McCain May Have Won NH, But Exit Polls Show Long-Term Pitfalls
So what should we make of John McCain's New Hampshire victory last night? What does it suggest for McCain about the road ahead?
Unquestionably, it left the GOP race wide open, gave a new credibility to McCain's once-moribund candidacy, and put him back on a track that could lead to the nomination. Nonetheless, a close look at the exit polls and the demographics of his victory reveals that a host of hidden dangers lie ahead for him in the upcoming primary and caucus states.
For one thing, McCain's percentages of both the Republican and independent voting blocs were lower than they were in 2000, according to CNN's exit polls. That year he won 38% of the Republican vote and 62% of the independent vote, for a 49% victory overall. This year, it was only 34% of the GOPers and 40% of the indies, for 37% overall.
This is significant for the upcoming races because he'll need GOP base support in upcoming Republican-only primaries in many states — and suggests that his work on immigration reform, among other things, has significantly eroded his support among that demographic. It also suggests that his traction with independent voters wasn't what it was in 2000 — a key constituency for McCain in other states.
And that's not all.
New Hampshire is also a state where reducing the deficit took priority over cutting taxes among Republican primary voters by a 54%-44% margin. McCain won the deficit-hawk vote 46%-26% against Mitt Romney, but lost the tax-cutters by 37%-27%. This serves as a reminder that the supply-side crowd has never truly forgiven McCain for his vote against the 2001 Bush tax cuts.
This suggests more perils in the race ahead, because in states like South Carolina and Florida, it's likely that GOP rank-and-file voters will be more sympathetic to the tax-cutter position than the deficit-hawk one, because of the tendency of Southern and farm-belt conservatives to like both federal subsidies and big tax cuts. That means McCain will have his work cut out for him at winning those voters over in a way he didn't in 2000, before his Bush tax cut vote.
There's still more. If you look at what the exits have to say about the ideological breakdown of yesterday's vote, this also suggests problems ahead. In 2000, he won the conservatives with 37%, but this time only got 30% to Mitt Romney's 38%. And CNN puts him at a dead heat against Romney's 35% of core Republicans. This suggests that even if McCain did eke out a win in independent-rich New Hampshire, if anything he's still slipping among conservatives and core Republicans. That's a major problem for him in states like California and Florida, where independents can't vote and the social conservatives who are gravitating towards Mike Huckabee or Romney will dominate the process.
The real significance of McCain's New Hampshire win may be that it will enable him to win some GOP establishment support, something that seems possible again with Rudy fading and Mitt Romney seriously on the ropes. McCain, of course, will need this establishment support for fundraising purposes and to turn insider chatter to his advantage.
But it remains to be seen whether McCain will be able to attract the grassroots Republican primary constituencies that he really needs to put together an electoral victory and win the nomination. And yesterday's exit polls suggest that he has a long road ahead of him on his way to the St. Paul convention.















Speaking of exit polls . . .
Something you're seeing all over the place today: McCain got more "undeclared" (independent) votes than Mitt, and Obama got more than Hillary.
Something you're not seeing in many places: Dems got 57% of the "undeclared" vote.
Something you're not (AFAICT) seeing anywhere: Not only did Obama get the most "undeclared" votes, Hillary got more than any Repub.
The shares of the overall "undeclared" vote are:
Obama 23.4%
Hillary 17.7
McCain 17.2
Mitt 11.6
Edwards 10.3
Paul 8.4
And so on down the line. Worked it out myself from exit data at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html
January 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
LBJ did not lean down and help MLK. MLK spoke up and forced LBJ to listen. MLK was brave enough to create the possibility of change, LBJ only acted after that possibility was realized. Just imagine what impact MLK would have had then, had he had the bully pulpit of the presidency.
January 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is one thing that is clear in this race, it is that 2008 is not 2000. Comparing percentages of the electorate between these two elections is misleading at best. I do not see how comparing one invariable's results against a sea of true variables can lead to any sort of causal or predictive relationship. Sloppy argument based on figures that have truly little relationship to one another--an argument that would hold no water in an academic forum.
A word on polls: they do not and cannot predict results. They can show with a substantial margin of error how the public represents itself at an isolated moment in time, not how the public will behave in the future. Trends can be surmised from this sort of representation, but not results. There is a reason that we can only create narratives of history looking backwards. Rasmussen, Zogby, et al are not oracular or divine beings, and it seems absurd that the media and blogosphere keep harping on the question of why the polls were wrong. This is a very complicated election--complicated by the presence of and reaction (by the electorate) to the media's own narratives, complicated by events that are in no ways foreseeable (Clinton's stellar performances on Monday), complicated by the fact that we are emotional beings who react to constellations of sense-data. It's shocking to me that the media isn't taking a step back and examining itself and its role in this process.
January 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's something of interest: turnout in 2000 vs. 2008.
republican turnout in 2000 was 238,206. turnout in 2008 was 238,850.
democratic turnout in 2000 was 154,639. turnout in 2008 was 287,821.
January 9, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We are the makers of history, not its victims."
John McCain NH Victory Speech, 1/8/08
"They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history."
Phillip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle (describing the mindset of the Nazis)
I find this kind of creepy.
January 9, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "We are the makers of history, not its victims" creeped me right out, but I didn't know why. I read it as a PNAC 'we deserve to rule the world' and if I am President that's what I'll do.
January 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing personal but I wonder if penalcolony's numbers are right. I am unfortunately mathamatically challenged enough that I can's tell. If so, they are fascinating in that HRC pulled such a high share of the undeclareds.
I agree with him that the fact that most of the undeclareds went Democratic and that almost half of them for HRC would indicate that she is not as unelectable as some pundits have said.
Did anyone see any polling data from Iowa of a similar nature?
January 9, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"b wrote on January 9, 2008 12:46 PM:
...
It's shocking to me that the media isn't taking a step back and examining itself and its role in this process."
The media is terrible at reflection and is more likely to run with whatever they pull out of their asses.
I agree with b concerning the polls.
Whether New Hampshire polls have been accurate in the past is not really instructive. Their had to come a time when the volatility of independents messed up the numbers.
The exit data tells part of the story, detailing when voters made their final decision.
With the malleable attitude of so many independents in the mix it would seem to me that polling should be taken with a grain of salt. Expecting commitments recorded at a given moment to have a long shelf life would seem foolhardy in an environment where the applied intellectual rigor of an independent can amount to a toss of the coin in the voting booth.
So how about adding the poll numbers together and recognize that the number needed to reach 100 is a wild card that could break in a variety of ways and that the committed numbers may not last through breakfast.
January 9, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Independents can vote in the California primaries. They do have to specifically request a Republican or Democratic ballot, otherwise they are given a ballot without partisan races.
January 9, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
When John Mccain served his country, I apploud him.But when he says his plan for illegal immigrants is not amnesty he flat out lies!This man told us day after day that americans are lazy,remember when he said"illegals are doing jobs americans dont want to do?"Remember when he voted against english being the official?"Rember Mccain/Fiengold?Mccain/Kennedy?The gang of 14? O.K. he won NH, big deal! We expected that, but now its it comes down to South carolina,Florida and such.'STRIGHT TALK FRIENDS'Liberal Johnny can kiss his ass goodbye!'
January 9, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Mccain, LIBERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 9, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't count Rudy out!!!!!! Rudy is just getting warmed up! The focus in on Florida. Mayor Giuliani is ahead of everyone. He has a massive following in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties. Florida is Rudy's to lose. Momentum is surging in South Florida. He has alot of appearances scheduled this weekend as well as the following weeks leading up to the primary. As you travel throughout Broward County, Rudy signs are everywhere. Nationally, he has commanding leads in NJ,NY,CA,NV and CA. After Florida, look for a landslide victory for Rudy on FEB 05.
January 9, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
NH Chooses Raging Trotskyites McCain, Clinton
January 9th, 2008
Liberal establishment candidate, war-mongerer, and ill-tempered veteran-with-an-axe-to-grind John McCain won the GOP primary in NH after the sheeple dutifully went to the polls in obedience to the many controlled-media newspapers who endorsed him.
McCain has been the defacto proponent of open borders, and supports government control over the internet and your ability to finance campaigns. He has stated he is in support of the ICC in violation of our US Constitution, subjugating our US sovereignty to international law. He is no Republican, no conservative, and definitely not a patriot.
Oh how the CFR must love it.
But the worst thing is, he's stated that he doesn't care if we stay 100 more years in Iraq? Al Qaeda has already noted this in their training manuals.
January 10, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink