Comments on Theories, Theories, Theories

Annie,

The stats you cite do not nullify Clinton's performance in the debate.

If Clinton won among people who decided on the day of the primary, how does that discount her performance in Saturday's debate?

Obviously, as you say, factors work in concert. The debate was a major event right before the vote.

Likewise, if she lost with voters who made up their minds prior to the debate or as late as Saturday (3 days prior as your stat says), then indeed, those folks didn't factor in the debate fall out.

Maybe the answer is in the Diebold machines they used to "count' the votes.

Let's not forget the poll effect. If the news media is reporting in all these polls that Obama is way ahead that could cause two things...

1) Cause Obama supporters who are lazy to not bother to go to the poll assuming it's already a done deal.

2) Put a fire under the Clinton supporters to get every last person to the polls possible.

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --

Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%

Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%

Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%

Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%

Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

sceptic @2,

I assume you meant "sceptic" to be read with hard c, but a soft-c pronunciation fits your Clinton/Diebold conspiracy theory better.

Thank you, Annie! I've been wondering about many of these points!

sounds like some independents who could have gone for either obama or mccain thought O had it clinched and voted for mccain instead.

i also like the theory that voters flatly rejected 2 consecutive media coronations, which suggests people are actually thinking for themselves. no matter who wins, i like that.

"In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton leads with 187 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. She is followed by Obama with 89 delegates and Edwards with 50."

-- http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDkQnMmIo_xXUF1vV_6VqxNpsLKgD8U24L802

Rebecca Traister at Salon, a feminist of long standing, says that the "glee with which [Chris] Matthews and other angry male pundits prematurely danced on Hillary's grave made me -- for one night only -- a Clinton supporter." I think that's pretty plausible.

It doesn't match up with Erica's cold rationalist theory, but I don't believe cold rationalism has ever played even a minor role in a presidential campaign. Certainly not this one.

and btw, i love the phrase "clinton's outrageous fact distortion," but you're being way too kind. why does anybody believe a word this douche says?

Clinton winning NH is a good thing for Obama, Clinton & Edwards supporters alike. Obama needs to learn he can't count on da youths leaving their Wiis to go vote. We are flakes. Just ask our friends.

And Clinton learned that she has to reach out more and be that warm and engaging person that she CAN be.

And John Edwards learnt, that sexist remarks are going to hurt him, so he should stop contending that someone's voice breaking means they aren't fit to negotiate with North Korea.

Or maybe it's because those "Obama By 10 Points" polls were bullshit. Taking a longer look at the polling HERE shows that New Hampshire pretty much went as expected.

^actually i thought you were referring to bill. but now that i think about it, "these douches" would be much more appropriate.

@9 and @11:

thanks great comments.

Even Pat Buchanan is saying the male media pounding on Hillary ("dancing on her grave") played a part.

Personally I think the media pounding, plus her showing herself to be human, plus her policy stands and experience and Bill's defense, raising second thoughts about Obama, played a part. This is rationality and emotion. A certain reigning in of excessive emotions for O; a certain rationality about C; a certain warming up to C instead of coldly withholding support; an overall equilibrating of both reason and emotion towards both.

The voters were acting commendably and not sexist or "emotional" and not racist in any way.

Uh, Doug @ 12, the most recent polls linked have Obama winning by 5 to 13 points. He lost by 2. So how again did the polling "go as expected"? The "longer look" is for older polls. I don't think anyone denies that the "Obama by 10 points" were the most recent polls, and that the older polls showed Clinton winning. It's the most recent polls that were wrong. Very wrong. They indicate a bounce for Obama from Iowa that did not in fact materialize. I think it's because, as noted by brandon @7, independents went for McCain, as well as the polls perhaps missing Biden and Dodd voters who switched to Clinton when they dropped out (around 5 points worth).

@7 is probably closest.

And @11 is most insightful.

But the MSM still haven't learned their lesson and are still talking about the horse race and inevitable candidates ...

Josh, Obama's bounce came _after_ Hillary's performance at the debate. It seems reasonable to think that the bounce came from the debate, and Hillary's turnaround from reactions to the bounce.

Notice that when Obama was up by nine points, the polls only had him at 39%. He only finished two points below that. The majority of Hillary's boost seems like it came from someplace else (*cough Edwards cough*).

The commentary I've seen is that the polls were correct about the percentage of the vote that Obama got but were wrong about the percentage that Clinton got. So Obama did not "underperform", but Clinton performed better than the polls said she would.

You know what's funny about economy voters choosing Clinton, her stances on economic issues are less like Bill Clinton's than Obama's are like Bill Clinton's.

Which leads me to believe Obama would be better for the economy, as Bill Clinton was the best for the economy of any president since the 1960s.

Would you stop this pro-Obama bias crap?

Yesterday was BAD for Obama - very bad. Particularly with his arrogant attitude leading up to the primary (think... 'you're nice enough').

If you want to keep thinking it wasn't bad - great. It just means you'll keep losing. After Iowa Hillary admitted it was a big loss and changed things quick... and that produced results, not spin.

Or 4) The difference in makeup between a caucus of political wanks in Iowa and the body of eligible voting citizens in New Hampshire.

kk@15: Clinton was winning in just about every poll out there until Saturday. The vote was three days later, so it's not like Obama blew some sort of huge, sustained lead. In fact HIllary was cleaning his clock until last week.

To call this some sort of historic upset or comeback is just totally misrepresentative.

@20: I'm pro Obama, but that's legit. This is an alternative weekly's blog, and I'm the film editor, not a daily news reporter.

Was he arrogant leading up to the primary? Don't think so.

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Senator Barack Obama delivered a message to supporters: “Do not take this race for granted. I know we had a nice boost over the last couple of days, but elections are a funny business.”

Was New Hampshire bad for Obama? Of course. But it was good for democracy, and good for Washington State. I'm pleased.

@20 - no, it wasn't bad for Obama. Unless you want an ultrashort campaign season.

People like to think THEY made the decision. If Obama wins on Super Tuesday or gets a slim majority, more people will feel THEY made the decision that had him become the candidate.

In other words, he'll be THEIR candidate, not Iowa's and New Hampshire's.

But it was good for Sen Clinton, that's for sure!

He talked about "you're nice enough" in an interview - before the result - with Diane Sawyer. He said it was misinterpreted and it came out wrong. He was actually trying to be nice, and thinks maybe it would have been better if he'd said "you're plenty likeable!"

I know it makes him look like a jerk, and it really does look especially bad in print, but when I saw the clip I thought the same thing, that he was reflexively coming to her defense - as anyone might, as it was a horrid question. You have to admit that sort of thing would be extremely unlike him. If E had said it, I would not be in such a hurry to believe it well meant, but even E is not that nakedly vicious.

@25 - yeah, I think he genuinely meant that to be supportive. I mean, come on, it was a stupid question that had no business being asked in the first place - he probably didn't know exactly how to respond to it. Which was a slipup on his part, perhaps, but it doesn't make him a jackass.