

You could also argue it was Obama's sweet platitudes about getting along, about hope and change, delivered eloquently in a beautiful tenor voice that got him Iowa.

Superficiality wins the day? Or are people paying attention and making informed decisions? Or you may be right...women are just too easily swayed. Be they Iowan women or New Hampshire women.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 9:52 AM:

The expectation that Obama would cruise to victory probably cut into turnout amongst the youth (they were only 11%) and I suspect more than a handful of independents broke for McCain. Recall this was a question of how much they would lose by, not whether Clinton would lose.

Clinton's internal polls showed a 11 point loss; Obama showed a 14 point win.

Steve: Don't have a problem with examining resumes. I have a problem with distorting his record. The Clintons demonstrated that they don't have any integrity over the last five days.

Desider wrote on January 9, 2008 9:54 AM:

I think it was the polls mis-estimating youth and female turnout, the tears + the huge amount of mysogyny (sp?) yesterday, some of the terrorist/abortion issues, and partly the debates. (Those who are angry about Bush support Hillary more than those who are simply dissatisfied. Hillary's blowup probably helped her). Also, if you critique the polls, you get the idea that those at the lower end of the payscale are buying the hope idea less than those further up.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 9:57 AM:

Loki:

Say what you will, your candidate basically lied and distorted his record over the last five days. It's beyond dispute that she went straight to the gutter, so don't bother trying to spin it any other way.

We'll just see how this plays out in Nevada and South Carolina. I think the MLK/LBJ comment is going to come back to haunt her the latter. But only time will tell.

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 9:59 AM:

Keith, I am willing to bet that clinton's internals showed a very close race. There was that one poll showing a 1% spread that was a local new hampshire poll.

Think about it. So they play up in the media that they are tanking and that obama is walking away with it. That decreases obama turn out and decreases clinton expectations. Whether they won or lost, as long as it was close they could claim victory. Then her new found emotional side played into getting out sympathy votes and to her "base." The clinton political distortion machine is formitable.

That all being said, congratulations loki, dcschungu, colonpowwow, and all the other clinton people. You won yesterday and america took a step backwards. We will see what happens tomorrow.

bob wrote on January 9, 2008 10:00 AM:

Here are the false mailers sent to NH voters in the last few days and Hillary's quote to the effect that the terrorists are going to attack us if we elect Obama.

False claims about Obama's pro-choice record:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php

Rove-style attack politics:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/ProHillary_mail_Be_very_afraid.html

DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html

Dan wrote on January 9, 2008 10:00 AM:

Check this analysis that explains why polls were not wrong and that there were plenty of clues heading in, clues the media chose to ignore and portray this as a sure Obama triumph.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 10:01 AM:

Michael A:

Tim Russert said that the Clinton's were predicting an 11 point loss, and Howard Wolfson's appearance alone should suggest that he did not expect to be on the teevee last night.

Yesterday is over. I'm focused on today.

Ron Rich wrote on January 9, 2008 10:03 AM:

We need to get access to all the exit poll data. But it looked like Obama had a lead of 45% - 36% of voters who felt that he had the best chance to win the Presidency. That should be a very good indicator of how they voted. The 2004 NH Exit Poll had better, clearer data.....wonder why this Exit Poll does not?

The NH Primary Exit polls sample of 1900+ voters is significant and should be very reliable...with 3%. The swing was 7%? I am very suspicious of such a major swing from the statistically significant exit polls data. Could be an interesting article.

To keep things in perspective, Hillary may have won the Primary, but they each earned 9 delegate votes....and Obama is ahead by won in the total count.

I am a firm believer in the German system of voting....paper ballots, overseen by both parties and counted by civil servants. Exit Polls are so reliable that everyone knows who won the next day....but everything is confirmed within two weeks.

Finally, why isn't the raw Exit Poll Data available from the 2004 Presidential Election. It all should be available to the public.

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 10:07 AM:

Keith, I know I am speculating and overly suspicious, especially of the media in light of the iraq war propaganda garbage and the scooter case. I take what russert says as something spoon fed by a campaign for spin and propaganda purposes, not necessarily true or accurate. If they suspected it was close, they wouldn't have said anything anyway.

Nonetheless, it really is moot and today is a new day.

savvy wrote on January 9, 2008 10:08 AM:

Sargent says:
"Since Hillary had a relatively solid lead of 41%-37% over Obama among voters who had already made up their minds before last weekend, the late-deciding voters enabled her to regain enough ground to win."

