What Was Different?
EmailNothing has been called yet… but looking at preliminary exit poll information, and speaking generally, women went for Clinton, men for Obama, Democrats for Clinton, Independents for Obama.
Simple math — more women vote than men. More Democrats vote than Independents.
So what did it? Why were the polls so wrong? (Even if Obama pulls this out, they were way wrong.)
Did Hillary’s forcefulness at the debate and watery eyes the other day make women in New Hampshire see something in her that women in Iowa didn’t see?
Did Independents torn between McCain and Obama feel that McCain needed their help more? (Do people even vote like that? With calculation? I think of it more as a personal investment…)
Very curious… exhilirating in a way…
What is the deal with the polls????
Or… what do you think changed?
– jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
It’s the sympathy vote. The calculated tears WORKED! We may see even more tears in the coming weeks!
Posted by: James Danley | January 8, 2008, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm
A Muskie moment, in reverse.
Posted by: reyonthehill | January 8, 2008, 10:43 pm 10:43 pm
Victimhood
But in the end it is better for America, because what is being found out about Obama and is factual is scary!!
His Religous mentor turns out to be Muslim! The mentor hanging out with Farakan who practices Ialam! travels to muslim countries. Also Obama was also a student of the same Maxist Professor as Clinton!!
So NOW WE MUST PUSH OBAMA for an ANSWER to WHAT CHANGE is he talking about!!
Oh by the way was it not a few months ago that the stalinists claimed the Republicans were slogan ran.
Will someone ask them who is going to pay for the socialized medicine, I thought the money the government takes is ours!!
Why dont they just give healthcare credits to taxes?
Posted by: spock | January 8, 2008, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
The polls didnt change. They’re just a snapshot and they are last minute. I think that what you say about absolute numbers is correct. I dont think that people are as calculating as saying McCain needed their vote more than Obama either. I suspect the story has been too good to Obama and now will swing the other way again. Possibly too far once more?
Posted by: Jake Rigg | January 8, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
Interesting thing watching Obama speak the people behind him seem dazes and uninterested in his speech!!
Posted by: spock | January 8, 2008, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
Hillary didn’t get where she is today,because she shed tears or ironed shirts! She deserved and earned the win. Besides theres no room for complacency in politics – game on!
Posted by: jinky | January 8, 2008, 11:28 pm 11:28 pm
Many voters are still afraid – afraid that a man without as much experience as Clinton can’t win, won’t win. And after 8 years of Bush, winning the election is what it’s about. Yet the excitement generated by Obama, the hope, the common sense, the sense of morality – those are things that will help him to win in the end – because we need that again in our country. He’s not a scripted, cry on command candidate – his major characteristics seem to be that he is what he appears to be and he is SMART.
Posted by: Kathy | January 8, 2008, 11:30 pm 11:30 pm
I too believe this is great and momentous for our country. Obama is suffering (in short time) the very thing Clinton dealt with for being named the inevitable candidate. Conversely, when every station has been naming Obama the sure candidate, I believe people responded to that.
Also, in the interim, Hillary’s team has been working to change her entire look and sound to combat all that they saw in Iowa. Obama, and even Edwards, exposed the power of the unrest and desire for change of the people.
I believe these things had a profound impact on the events of today. There is a movement taking place and people are finally being galvanized to think and truly participate. This does not allow for polls to be acurate…..
which is great for our country. It is making both Obama and Clinton much better candidates. I believe it has brought Clinton closer to the desire of the people to make and be a part of change. It is also refining Obama and allowing America to see if there is a toughness that is needed to truly address the CHANGE issues.
I agree, this is very exhilirating!
Posted by: tlife7 | January 8, 2008, 11:44 pm 11:44 pm
It amazes me to see that the media people suddenly found that they are really the dumb ones.
A simple answer to all of your questions is that the people in New Hampshire are much smarter than those in the media. They know that a guy who can only give good speeches talking about empty “changes” is no good for a country that is in trouble. They also remember that when Bush was running in 2000, he talked a lot about “change” too. What a change we have got from a guy who has no experience!
Posted by: JL | January 8, 2008, 11:46 pm 11:46 pm
It seems obvious to me that independent voters thought a Barak victory was a forgone conclusion and decided to vote for McCain instead. McCain won by much more than expected. Barak lost more votes than expected.
Posted by: donna | January 9, 2008, 12:07 am 12:07 am
I think a serious look at New Hampshire would reveal more than a media sound bite as truths from today’s events. Obama does not have the experience of years in Washington. However, let us not forget that a good leader should have the ability to surround himself/herself with the best people.
Do we really believe that any of the candidates plans will be fulfilled in its current form? They must all pass both the House and Senate!!! Therefore, what is important is a president who displays good judgment, character, and the ability to bring people together to accomplish change. This is currently underway in government today. Unfortunately, it is usually bringing corporate America together with government.
