Wednesday, January 9, 2008

It's ... alive!

In the best tradition of zombie movies, Hillary Clinton proved reports of her (political) death were greatly exaggerated, rallying to edge Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary last night. John Edwards was a distant third.

I imagine Liza and Roger were very disappointed with those results. I know I was.

Yesterday morning there was discussion of Obama having double-digit leads in polling, reports of a number of uncommitted Senators being in discussions to declare their support for his campaign, questions about whether Clinton's financing was drying up, discussion of an overhaul of the Clinton campaign staff, even speculation about Clinton ending her campaign if she was decisively defeated for a second time.

I haven't checked the blogosphere yet today, but I would guess there's none of that talk now.

I can't think of anything I read or heard the last two days that anticipated this result. Literally the only item I can recall that pointed in this direction was a one-sentence statement I saw somewhere (and now can't find) indicating that focus groups watching the NH debate tended to see support for Obama move over toward Clinton, but even that was buried in a much longer story discussing the Obama surge.

As in Iowa, voters turned out in record numbers, and as in Iowa far more votes were cast in the Democratic primary than the Republican one. ABC news found about 40% of the voters in each primary were Independents, and ultimately this likely cost Obama - Clinton has consistently drawn more support from established Democratic voters, while Obama beats her decisively among the unaffiliated. With McCain also drawing heavy support among Independents, it appears he may have attracted enough of them to vote in the Republican primary to condemn Obama to second in the Democratic one.

Clinton will get more help in a week when she wins Michigan in a walkover. Yes, I know the DNC has said the state's delegates won't be counted at the convention, but you don't really believe that, do you?

I do believe Obama and his campaign did a very poor job of managing expectations in New Hampshire in the few days between Iowa and yesterday. Just as Iowa is in his backyard, New Hampshire is the same for Clinton. She should have do well there, and polls for months had shown her with a massive lead. Handled correctly, finishing within 8,000 votes and 3% of her would have been viewed as a victory. Instead, it's being viewed as a defeat ... and I am afraid this defeat hurts Obama far more than losing Iowa hurt Clinton.

Edwards can't be under any illusions at this point, he knows he will not garner the nomination. Still, with neither Clinton or Obama looking inevitable now, it's entirely possible for Edwards to earn enough delegates to play a substantial role in determining which of the other two does win the primary, and that likely is worth staying in for the long haul. I would think he would be far more likely to align with Obama than Clinton when the time comes ... but last night's results have already shown what can happen to expectations.

Expected form did hold on the Republican side, where McCain comfortably defeated Romney, everyone else being much further back. For whatever reason, voters there really like him, and that carried him through despite New England being Romney's "home region" and dropping big sums of money into the state.

No matter how you slice it, Romney is now in trouble. He had been counting on winning one of Iowa or New Hampshire to indicate viability and open up the money spigots. However, with Huckabee cutting into his religious votes and McCain the independent ones, Romney is looking increasingly like a candidate with just enough support to stay in the race, but not quite enough to win.

Sooner or later, you figure he's got to decide he can't keep throwing his own money into the ravenous maw that is a Presidential campaign. I saw somewhere yesterday he's up to $53 million so far. Maybe Bloomberg has some spare change lying around he could pitch in.

4 comments:

Liza said...

Sirocco,
Were it not for the polls, I would have given New Hampshire to Clinton with Obama second and Edward third. Obama had the momentum from Iowa, but New Hampshire is in Clinton's backyard, as you say. In this case, the polls were very misleading.

You are right that I was very disappointed. I wanted Clinton to go into Super Duper Tuesday with a mojor disadvantage and now, of course, that will not happen.

What is so depressing is to think of her as president after suffering through eight years of Bush.

Furthermore, I see her as one term president. The Democratic Congress is massively incompetent, fractured, and suffers from poor leadership. A Democratic president will help, but the problems in Congress are systemic and the leadership issues will not get resolved. In addition, what they inherit from Bush is going to make it very difficult to advance social programs and if they can't do that, they are out.

Touchdown said...

Medved had an interesting thought. Since the Indy's felt that Obama was a shoo in, those that would have voted for him, ended up voting for McCain.
If the polls showed a closer race, the would have voted for Obama to make sure he won. I think he may be on to something.

For the GOP, a Hillary victory stirs up financial support more than an Obama win. Obama has more cross-over appeal & less negatives at this point.

Liza said...

TR,
Interesting point. I've also heard that Hillary's name was high on the ballot and Obama's was near the bottom. Some "pollsters" think that could account for about 3%.

What about the Edward's voters that bailed on him? I wonder if they had a white person preference?

Another theory being thrown out there is that women turned back to Hillary in a kind of flip flop. You know how women are, right? I don't buy it, quite frankly.

I had a thought on this. How bad is it if people decide that polls are unreliable? Maybe it will make them vote the way they should and that is for the person who they believe is the best candidate.

Just my opinion and I've got lots of them.

Touchdown said...

Maybe it is the young vote, it hasn't proven to be very reliable over the years.

FYI, I'm no longer in the young vote, I hit 40 ;(