Comments on A Theory on Clinton's Win

I think you're looking for a conspiracy of bad intentions where none exists. We wonder how she did it only because the most recent polling had Obama winning by a wide margin.

I like Hillary a lot, but I still wonder how that many major polls missed this one.

hillary was down by 10 percentage points in the polls buy won by 3. hence the various theories.

Anybody have any theories on why the Slog Star isn't posting?

*but, not buy

Hillary also won among voters who had “positive feelings” about the Bush administration: 42% to Obama’s 27%.

the more this campaign goes on, the more you see the deep dislike the media has of hillary and the double standards applied to women.

im not a hillary supporter, but motherfuckers be hating.

Josh,

Did you see the headline on the Sea paper this morning, the one about *witch you like to theorize?

It says Hilary comes back "roaring."

Now my theory is that, in connection with the SF Zoo incident, they are emphasizing Clinton's pussy.

And the photo is interesting because it stops just above his Bill C's loins. Think what you will what is going on 'off camera.'

Made me think about the Monica, not the witch from nBEEc must-see 'fiends,' but the other intern witch.

Do you think Bill had to make up for his infidelity with a monster lion appetite for Hillary's tender clit?

Or are they simply the cold bastards *witch has made them so beloved?

@5 - that's, like, six people. Please.

@6 - If that "double standard" translates into sympathetic female votes, how much of a handicap is it?

a killer with a hyper competent machine

[Vince Foster joke]

Josh why the weird anger? Your candidate won. Perhaps you know that this victory is ephemeral.

I think Hillary picked up the fence-sitters because voting for Hillary maintains New Hampshire's relevance. In Iowa, in contrast, Obama picked up the fence-sitters (and, as Eli points out, mid-caucus partipants) because those Iowans sensed they were creating a historic moment. New Hampshirites don't want to be a footnote to Iowa's historic moment, they want to create their own historic moment and maintain their relevance. Voting for Hillary made a louder statement than voting for Obama. We all like to be heard, and New Hampshire's loud statement was heard!

Hillary was supposed to win NH. Until a few days ago, the general consensus was HRC would take NH. I'm not sure how this is a surprise.

Is it apparent to anyone else that there is this big to-do over Hillary? Keeping in mind that we've gone 4 yrs bush, 8 years clinton, 8 years bush, and now considering voting another Clinton? I thought we lived in a DEMOCRACY and not a DYNASTY!

I'm sick of hillary clinton!

You should go work for Hillary's campaign with your super hero clairvoyance abilities! LMFAO

Even HER OWN camp was resigned to her losing late into the evening, and were SHOCKED to hear they were leading.

They were so shocked they had no talking points prepared for her "victory" speech.

Geesssshhhhh talk about jumping on the Hillary bandwagon.. errr sinking ship.

Please everyone. Let's get Hillary on the ticket. That should just about sew up the presidency for the Republicans.

Reality Check

@9 it did this time in nh, but it has helped her opponents, remember the media pundits are catering to their white male viewers. look at this gem from chris mathews this AM:

"The reason she's a U.S. Senator, the reason she's a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front-runner, is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on the merits..."

and this guy is paid to give "analysis" of the race. this is just plain mysoginist shit.

anyway, like i said, im not a big supporter of her, mainly because she is a centrist and ima lefty.

Hillary is the female Bob Dole. She's competent and tough enough to do the job well but far too unlikable to be elected. BO is probably the lesser of the two in substance, but at least he has a chance of winning the general election.

We had all better hope that the machine falters.

Oh gawd please, any Dem but Clinton.

One short year ago, I was excited about the Democratic takeover of Congress and look what a failed, terrible, hell-trip that’s been. And all because of so-called “centrists” like Hillary Clinton whose only goals are to give the Republicans everything that they want and throw Democratic voters under the bus.

My theory is:
All the polls were showing a major Obama victory. Thus independents saw it as an opportunity to vote for McCain instead of Obama.

I don't think one needs to go around concocting "theories" to account for HRC's win in NH, since I doubt it was all that much of a surprise to anyone -except the media and their pollsters.

It was simply the result of a much higher than expected turnout of Democratic voters, which always tends to monkey-wrench polling projections, combined with a strong on-the-ground presence by her campaign, and a late surge of sympathy, because of a couple of recent public appearances that allowed her to exhibit a more human side of her personality.

I don't think anything changed significantly for the Clinton campaign in NH post Iowa, but rather the media, jumping on the Obama bandwagon after his "upset victory" last week, started pushing the "Clinton is out of it/she's desperate" meme, and the late polling simply reflected that back to them; wouldn't be the first time THAT'S happened, nor will it likely be the last time we see it happen in this cycle.

I do, however, think Hillary's people were very adept at using that meme to their advantage, by creating a sense of lowered expectations for their candidate, who was perceived as losing momentum, while Obama was suddenly touted as the steamroller that was going to bury her unless she went negative. I doubt their internal polling ever indicated more than a percentage point or so drop, but with the media already declaring her practically dead-in-the-water, her win last night leaves the voting public with a much stronger perception, since now she can be seen, not as the front-runner she's consistently been since day one, but rather as the "come-from-behind underdog", which actually gives her even MORE momentum going into MI, NV & SC.

Effin' brilliant on their part, if you ask me.

Anybody have any theories on why Mr. Poe hates me so much?

No, seriously, I was down on a yesterday post responding at length to Big Sven. My comment got eaten, however. I hope it's in the system and can be revived, but for now, I gotta go to a meeting.

I don't hate you, Annie. I love you. SOOOO much!

Hugz!