Obama is demonstrating that he has tapped into a ripe thread of political activism in America. People want to take the power of government back. With that force behind you, a president can mobilize the people to pressure congress (and the self-centered desire to get re-elected)to pass bills special interest would typically block. I believe that is the change Obama is speaking of and frankly, the change this country needs. I don’t think the establishment has the desire or freedom from political payback (for favors or campaign contributions)to bring that type of change.
Posted by: tlife7 | January 9, 2008, 12:08 am 12:08 am
I will tell you what happened, Diebold happened. The voting machine is corruptible, it has been proven to be highly defective.
Posted by: Cindy | January 9, 2008, 12:41 am 12:41 am
Honestly, I read this blog because I value your analysis. Here, however, I got the sense that you and ABCNEWS (via Charlie Gibson) got it wrong. ABCNEWS and MSM shaped the debate by creating a fiction that voters value change over experience. Of course, that’s true with respect to some voters, but perhaps not the majority. I watched a few focus groups in Iowa, and although it was just anecdotal, the sense I got was that democratic voters were leaning away from Hillary because they were afraid she couldn’t win. This from a state which as Hillary pointed out has not been terribly receptive to female representation.
What surprised me was the extent to which ABCNEWS and MSN were able to shove the “change” mantra down everyone’s throats. You might counter that the candidates themselves did so, but I would argue that they were taking their cues from the pundits. The change mantra hold up because it was a broad generalization that may or may not have been true in Iowa, but definitely wasn’t true in NH.
As for The Cry, yes, I think that defintely resonated. She became the underdog in a sense.
Last, I agree that last night’s results were exhilerating. Women went to the polls and essentially gave MSM the finger. I woke up this AM believing in democracy.
Posted by: cordelia525 | January 9, 2008, 8:45 am 8:45 am
Was rising star Governor Martin O’Malley helping Hillary in NH?
Posted by: geevill | January 9, 2008, 9:32 am 9:32 am
tlife7 – What Change is he going to Bring?
Also Who are we voting for the people who surround the inexperienced person or the person himself/herself?
Libs talk about Freedom while they push Socialism, interesting?
As far as McCain taking votes from Obama, you got that backwards, Remember McCain in 2000 won NH by a large majority in the primary.
Excuses Excuses.
Kathy – So the idea of the libs is to vote in anyone including Mickey Mouse if they think they could win.
Got to love the Dems, they fall for anything.
Note: There is no such thing as a Independent voter, just because they are not registered does not make them an Independent because this election is so clearly opposite that there is no Grey area
We got on the Left the Libs/Dems/Socialists who do not answer tough questions because they want to take away our Liberties and Freedom to promote Stalinism On the Right we Have Conservatives/Moderate Republicans who want to increase our Liberties and promote Growth and fight back the evils of socialism.
We also got the few posing on the right but really are leftists.
The Choice is Clear Liberty or Socialism (where only the Lib elite will have money)
Posted by: spock | January 9, 2008, 11:05 am 11:05 am
New Hampshire shows that Clinton is the candidate of change. She will change from ‘experience counts’ to ‘change you can believe in’ if her pollers/handlers tell her to. She will change from ‘I didn’t say that’ to ‘they’re piling on’ if she loses a debate. She will change from cold and strong to warm and teary to get a media video that dominates the news and resonates with older women. It is easy for insiders to describe the real Hillary: cold, calculating, and condescending. But to voters, she will change daily until she finds a way to become what they want–today. Next week, in another state, she will change her dress, her voice, her accent, her opinion–to become someone else. Iowans didn’t buy the public Hillary. New Hampshire didn’t either–but enough hard-core Democratic women over 50 did buy it. I have said before that Hillary’s support comes primarily from a dwindling number of tired, old, Democratic core groups. One of those groups came out for her yesterday. But she will have to change into another Hillary soon, because a candidate cannot and should not win with the support of just one group–evangelicals, or blacks, or women over 50. And the more she changes to fit the situation, the more people will see her for what she does, and turn to candidates who have one message and one personality, and stick to it.
Posted by: SteveW | January 9, 2008, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
At dinner the other evening, I was having a conversation with a staunch supporter of Sen. Clinton. The basic points of view were:
Hers: Nice to see a woman, she has the chops. She understands the need for change and the current upward flow of money to the rich.
Mine: She is a cipher, a political animal that says/does what is expedient, is a slave to polls and way to cautious.