BULL!! total bullcrap

the election was rigged.
the political machine robbed the people.
tears do not swing elections cheaters and diebold machines do.

jimijazz wrote on January 9, 2008 10:08 AM:

Thats a load of crap. The system and I mean the corporate media as well does not want to repair itself. It DOESN'T want peace and prosperity. All bets are off now for a unified convention. A few scare words and tears from Hillary and thats all it takes for New Hamphshire voters? Ridiculous. The processs is being hijacked once again. You know it doesn't take me 3 months to decide which candidate is better. The choice is clear: and it's NOT Hillary. In spite of these New Hampshire idiots. No matter how many crocodile tears she sheds. The insiders are trying to hijack the process just like they did in 1968 and 1984. Humphrey and Mondale. Be forewarned. The system doesn't want the best and the brightest. It wants the most bought and easily manipulated. And they certainly want a rubber stamp on the Iraq war. New Hampshire basically proved nothing. It just proved how corrupt the process is. But we already knew that.

matthew frederick wrote on January 9, 2008 10:09 AM:

Narrowly winning the "day-of" deciders (17% of the total votes cast), while narrowly losing the "last-three-days" deciders doesn't close a supposed 8-point deficit.

HRC's strength came from the "more than a month ago" deciders. Those folks constituted 34% of the vote, and HRC beat BO 48% to 31% among that group.

The exit poll data does not indicate a late-breaking surge to Hillary.

She won this with voters not accounted-for sufficiently in the likely-voter models - mostly working-class women and senior women.

Allan wrote on January 9, 2008 10:12 AM:

What would we be saying this morning had this been the general election and the Republican had beaten the Dem by 2 in NH despite the internal polls of the Republican showing them 11 points behind and the Democrats showing them 14 points up?

Just askin'...

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 10:13 AM:

Keith,

What spin?

You're saying the women of NH are pushovers. That they and many of the men, for that matter, were easily swayed by negative campaigning...that they can't think for themselves. Who's spinning here?

kc wrote on January 9, 2008 10:13 AM:

What happened to the youth vote? In Iowa, it was interesting that the caucuses occurred during Christmas break. The students were dispersed to their home territories. They came out in droves. Is the break over in NH? Does a conglomeration of students result in more partying and less voting? Hillary certainly had a goodly number of youngsters behind her on the podium.

sy wrote on January 9, 2008 10:14 AM:

Anybody thought to ask what the polling was in New Hampshire on the occupation of Iraq?

I think it is interesting that the individuals in both parties, each being the biggest supporters of the current policy and surge, won their respective primaries. And I cannot recall seeing any polling on the issue since the Iowa caucus.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 10:14 AM:

Unless someone has some hard and fast evidence, the results were fair. I'm not about to rain on Senator Clinton's victory. That doesn't mean I'm not going to call out her underhanded tactics over the last five days. I'm just not to prepared in the absence of evidence to suggest that malfeasance was afoot.

It smacks of the same sour grapes the Clinton campaign spewed after Iowa. It's just not very becoming of a candidate or its supporters. How you handle adversity says a lot about your character.

The Grand Panjandrum wrote on January 9, 2008 10:15 AM:

Once all the data is in and examined I suspect you will find a failing in samples and likely voter modeling.

Random sampling only works reliably on events that are periodic or that occur according to a random probability distribution!

If every voter determined their choice by rolling a dice, or picking the candidate round robin according to their order entering the voting building, the polling would work perfectly!

Polling is a psychological one and the idea that you can somehow magically use random sampling for nonrandom nor non-periodic events, is the problem.

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 10:16 AM:

Oh...forgot about the "tears." Yes...women loves them some tears! That's what really matters to women.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 9, 2008 10:18 AM:

It is interesting the 'tear' issue, that will be analyzed and debated for quite some time, was it calculated or not, etc.

But after all the blah-blah-woof-woof, it was a win, and a reminder of how the pundits can get it wrong and the illusion of polls.

This is going to be intersting in SC. It is difficult to grasp the way SC plays hardball unless one has been in-state and seen first hand the media saturation that occurs, I was in SC in 2000 when Bush and McCain had their epic battle, and being from MD I was unacustomed to the way that Bubba plays hardball.

This is gonna get more interesting than it already has, and the decision is far from made, and it seems that as soon as a candidate is proclaimed a favorite that that becomes a handicap.

The tear issue is a rear-view mirror issue, and if contrived a credit to the political calculation of the Clinton team, or maybe, just maybe, team Clinton played the under-dog image to their advantage, and did so in accordance with data that seems to imply that the voter wants to make up their own minds without the assistance of the MSM, thank you!

A win is a win is a win...

Ezra Pound

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 10:19 AM:

Loki:

The abortion mailer (suggesting that it didn't stand up for a women's right to choose), pure bullshit. And I do think the Tears helped (and no I don't think it was a staged event; true emotion) tremendously with women.

Sorry the Clintons showed they have no integrity.

Polianna wrote on January 9, 2008 10:20 AM:

Of course it was the tears, and Gloria Steinem. The game is clear, win the same way she won her Senate seat - sympathy.

http://pastandprologue.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/feminism-is-dead-hillary-proves-it/

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 10:21 AM:

If it was an 'oprah moment' for Clinton then it was 'fair play' but a dangerous well to dip into often, if it was 'calculated and contrived' then maybe she has the mojo after all, that is Machiavellian but the truth.

Bill R. wrote on January 9, 2008 10:21 AM:

Given the huge gap between polls, including exit polls, and the results. Shouldn't an investigation be made of the vote counting. Is this another Diebold scam? Certainly the Democratic Party establishment has made it clear they are backing Hillary at every cost, and apparently willing for her to use tactics that will damage the relationship with the African American constituency. There will be consequences for the tactics the Clintons have used against Obama.( the use of surrogates to smear him, the false mailings etc.) The African American call-ins this morning to C-Span are just the beginning.

theWalrus wrote on January 9, 2008 10:30 AM:

Possible reason why HRC pulled out the votes: Bill Clinton. Contrary to the Press insisting he's "baggage", he's an extremely popular and charismatic former President. He was very visible in the week before the primary and his impact should not be underestimated.

jimijazz wrote on January 9, 2008 10:33 AM:

To Bill R. - exactly. The Clintons want the nomination to be given to them instead of having to earn it. And if that's not going to happen they are going to use every sleasy trick in the book. Doesn't give you hope for the general election. The ill will and resentment from this type of campaign is going to damage the democrats irreparably. I always said Hillary was bad news and this just proves it.

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 10:34 AM:

Keith,

"I'm not about to rain on Senator Clinton's victory."

Hah! Too late for that, dude. Sour grapes, indeed!

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 10:36 AM:

Keith said: How you handle adversity says a lot about your character.

Yes, Keith, it does.

Bupalos wrote on January 9, 2008 10:36 AM:

Congratulations to Clinton, she pulled off a doosie. Personally I was absolutely morose last night, but the game is on, and as the day wears on, I'm starting to feel a little...

FIRED UP! READY TO GO!

People who are looking for a one off answer to this woman-slide shocker aren't going to find it. There are a bunch. Women obviously felt like Clinton was getting raked over it a little too harshly. They liked the tears when she was asked how she keeps her hair looking nice. Also Democrats love an underdog. NH didn't want to effectively end the primary by putting that dog down. NH is not very liberal, and not very anti-war. That's why it was supposed to be a DLC firewall, and in the end it held, though just barely.

As I said, congratulations, and game on! The only thing that really worries me is that women lied a bit to exit pollers about their vote, which says to me sympathy/identity politics. Hillary did really pull the gender card the last few days, and it seems to have worked in spades. That's bad news for Barack, and I have no doubt Clinton will run with this.

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush...

Clinton???
Seriously?
In WHAT country??

markg8 wrote on January 9, 2008 10:37 AM:

I'd say it's not so much the emotional reaction but the way Edwards and the media responded. I agree with Josh, Edwards' response was boneheaded, made all men look bad to a certain segment of women and engendered somewhat of a feminine solidarity vote. The media talked about it for practically 24 hours sucking up a
lot of air time away from the "spectacular Obama juggernaut" storyline.

But the most important point is the way they talked about it. Inevitably any coverage of the event was going to cause some kind of shift in voter sentiment and the nets seemed to know that. In the wake of Bill bitching about Hillary's coverage by the media they treated it as gingerly as possible. In the end CNN in particular wound up examining the incident as if Hillary's getting emotional was a bizarre new behavior never before seen in a human. Was it all orchestrated? Was it Hillary just showing the real Hillary and how much she wants it? Who knows? But if it was all an act I give her and Bill excellent marks for being great actors.

I still think Obama will make a much better president capable of doing great things for this country and the world while Hillary would be a small bore president only interested in safe
proposals and incremental change hamstrung by a resurgent Republican party that despises her. If she wins the nomination she'll have no coattails.

markg8 wrote on January 9, 2008 10:44 AM:

Hillary voters in NH when asked by MSNBC if given the choice they'd vote for Bill or Hillary picked Bill 58-42%.

Pepp wrote on January 9, 2008 10:45 AM:

There was never any doubt in my mind that the Dems were going to break for Senator Clinton as they should, she is our hope for the real change to a moderate non left or right, ethical pragmatic respectful governance. That thats not sexyy enough for the neo con MSM, Huffington Post and NYT editorials and punditry that were absolutely savagely distorting creating stories providing gossip as news, actually border on subversive acts against our electoral process to crown not elect our nominees. Now the lectures obtuse as they are also need to stop as well the editorial NYT pitiful pandering at best she not your mommy nor is she your child nor Dowds sister, she dose not have to play the way you believe a girl should, she is a respected Senator of the United States and it is the media afterall who have elevated the race to a blood sport, asking her to be the only LADY is biased at least. We out here respect and admire Senator Clinton and we want her to be our nominee that how simple it is no mystery really.

Who she needs to fight to win for, is us, We the People in this country who would value her governance and we will fight for her make no mistake.

Steve wrote on January 9, 2008 10:46 AM:

Yesterday, I got pilloried for suggesting that Obama's ethnicity could be a drag on his candidacy. I was called a racist and essentially told that Obama was assured to be the next president as most of America would supportively flock to him, hold hands and sing 'We Are the World' and live happily ever after.

I tried to point out to you foolish Obama fanatics that you're making huge and unsound assumptions. Winning a left-leaning primary in Iowa with a mere 38% of the vote doesn't prove that America will have no problem electing a black president. And it's worth noting that EVERY SINGLE poll for the Dem race in NH showed Obama ahead and then he wound up losing by about 3 points, which could potentially derail his presidential ambitions. It's also worthwhile to note that the NH GOP primary turnout wasn't that much lower than the Dem side, also casting doubt on the notion that voters aren't interested in voting for Republicans anymore as has been so strongly suggested around here.

This race has a long way to go, but the bottom line is that, as you parse through the results, desperately trying to understand why Obama didn't turn out to be America's own little god like Nelson Mandela, maybe you should be open to the possibility that much of majority-white America is uncomfortable with a black president. While you're at it, maybe you could ask for some helpful input from Michael Steele, Harold Ford, Ron Kirk, Kenneth Blackwell and Lynn Swann.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 10:49 AM:

Loki:

Not spinning but spelling out what I think impacted the race. Clinton won with women by 12 points. A combination of distorting his record and softening her image probably helped considerably.

He didn't respond directly to her challenge of his record because he was playing the frontrunner. I suspect that's going to change today.

Like I said, all credit is due to Senator Clinton for getting women out in high numbers. In the process, I think she exposed her flank. We'll just have to see how he responds to the challenge.

pataphonic wrote on January 9, 2008 10:53 AM:

Here's some cause for cheer, regardless of which Democrat you're supporting: as of this point, it appears there were fewer voters in the 2008 G.O.P. New Hampshire primary than there were in 2000 (the last time both parties had contested primaries). By comparison, Democratic turnout jumped by 90 percent in the state.

2008 results (as of 10:30 a.m. Weds.)

total Republican votes: 238,116
total Democratic votes: 286,884

2000 results (from Federal Election Commission website):

total Republican votes: 238,206
total Democratic votes: 154,639

This echoes what we saw in Iowa: big jump in Democratic turnout from previous highs; little change on the Republican side.

Tom wrote on January 9, 2008 11:02 AM:

Steve,
I agree with you, but the problem is that neither Obama supporters nor Clinton supporters want to believe it. For Obama supporters, it proves that their candidate will have a hard time winning, no matter what the polls show. For Clinton supporters, it taints their win by saying it is at least partially based on racism.

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 11:06 AM:

Yep, remember all the press mr. bill was getting with his lies about obama's iraq war stance? I wonder how much press this gets? Answer: Zippo.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/09/obama-bill-clinton-took-liberties-with-my-words/

We've had 16 years of lies and distortions and lack of integrity in our government and political system. It would be nice for a change of pace. Just to try something new and shake up the system a bit. I mean, what a novel concept, telling the truth.

BluePuppy wrote on January 9, 2008 11:12 AM:

MichaelA--You seem rather bitter...

loki wrote on January 9, 2008 11:13 AM:

Keith said: Not spinning but spelling out what I think impacted the race.

Keith,

I take you at your word. I think you are sincere. But I will just finally say that reading your posts in this thread from top to bottom makes that quote just above seem less than accurate.

It sort of reminds me of the kinds of things we hear in this campaign...like: "This wasn't an attack it was just highlighting the differences!"

Ah well, as you say...we'll see how this plays out.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 9, 2008 11:13 AM:

For Clinton supporters, it taints their win by saying it is at least partially based on racism.

Oh, so I guest that means Iowa voters are sexist. Thanks for clearing that up.

Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 9, 2008 11:13 AM:

I meant "guess"

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 11:15 AM:

Oh yay, the "undecided voters."

Look, if you don't know who you're going to vote for a week before the election, do the country a favor and stay home.

Michael A wrote on January 9, 2008 11:18 AM:

Congratulations bluepuppy on your candidate's win. Nah, I'm not bitter, just sad at the politics as usual. We will see how it plays out. Today is another day.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 9, 2008 11:24 AM:

Diebold, corporate cash and tears . . . Hillary, the American Dream.

Public financing of elections.
Auditable elections.
Integrity.

Three missings.

jimijazz wrote on January 9, 2008 11:24 AM:

It was a sandbag job on Obama essentially,by the democratic establishment playing to people's fears and biases. Which shows you what the democratic establishment is all about. Not that much different from Bush.

dcshungu wrote on January 9, 2008 11:32 AM:

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 9:40 AM:

I'll say it again, it was the Tears and the abortion mailer. It had to help her with women voters, where she crushed Obama by 13 points.

If it is not just "sour grapes", I am not sure why this matters at all. I believe that it was a combination of the "tears" and her forceful debate performance on Sat night, which gave voters in Hillary a candidate who BOTH more "experienced" and "passionate." Hillary showed passion and had fire in her belly. Hillary was not just calculating, she felt her love for this country and it came out spontaneously. Think about that: What was there not to like about that! Those moments accomplished what $5 million in ads could not.

BWT, the polls were not wrong. The model just did not count on virtually every late decider going to Hillary. Look at Obama's, Edwards', and Richardson's pre and post numbers at pollster.com and you'll see. The story was the "undecided" vote that went to Hillary...

Liam wrote on January 9, 2008 11:36 AM:

All is fair in Love and Politics. I am an Obama supporter, but I feel that Hillary did a great job in winning in New Hampshire. She has shown that she can take an eight count,and get back up and throw a knock down punch back. That is good to see. Now let us see if Senator Obama can do the same thing.

It is now a two candidate race, let us find out who has the skills and stamina to complete the marathon. I hope that it is Obama, but if Hillary bests him, then that is who I will get behind in the General Election. We need this competition to make sure that we pick the right person to fight the Republicans. We handed the spot to John Kerry way too soon, and it turns out that he was just a sprinter, and not capable of completing a marathon. I am glad to see that we are going to have a real test this tim.

The Democratic party is still the party of expanding equal rights and freedoms. Today we know that the nominee of our party will either be the first woman, or the first person of color. How great is that!.

Congratulations to Senator Clinton for a great win. Now we have a real contest, and that is good for the party.

dcshungu wrote on January 9, 2008 11:42 AM:

Liam wrote on January 9, 2008 11:36 AM:

All is fair in Love and Politics. I am an Obama supporter, but I feel that Hillary did a great job in winning in New Hampshire. She has shown that she can take an eight count,and get back up and throw a knock down punch back. That is good to see. Now let us see if Senator Obama can do the same thing.
[...]

Great post and great commentary...

GMFORD wrote on January 9, 2008 11:43 AM:

I saw Obama make what I consider a huge gaffe the day before the vote in NH. He was talking before a crowd that did not appear to be big supporters -- not the 'fired up, ready to go' type of crowd.

He kept referring to the Iowa win and saying they (the audience) can keep the momentum going in New Hampshire. And what I kept thinking was if I lived in New Hampshire I wouldn't want to be compared to Iowa.

It's like telling your current spouse how they compare with your prior spouse -- a very bad idea.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 9, 2008 11:45 AM:

three diebold references~

I see there is a Prison Planet push in that direction also.

This is going to be interesting and check out the response at FreeRepublic if their members would support McCain?

This was a pretty good spectacle and LOL the MSM an the pundits (as the experts) seem to imply that somehow the forecasts and the results = diebold

LOL

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 11:45 AM:

I agree with DCShungu; that was a great post, Liam.

Meanwhile, a bit of shameless promoting for my own guy...

Dawn wrote on January 9, 2008 11:46 AM:

They liked the tears when she was asked how she keeps her hair looking nice.

Keep it up, Bupalos. I'm sure Obama appreciates your help.

Ethan wrote on January 9, 2008 11:56 AM:

I think we can chalk this up to the Clinton NH network leftover from (and developed during) Bill's days. As with both McCain and Clinton, they've both ALWAYS been liked in the Granite State. Once again the media hyperventilates, misses the big picture, then re-hyperventilates that they missed the big picture.

I thought Obama would win by 3 or 4, closer than Iowa but not a nailbiter... But ya know, I'm watching this stuff, but it's not my JOB to analyze these things. The fact that not a SINGLE paid media worm gave serious consideration to Hillary's established core in NH and high polling numbers throughout the race is really quite shocking in retrospect. The press needs to get back to REPORTING and not acting like they are the news.

Dawn wrote on January 9, 2008 11:57 AM:

Seems to me lots of people are confusing women relating to HRC with feeling sorry for her. There is a huge difference. No one votes for someone they feel sorry for - in part they vote for those they can relate to (or want to relate to ) on some level, whether it is having a beer with Dubya, being a young hard-charging world changer like Obama, or a hard-working woman that may be being treated unfairly like HRC.

I don't feel sorry for HRC at all - but I do know that if I tear up on the job occassionally (and I do) it is because I feel strongly about what I am saying, not because I am weak or playing for sympathy. Maybe it is just one of those things that most women understand and most men don't.

stlounick wrote on January 9, 2008 12:01 PM:

Congratulations to Senator Clinton for her NH win.

Being authentic matters and I think Senator Clinton stepped out of her carefully crafted public persona in the days and hours before the NH voting began. And it worked for her.

And I want authentic folks running in this primary--not a cardboard cutout.

Senator Clinton needs to continue showing her real self--and if she faked the tears, believe me, she will simply not be able to show the "real" Hillary in the rest of the campaign.

And Senator Obama--who I support--needs to fight for every last vote and get his supporters to do the same. In every state and in every primary.

Game on.

jimijazz wrote on January 9, 2008 12:06 PM:

People have to wake up to Hillary. This notion that's coming from some democrats that if it's not Obama, Hillary will do is absurd. The democratic voters a really a bunch a sheep and don't want change otherwise they wouldn't fall for the same old crap time and again. Hillary is now saying that it was her debating skills that put her over the top. This women is totally delusional and geting more like Bush every day. Expect a big Hillary backlash election day.

Keith wrote on January 9, 2008 12:12 PM:

And just to put a final point on this discussion, emotion determined this outcome. Obama's sudden reversal of fortune was because of emotional/media response to his victory in Iowa. Recall, he was trailing, in a number of polls by double digits coming into NH. Likewise, I think emotion swung the women's vote back to HRC. That coupled with wall-to-wall coverage of the imminent death of her campaign (seriously, other than Obama's crowds, her or her surrogates were leading the news) and her "contrast" efforts put her over the top.

Life goes on and it's time to move on.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 12:18 PM:

... wall-to-wall coverage of the imminent death of her campaign... put her over the top.

Like I said on the other thread, one of the things that I am taking away from yesterday's surprise is how extremely toxic the "inevitable" label is to its wearer. It did no great favors to Sen Clinton in IA. No sooner had she lost than it was taken off her lapel and pinned to Sen Obama's, and it was just as poisonous to him as it was to her.

In other words, I would be very wary of making a pitch for a candidate based on his/her likelihood of winning in the end. Evidently people strongly dislike the suggestion that they have no choice but the one you are presenting to them, and will vote otherwise just to spite you for saying so.

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 12:20 PM:

Yes, I think there was a sympathy backlash for Hillary, but much of the movement toward her at the end may have simply reflected those who had been with her before Iowa, got temporarily caught up in the Obama euphoria, then decided to return.

If you look at the exit polls, there were not a lot of categories where a clear distinction was drawn between Hillary and Obama voters, but there were a few:

1) Gender - no surprise
2) Age - no surprise
3) Ready to be Commander in Chief - here's where her "experience" argument is strongly reflected.

I think Pat Buchanan largely nailed it: 1) NH voters weren't willing to let Iowa and the media dictate Obama's coronation just yet and 2) there may be two camps developing in the Democratic party:

A movement-based McGovernite camp and an older traditionalist Humphrey camp. The former scoffs and the latter but the latter isn't just willing to hand over the keys without some clear convincing.

Obama supporters have to understand that there are many Democratic voters in this latter camp and the Messianic message doesn't impress us as much as the performance of the old tried and true wonkish poll who has shown she will use everything but the kitchen sink to win a fight.

Anonymous wrote on January 9, 2008 12:31 PM:

stlounick wrote:

"Being authentic matters and I think Senator Clinton stepped out of her carefully crafted public persona in the days and hours before the NH voting began. And it worked for her. And I want authentic folks running in this primary--not a cardboard cutout."

Well, she may be authentic or she may be just a great actress. Either way, I'm impressed. Whatever anyone thinks about her, she showed once again that she is a true fighter. Amazing how many Democrats don't seem to recognize the importance of that. The implication that the GOP will lose their claws and be forced into a kinder and gentler race if Obama is the nominee is laughable.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 9, 2008 12:41 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 12:18 PM:

I agree with you!

I also think that the venus/mars thing was in effect with the tears and the pundits whom are mostly male and 'framed' the discussion.

If it was a calculated move then HRC was not reshuffling the chairs on the titanic, just allowing the others to stand on the deck where it was warmer and safer longer~

Yep front-runner has been a poison term for the candidates and all the poll data seems to suggest that is the case.

Seth H. wrote on January 9, 2008 12:52 PM:

If Edwards would just forgo his rather excessive ego and drop out instead of lose state after state, Obama will, without question, be the nominee. As it stands, I'd say his chances are still pretty good. Not saying he's out of the game otherwise, just wish Edwards would see the reality of his situation and get out.

Liam wrote on January 9, 2008 12:54 PM:

I have a question, and I would appreciate if anyone with some more knowledge would provide some more information.

In Iowa, Senator Obama won the majority of women, but lost that advantage to Senator Clinton in New Hampshire. I saw a lot of Michelle Obama on the TV coverage of Iowa, but none from New Hampshire. My question is: did Michelle Obama campaign as much in New Hampshire as she did in Iowa, or could not making good use of her, especially to talk to women, have hurt Senator Obama in New Hampshire.

Since Hillary is using Bill so much, I think that the Obama campaign better make sure that they make good use of Michelle Obama on the campaign trail. If they did not make full use of her in New Hampshire, then that was a big mistake. She was very effective in Iowa.

More Michelle please.

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 1:05 PM:

Seth wrote:

"If Edwards would just forgo his rather excessive ego and drop out instead of lose state after state, Obama will, without question, be the nominee. As it stands, I'd say his chances are still pretty good. Not saying he's out of the game otherwise, just wish Edwards would see the reality of his situation and get out."

Boy, you're really sure of your views without any empirical evidence to back them up. Just because Edwards decided to tag team Clinton with his usual sense of strategic opportunism doesn't mean his supporters would immediately flow overwhelmingly to Obama in the event he dropped out. I watched Edwards at a small group event the other day. Other than Susan Sarandon and Tim Roberts in attendance, the crowd seemed to be more reflective of what we are told is the Clinton demographic than the Obama demographic. Sure, many Edwards supporters see Clinton as a corporatist compromiser but I suspect more of them would go to Clinton than you realise.

There's something else you need to think about. How strong and reliable is Obama's support? We'll find out in the coming weeks. Last night gave some evidence that his support was not as strong or reliable as many thought.

brewmn wrote on January 9, 2008 1:09 PM:

"the Messianic message doesn't impress us as much as the performance of the old tried and true wonkish poll who has shown she will use everything but the kitchen sink to win a fight."

I get so tired fo this claim that she knows how to "win a fight." What fight has she ever won?

Capitulation to the Right doesn't qualify as "winning" in my book.

audit the polls wrote on January 9, 2008 1:09 PM:

While I do tend to believe exit polls more than polls, I would still like to know who conducted them.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 9, 2008 1:11 PM:

More Michelle please.

Well, I can certainly second that. The whole Obama family are a winsome and engaging bunch.

merryll wrote on January 9, 2008 1:31 PM:

The Repuplicans don't have a chance, unless they hire someone to do another 9/11. So the defense, medical, insurance, financial, and oil industries are buying Democrats. Either Clinton or Obama will do. Big money gets big press, poll numbers, and, it would appear, in NH, votes.

Has anybody checked out the voting machines there? Are they touch screen?

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 1:31 PM:

Another exit poll clue (in addition to those cited above):

Among the people who thought the debates were VERY IMPORTANT, there was a noticeable preference for Clinton.

I support Clinton. I didn't start out that way. I leaned toward Obama. But, when I started watching debates a few months ago, she seemed the best prepared and the best on her feet. OK, OK maybe she is a middle aged version of Reese Witherspoon in Elected but the smart, ambitious girl who outworks everyone else deserves some respect, too. (And, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a man.).

Obama is clearly a better stump speaker (but Hillary is better than people give her credit for being). But, so far, Hillary has been a little (not a whole lot) better in debates. Some of the preferences may be due to which vehicles for communication people choose for their decision making process.

lombard wrote on January 9, 2008 2:06 PM:

jimijazz wrote on January 9, 2008 10:33 AM:

"To Bill R. - exactly. The Clintons want the nomination to be given to them instead of having to earn it. And if that's not going to happen they are going to use every sleasy trick in the book."

Well, I draw the opposite conclusion. The last few days show that the Clintons are willing to do what it takes to earn the nomination and may have more fire in their bellies than Obama.

Amazing how everyone will give credit to the sports team that shows fire and does whatever it takes to win but those same characteristics when applied to a political race are somehow undesirable and unbecoming for many. Personally, I want the candidate who wants it the most.

And as far as the sleazy tricks I know the other side will use them in spades no matter who the Dems nominate. If we have a candidate who is willing to reciprocate, that's OK with me because I live in the real world not a utopian one. Doesn't mean you can't govern effectively afterward. The first George Bush didn't get along so badly with the Democratic Congress despite running a reasonably dirty campaign by the standards of the day and President Clinton didn't get along so badly with the Republican Congress in the period between the government shutdown and the impeachment debacle.

Tom wrote on January 9, 2008 2:16 PM:

On Minnesota Public Radio's "Midmorning" today (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/09/midmorning1/) on analyst claimed that Clinton had a highly sophisticated GOTV apparatus, which identified slack areas and drove people to polls. Another analyst observed the timing of the Bush administration's releases regarding the "attacks" US Navy by Iranian vessels. His claim was the Republicans want Clinton to be the nominee and the a security scare drives voters to more "conventional" candidates, i.e. Clinton vs Obama. He said he detected the hand of Karl Rove in this. I leave it to wiser heads whether any of this makes sense.

slb wrote on January 9, 2008 2:46 PM:

They liked the tears when she was asked how she keeps her hair looking nice.

Keep it up Bupalos -- this is exactly the thing that infuriates women and drives them into Senator Clinton's corner. The questioner mentioned Clinton's hair, yes, but only as a humorous aside at the end of the question, which really was, "How do you do it? How do you stay upbeat?" And it was in answering that that Sen. Clinton got a bit emotional. (She did not "weep," as has been reported; her voice wavered and her eyes got a little misty, that's all.)

That happens to a lot of us when we are feeling something very deeply, and I know from my own experience that an expression of sympathy, as the question clearly was, is more likely to undo you than anything else, especially when it is unexpected.

southpaw wrote on January 9, 2008 3:07 PM:

The Right will attack whoever is the Dem nominee, but, who will they salivate over most? Clinton.

Ms wrote on January 9, 2008 4:03 PM:

From US News and world report:

I thought it (the Bradley effect) would not be operating in New Hampshire this year. But the data push me toward the opposite conclusion...

...they found discrepancies between the exit poll results and the actual tabulated vote in exit poll precincts in the Concord/West segment of the state, a liberal area that has been leaning Vermontward in its politics and was the strongest area for Howard Dean in 2004. This is a bit puzzling, since the exit poll, like the actual vote, is a secret ballot: The voter gets a ballot that he marks up and then deposits in a box. But there may have been a nontrivial number of voters who wanted the exit pollster to think they'd voted for Obama when they'd actually voted for Clinton.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/1/9/another-few-rounds-for-the-democrats.html

charlie wrote on January 9, 2008 8:36 PM:

Sorry but I agree with realclearpolitics that late-deciding voters made NO difference. That 39-36% supposed edge Hillary had over Obama in voters who decided yesterday is called a "split" here and I agree. The polls underestimated how much of the traditional democratic base Hillary could mobilize to vote. Most of her voters made up their mind over a month ago while Obama's voters decided on him within the last month.

I think the HillaryCried moment got the attention of more Clinton Haters than Clinton supporters. It had the smallest of small affect on this primary.

Gary Dention wrote on January 10, 2008 10:26 AM:

Absolutely, the late deciders could not make a difference the numbers and the differences were too small.

I want a couple of the machine-counted townships I don't think should have gone for Hillary Clinton to have a hand recount. Even Fox News found problems between the exit polls and the final tallies.

The folks at Fox News headquarters in New York, my companions on election night, told me that they found discrepancies between the exit poll results and the actual tabulated vote in exit poll precincts in the Concord/West segment of the state, a liberal area that has been leaning Vermontward in its politics and was the strongest area for Howard Dean in 2004. This is a bit puzzling, since the exit poll, like the actual vote, is a secret ballot: The voter gets a ballot that he marks up and then deposits in a box....

The Manchester area was Hillary Clinton's strongest region in the state, and she carried next-door upscale Bedford (by just a few votes) and most of the other surrounding towns. The initial exit poll precincts showed Clinton carrying the region denoted "South" (these definitions were made back in the 1970s and reflect demographic conditions then, not now), about which I was skeptical. But as the votes came in, it became clear that she indeed was carrying most of the towns in these areas....

Clinton carried Manchester 45 to 31 percent and Nashua, seemingly less favorable ground, 45 to 33 percent. She racked up big margins in the former mill towns of Dover, Rochester, and Somersworth on the Maine border, where turnout was almost double that in 2000. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/1/9/another-few-rounds-for-the-democrats.html

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)