I think we need a new, less fevered way of looking at the caucus and primary season. I am no expert on polling (but the compressed interval between Iowa and NH, with the Saturday debate and extremely intense campaigning and press attention and MSM piling on Hillary, does seem a plausible cause in the polling "errors"--I can see how the poling simply couldn't keep up with the late shifts in people's views). But what bugs me is the excessive emphasis put on what really are not very significant differences in outcomes. In NH, Hillary got less than 8,000 more votes than Obama, or between 2 and 3 percent more of the total (but tiny) electorate. Both of them received way less than a majority of votes. Aren't their numbers really substantially the same? If Sally and Johnny have 100 pennies in front of them, and race to see who can pick up the most, and Sally gets 39 of them and Johnny gets 37, did Sally stomp Johnny? Is it a foregone conclusion she'll do it again next time? The next 20 times? Even if they play with nickels or quarters? Or move from Sally's floor to Johnny's carpet (I probably could maul this analogy more)?

It just seems stupid to ascribe the significance everybody does to the outcomes of these 2 at this stage of the campaign. The fact is that all 3 Democratic candidates received a whole bunch of votes in both Iowa and NH. To write any of them off (i.e., Hillary after Iowa and before NH, or Edwards all along) or anoint any of them the victor of the whole race at this point (with something like 1% of total voters having voted so far) just seems nuts.

As Lincoln said, no doubt on the same topic, "We must disenthrall ourselves." Wishful thinking, I suppose.

annie- doesn't Mr. Poe hate everyone?

@24,

Not adrian.

I don't hate Original Monique, either.

Or NapoleonXIV, or monkey.

One thing the MSM keeps missing, but most voters will tell you, is that most Dems are quite comfortable with most (or all) of the Dem candidates for President this year.

And, quite frankly, it's nice to have some time for the MSM to get its head out of its back end and start talking about the POLICY DIFFERENCES and other things instead of the horse race aspects.

Actually, Mr Poe and Original Monique are quite friendly to each other, in person.

I think Hillary just proved she has the gumption. And she proved that she can draw out older voters and appeal to young women. BooYAH.

and @ Will in Seattle: Oh we are more than friendly. I damn near impregnated him at Moe Bar.

And trust me, it's harder than it looks...

"Just pretend I'm Adrian! Poe..Just close your eyes, that's it..."

You mean Anderson Cooper, right?

how many votes does it take to make her narrow victory a "wallop", anyway?

My theory is that pundits are treating states and classes of voters as generic, ignoring important regional and demographic differences. Iowa's independents are not the same as New Hampshire's. Iowa is a Midwest state with a strong farming tradition, and a lot of independents are socially moderate to conservative voters who were part of the FDR coalition that existed before Reagan (or at least heirs to that tradition.) The older women voters are more likely to be middle class than affluent. These are people to whom the message of Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards appeals.

New Hampshire independents are fiscal conservatives with a libertarian streak, often former Rockefeller Republicans. Obama's cross-party message has some appeal, but a lot of them see him as too liberal. Edwards' full-on populist rhetoric is a big turn-off with them. That leaves Clinton as the best choice. McCain is just independent enough despite his conservatism to draw in a lot of these people too.

The regional factor also explains both outcomes. Obama is from Illinois and has roots in Kansas--he's a Midwest politician. Hillary might have been born in Chicago and lived in Arkansas but she's become a Northeastern Democrat. Going forward, Obama will have the edge in Midwest and Western states, and Clinton will have the edge in the Northeast. The South is an open question, and Edwards can play spoiler anywhere but the Northeast.

That means that February 5 is likely to be a split decision and the Washington caucus might actually matter for once.

Josh,

Once again you're being an ass. HRC weep seen round the world is what sealed the deal for late-breaking undecideds. All of us on the slog should chip in some dollars to send you back to Journalism school because you are severely lacking in the profession you have picked. Even if HRC wins the Dem nomination she won't get any indies to support her. If Edwards drops out of the race all of his support will go to Obama. I swear you're just as bad as Fox News!

33, Edwards said that he's in it to the convention, and while he's probably exaggerating, I think it's safe to say he's not going anywhere before February 5. While the CW says that Edwards voters would otherwise go to Obama, I don't think that's true. Speaking for myself as someone leaning towards Edwards, I'd probably switch to a symbolic Kucinich vote if Edwards dropped out, and I might even consider voting for Clinton over Obama. I like Obama's image and some of his rhetoric but don't trust his ability to follow up with substantive and effective change. On the other hand, Clinton's team is full of people I hate (except for her), and she's definitely the Democratic status quo.

I expect we'll see a split decision in Nevada and South Carolina or that Obama will win narrowly in both cases, but that the dynamic of the race will remain like it is now going into February 5. That means that the February 5 results are likely to reflect the same regional biases as the states so far. That means basically a split in delegate counts, both above 750 for Clinton and Obama (not counting superdelegates), with Edwards holding over 300 delegates but with only third-place finishes, and Richardson picking up 20-30 delegates in Western states and managing a tie with Obama in New Mexico. Clinton will take New York, and Obama will take California and Illinois, but the margins won't be enough on either side to manage a clear winner.

To me, that looks like time for Richardson to drop out, with his delegates not being significant enough to matter. Kucinich stays in for symbolic purposes until the convention as in 2004. That leaves third-place Edwards who will continue to rack up enough delegates to deny Clinton or Obama a majority. Edwards will become the de facto voice of the populist progressive wing of the party, and should be able to play kingmaker. There will be a lot of pressure for him to pick sides before the convention, but he'll be able to ask for something in return. I don't think he wants to be VP, but he could get his choice for VP and/or a cabinet position.

@34 Well thought out scenario. Interesting times are ahead.