Well, I think that has changed. I believe that my friend was better informed than I am – I think we have seen the real Sen. Clinton now – the human being. I hope she keeps herself freed from the tyranny of polls and the temptation to say whetevr will boost a poll number
Posted by: Chris Bird | January 9, 2008, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
I’d say that the biggest problem with the polls is that they’re static–questions asked and answered before a voter has an opportunity to cast a ballot. This means that, no matter how statistically valid the sampling of voters is, no matter how well-worded the questions are, no matter how impartially the poll is conducted, the results reflect the voters’; mindset at the time of the poll. Voters can, and do, change their minds before they mark the ballot.
Posted by: chuck | January 9, 2008, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
“I had learned not to care,” he wrote. “I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. …”
“Blow” is a street name for cocaine. “Smack” is slang for heroin.
“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man,” Obama wrote. “Except the highs hadn’t been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn’t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate’s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you’d met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. … You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.”
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS CONSIDERING VOTING FOR BARAXK OBAMA NEEDS TO READ HTHESE WORDS. FROM THE MOUTH OF BARACK OOBAMA.
Posted by: Geevill Shuy | January 9, 2008, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
Chris Bird – Hey I got a Bridge to sell you!
The polls showed she was too cold, that is why she faked her tears.
And if she did not fake them do you want a President that cries when confronting the terrorists!!
All three Libs answer no question, they are all identical all socialists!!
Posted by: spock | January 9, 2008, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
RE: New Hampshire Primary Voter Fraud
Hillary lost the paper ballot count but won the optical scan ballot count. Obama won the paper ballot count but lost the optical scan ballot count. The machine tabulated votes were flipped to favor Clinton.
Also, “The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.”
Voter fraud.
Posted by: ava | January 9, 2008, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
Given that New Hampshire was one of the last states to honor Martin Luther King day, it’s not surprising that people lied about intending to vote for Obama.
Posted by: yokart | January 9, 2008, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
spock- I respect your personal views and welcome a healthy debate on our differences. I believe we would have to first understand that we (based on your response) have fundamental differences in some critical definitions.
Socialism vs. Liberty??? I find it hard to accept a “liberty” that finds: the middle class shrinking, $500 tax cuts for the majority of the people (which doesn’t even pay for 3 household bills), those same tax cuts that sends more money to the wealthy who then shelter it in overseas markets (take it out of our economy), a mortgage/loan industry that has taken advantage of many struggling families, …need I go on.
If working for a government that is “for, by, and of” the people is socialism, then we will always disagree. The people have been replaced by corporations and special interest groups.
The change I believe Obama can bring is an interest of the people to take back the country. It is a script that has been played out in other empires…”the rise of the proletariat” (poor and working class). The loop hole in democracy is that at the end of the day, a galvanized people can truly change the government. However, with the overt tacticts of fear, manipulation, and arrogance, people have become disillusioned about having a voice. They have become more interested in Lindsy Lohan instead of politics. There is a sense of hopelessness. That is the change that I am speaking of.
Posted by: tlife7 | January 9, 2008, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm
tlife7, you wrote: “Socialism vs. Liberty??? I find it hard to accept a “liberty” that finds: the middle class shrinking, $500 tax cuts for the majority of the people (which doesn’t even pay for 3 household bills), those same tax cuts that sends more money to the wealthy who then shelter it in overseas markets (take it out of our economy)…”
In a roundabout way, I agree with part of what you are saying. The definition of “liberty” is the condition of being free from restriction or control. The current tax laws are a form of “restriction or control” by the federal and state governments over the people. And the Liberals, as evidenced by the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates, want to further “restrict or control” Corporate America’s and small businesses’ profitability.
The Liberals and Democrats define President Bush’s tax cuts as tax breaks for the wealthy. Well who do you think provides the tax revenue in America? The following is a quote from the Tax Foundation on their Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2005, released on October 5, 2007:
“The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation’s income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation’s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.” (NOTE: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income.)
I am currently not a supporter of Mike Huckabee (although should he become the Republican nominee, I will support him), but I do support the concept of his “Fair Tax.” Instead of taxing what we earn, Congress should eliminate the income tax and implement a consumption tax. That would free everyone from any “restrictions or control “on how much money they EARN, and eliminate the need for tax shelters. Where I disagree with Huckabee’s plan is I don’t go along with giving everyone a rebate check of a predetermined amount to compensate the poor for the tax they end up paying when they purchase items. That, in and of itself, is extremely expensive to administer. Instead I believe there should be tax-free stores — whose inventory would include all of the basic needs: food, clothing, personal items and even some large ticket items (limited generic appliances and hybrid automobiles) — available to everyone.
Posted by: James Danley | January 10, 2008, 11:28 am 11:28 am
tlife7, you wrote: “If working for a government that is “for, by, and of” the people is socialism, then we will always disagree.” A government “for, by and of” the people is NOT socialism. Socialism is a government “by and of” the GOVERNMENT for the people.
Posted by: James Danley | January 10, 2008, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm