MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?

[namkcuR]

But let's put this entire thing in context:
For the course of an entire year Hillary had about a double digit lead over Obama in NH, it wasn't until Iowa that that lead seemed to dissolve.

A week ago, the story would have been "Obama comes in close second!" As opposed to "Hillary is the comeback kid!"

This is exactly the point the short-haired woman on MSNBC(don't remember her name, she was on at the same time as Pat Buchanan) made last night after it was called, about it's silly to say Hillary is the comeback kid when she was the frontrunner for months and months, and that the reality is that Obama simply almost pulled up the upset over Hillary.

I was applauding her for saying it while the rest of the media was gushing over Hillary's HISTORIC AMAZING INCREDIBLE COMEBACK, and I applaud you now.

 

[U2democrat]

This is exactly the point the short-haired woman on MSNBC(don't remember her name, she was on at the same time as Pat Buchanan) made last night after it was called, about it's silly to say Hillary is the comeback kid when she was the frontrunner for months and months, and that the reality is that Obama simply almost pulled up the upset over Hillary.

I was applauding her for saying it while the rest of the media was gushing over Hillary's HISTORIC AMAZING INCREDIBLE COMEBACK, and I applaud you now.

Yeah that was Rachel Maddow, she deserves the credit for bringing it up but I'll take your applause anyway

 

[phanan]

But let's put this entire thing in context:
For the course of an entire year Hillary had about a double digit lead over Obama in NH, it wasn't until Iowa that that lead seemed to dissolve.

A week ago, the story would have been "Obama comes in close second!" As opposed to "Hillary is the comeback kid!"

This is true, and I'm not disputing it.

At the same time, the media really rolled along this past week with Obama's emergence in Iowa, and then really relied heavily on the polls coming out of NH that showed him with a double digit lead over Clinton. For her to then win there makes it quite surprising.

Which leads to the moral of all of this - the media really, really sucks.

 

[namkcuR]

So what is the general feeling here? What are Obama's chances at getting this nomination? How difficult will it be to defeat Hillary?

 

[U2democrat]

This is true, and I'm not disputing it.

At the same time, the media really rolled along this past week with Obama's emergence in Iowa, and then really relied heavily on the polls coming out of NH that showed him with a double digit lead over Clinton. For her to then win there makes it quite surprising.

Which leads to the moral of all of this - the media really, really sucks.

Let's hope that this is a major wake up call for them. As Tom Brokaw said back in 2000, they've got egg on their face.

As for the rest of the democratic race, I'm betting it'll stay neck and neck through Feb 5, assuming neither Obama nor Hillary make some huge mistake.

 

[phanan]

I agree. Super Tuesday will probably be the deciding factor this year, for both parties.

 

[Infinity]

I agree. Super Tuesday will probably be the deciding factor this year, for both parties.

I agree. I need to register to vote in New Jersey. Any idea how I can do that? I never thought that me voting would be significant.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I agree. I need to register to vote in New Jersey. Any idea how I can do that? I never thought that me voting would be significant.

Google it. You can probably register online if you haven't missed the deadline.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]
There was no shortage of polls going into the New Hampshire primary in 2008 and it looks like we all missed the mark on the Democratic side. This will require a lot of scrutiny in the coming days and weeks, but here are some initial thoughts on what has been happening:

According to the exit polls, 18% of the voters said that they made up their minds on primary day. That is just an unprecedented number. I have polled many races, especially close ones, where 4% to 8% have said they finally decided on their vote the day of the election and that can wreak havoc on those of us who are in the business of capturing pre-election movements and trends. But nearly one in five this time?
It looks like the always feisty voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire have rejected pre-election coronations. In the case of Iowa, Democratic voters said that Mrs. Clinton is not inevitable, while in New Hampshire they were not ready to endorse the Obama train without checking the engine.
The compressed schedule of the two events may have had an impact. Normally the winning candidate gets an initial big bounce out of Iowa, and then plateaus. Then the next primary race begins. With less than five full days, Obama got his bounce in New Hampshire, then the settling down period began on the last day – under the radar screen.
My polling showed Clinton doing well on the late Sunday night and all day Monday – she was in a 2-point race in that portion of the polling. But since our methods call for a three-day rolling average, we had to legitimately factor the huge Obama numbers on Friday and Saturday – thus his 12 point average lead. Unfortunately, one day or a day–and–a–half does not make a trend and we ran out of time.
Going into the New Hampshire primary, we certainly did see Clinton holding on to a significant lead among women and older voters. But we were focusing on Obama’s massive lead among younger and independent voters. We seem to have missed the huge turnout of older women that apparently put Clinton over the top.
We expected that Obama would receive the lion’s share of independents and drain the Republican primary of these voters. It now appears that, perhaps with a sense that Obama had a lock on the Democratic side, independents felt free to vote on the Republican side and reward their hero, John McCain.
We will pour through the data and try to come up with something more definitive, but those are my early observations. There is much speculation that Senator Clinton’s crying incident may have offered voters – especially women – a peek at the human side of someone who is often seen as scripted. I think she also scored points during the ABC debate Saturday night when she declared, amid a discussion about the country’s desire for a change in direction, that electing a woman would represent a big change in itself. Her numbers did go up in that last 24–hour period.

On the other side, most of us did a whole lot better coming close to the numbers on the Republican side of the aisle. But this is one of those cases that remind us that pre-election polls are guides to voter attitudes and shifts. All things considered in this and other cases, we pollsters still do a creditable job.[/Q]

A pollster's initial take on yesterday.

 

[Jeannieco]

So what is the general feeling here? What are Obama's chances at getting this nomination? How difficult will it be to defeat Hillary?

I think Obama can do it!! I am confident!
I think we will see a change in strategy also. It cracks me up that people say they don't know what he stands for when it's all outlined on his website! He has some awesome ideas for all of us waiting to jump off the table! Green Job Corps, College Credit,
ect ect... I think he will start speaking exactly about those ideas during the rallys. Also, he needs to slap down all the religious slurs out there before people form definite opinions. I was just listening to Air America ( Tom Hartman) and he said yesterday in Iowa he was sitting in a bar with these working class guys and they said they wouldn't vote for him because he was Muslim and there implying that he had ties to terrorists which is ofcourse RIDICULOUS! Thankfully Tom set them straight and said that he convinced them that what they were reading was a big FAT LIE! So if some people in NH think this what does middle America think? Barack needs to dispell those rumors swiftly so they don't grow in to a monster they can't stop.

The good news is this loss does prevent him from getting too hot too fast. Also, nobody likes anyone that is too over-confident and winning in New Hampshire may have created a deity and everyone would be gunning for him. Another thought....this will remind people not to believe the polls and that the only sure way to win is to show up and vote because anything can happen!GO OBAMA GO!!!

 

[U2DMfan]

I think we are pretty much assured that nothing on either side will be settled before Feb 5th.

My general feeling about last night is, 1- I've never seen the Republicans so split in my life. They can't decide which way to go. I think it's very possible they end up with 4 different winners in the first 5 primaries. Amazing. Fun to watch but they are subpar candidates. John McCain would be pretty formidable if he weren't 137 years old, did anybody see that speech last night? Embarassing.

2-The Democrats just need to kick Edwards and Richardson the fuck out. Look at NH vote count, Richardson had more than the final victory margin, yet has ZERO chance. Edwards has ZERO chance as well. All he's doing is his publicity campaign right now. A head to head between Obama and HIllary on Feb 5th will be Super Bowl worthy. Should be a lot of fun.


Last note, yes, the same media who is trying to pimp this Clinton victory as a comeback is the same media who was jerking off Obama for 5 straight days and burying Hillary. That's why Iowa can be so huge.

Now that the real big momentum swings are over (I'm guessing) that it's going to be on real issues and comparisons and it should be a real tight race. Fun to watch, two impressive candidates.

 

[Jeannieco]

^^Yes, it's so exciting! I am thrilled so many people are finally paying attention and getting involved!
It's so great for this country either way!!

 

[2861U2]

I've never seen the Republicans so split in my life. They can't decide which way to go.

Apparently the Democrats can't either. They're equally divided.

John McCain would be pretty formidable if he weren't 137 years old, did anybody see that speech last night? Embarassing.

Alright, John McCain is not 137, and even if he was, he's got just as much energy as anyone in the race. His victory speech last night was amazing. Much better than anything I've heard Obama give thus far. If you think he's got no shot, just wait. You might be surprised.

 

[namkcuR]

His victory speech last night was amazing. Much better than anything I've heard Obama give thus far. If you think he's got no shot, just wait. You might be surprised.

Hell no. Obama is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the other candidates on either side in terms of speaking ability. His speeches thus far have been transcendent. And poetic. And inspiring.

And whether you admit it or not, McCain's age is a real issue. Right now his health seems to be fine and his energy level appears to be fine as well, but whether that will last over four, let alone eight, years is another matter entirely.

 

[yolland]

I am cynical about all politicians, I like and admire Senator Obama very much but I stand by what I said. I think it could be possible that gender trumps even race when we are talking about Presidential politics. It's not as acceptable anymore to be racist in that regard, but it is still far more acceptable to be sexist. Senator Obama is a man first and foremost as a candidate, not an African American man. Plenty of men have run for President, there's a proven history there. By no means am I downplaying racism or his experience of racism or what he could still experience, I would never do that.

We have come a long way baby but there are still gender issues at play here-you can merely read some posts in this forum to see that. I am not saying and would never say that it controls anything and everything and that Hillary can hang her hat on it for everything, but it is there all the same. There is still racism too-which I am more than willing to admit I don't see nearly as much regarding Senator Obama, mostly because of where I live.

My gut-level reaction is to agree with you. But there are an awful lot of intersecting and overlapping tensions involved in the Dem race this time around, and I'm just not sure this campaign season is ever going to work very well as a clearly instructive study in what you're describing. (For the record, I'm leaning towards Obama myself and have been for awhile, but I don't feel firmly supportive towards anyone just yet.) I can understand to a considerable extent the active resentment towards Hillary coming from some Democratic quarters, and more than once have found myself going, 'What was she thinking? By the time Bill Clinton finished his Presidency a lot of Democrats were highly soured on him too, that was very apparent in the 2000 race, and how could she not know the intimate connection to that Administration was going to be a serious liability for both her and the party, regardless of the overall approval of her as a Senator?' There does seem to be an unworthy sense of entitlement there, and it's not pretty (though she'd hardly be the first President to have that quality if elected). But...at the same time, the shrill and highly personal intensity of the dislike for her, the vehemence of the refusal to hear out people who wish to make the case for considering her on her own merits, coming from some quarters does give me pause. And to add insult to injury here, I think it goes without saying that any woman, period, wouldn't be able to pull off leveraging those epic JFK/RFK/MLK/etc. archetypes (and...psst!...reflected auras) that code so powerfully for 'hope' and 'change' and 'valor' because--no disrespect whatsoever to the deserved status of those men in our history--those resonances are inextricably bound up with their having been Great National Patriarchs. Of course, one counter to that is that most men couldn't pull it off either, that many have won elections with no appeal to it at all, and this is true. (Though irony of ironies, Bill Clinton sure benefited from that JFK/Elvis vibe, didn't he? So for him to slam Obama as a 'fairy tale' is downright funny.) But, being President is a very particular and peculiar kind of status. It isn't simply or even primarily about achieving some pinnacle of prestige and acumen; it's also about being 'The Face Of The Nation,' and to position yourself successfully within that narrative, you really do need to fall within a certain familiar prototypal range. An ever-expanding one, granted...but those changes sure do come slowly.

So, it's all very murky, all very undecided...and may well wind up being one of those races one's gut and one's brain are never going to fully agree on.

So why is gender affecting her and race not seemingly affecting Obama?

I think it's very questionable whether race isn't affecting him, though it certainly isn't much doing so in an ugly way (yet). This, too, is too murky to call, but I think deep may have had a point yesterday in questioning whether the overblown exclamations about Obama winning a 'white state' (as you point out, he's in fact much more likely to encounter the thus-implied obstacles in e.g. much 'blacker' VA) and sounding 'just like MLK' might not entail some measure of what are in truth decidedly less progressive sentiments.

 

[anitram]

The gender v. race thing doesn't surprise me. In our society, it's far more "acceptable" to be a sexist pig than a racist bigot. Even take FYM as a microcosm - there are things said here by certain posters about women, that if they were said or insinuated about blacks, I have no doubt we would not see them around. Posting pictures of witches on broomsticks, for example. Think of an equivalent black stereotype cartoon being posted by Obama and can you imagine the reaction?

So no, frankly it doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Anu]

Can FYM endorse Obama?

We'd make headlines.

 

[Jeannieco]

^^Good question! That would be awesome!

 

[yolland]

The gender v. race thing doesn't surprise me. In our society, it's far more "acceptable" to be a sexist pig than a racist bigot.

I will say, though, that I can remember having similarly uncomfortably mixed feelings about Jesse Jackson's run in 1988 (Bradley effect, anyone?). I did not ultimately see him as a strong candidate. But much of the criticism of him, including from the left, was unmistakably 'subtly' tinged with that undertone of 'Come on, he's black, what did you expect--of course he's not competent enough.' And yes I do still have my doubts whether we've progressed enough beyond that. It's just that this time there are not one, but two, potential 'trump cards' at play, as well as enough other weighty factors which have little or nothing to do with those, to make the whole thing near-impossible to parse.

 

[Harry Vest]

What's with the Hillary win in NH???

O.K.
Why???
or should the real question be How???
How could ALL the polls be so completely wrong - it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How could Obama be over 10 points ahead in most polls hours before election and end up losing. Was it the last minute "woman vote"? Was it the "tearful moment"??
Was it voting machine fraud??? What the hell happened?

 

[Infinity]

The gender v. race thing doesn't surprise me. In our society, it's far more "acceptable" to be a sexist pig than a racist bigot. Even take FYM as a microcosm - there are things said here by certain posters about women, that if they were said or insinuated about blacks, I have no doubt we would not see them around. Posting pictures of witches on broomsticks, for example. Think of an equivalent black stereotype cartoon being posted by Obama and can you imagine the reaction?

So no, frankly it doesn't surprise me at all.

You are right, it is more acceptable to be sexist than racist. But it does work both ways. It is acceptable to be sexist against both men and women, not just women.

In our society when asked: "Why do you want Hillary as President?" If someone says "We need a women President," or "It is about time we have a women President," these are acceptable answers and are sexist against men.

If if was Ron Paul vs. Hillary in the race and someone were to ask "Why do you want Ron Paul as President?" And if the answer would be "We need a man President," that person would be yelled at and would be called sexist and it would be very unacceptable.

So it is a double standard. But you are right, sexism is more acceptable than racism, but that includes sexism against men as well.

 

[phillyfan26]

But sexism against men is incomparable to sexism against women, really. It's just so infrequent in comparison.

 

[Infinity]

I don't know how frequent it is. But it does exist. Anybody who says they want Hillary to win because she is a women or that we need a women President is sexist.

 

[phillyfan26]

It does exist, but it's not an issue like sexism against women is. It's much smaller than that.

 

[anitram]

I don't know how frequent it is. But it does exist. Anybody who says they want Hillary to win because she is a women or that we need a women President is sexist.

I don't think that is necessarily true.

As a woman, I would like to see a female president in my lifetime. I think when 50% (or more?) of the country is female, it is not unreasonable to want to see that glass ceiling broken. Likewise, I think it's unacceptable that ONE out of your NINE Supreme Court justices is a woman. Particularly given the strength of your law schools and that admissions have been skewing towards females for years now. The Canadian Supreme Court is not only headed by a woman, but is comprised nearly of half women.

I would want my daughters to look around and see that any position, political or otherwise, is open to them someday.

 

[yolland]

There are always going to be idiots who would vote for so-and-so for President simply and only because s/he happens to be female/black/from my denomination/from my home state/whatever. That's something entirely different from having a conditioned, and most likely less-than-fully-conscious, psychological barrier against ever voting for a woman/black man/Mormon/etc. to overcome.

 

[Anu]

/plz go back to the re-tooled FYM primaries.

I changed my vote from Dennis to Barack.

And in fact.

We have already endorsed Barack overwhelmingly~!!!

I am going to talk to Joel and Kim about writing a piece for the main page.

Barack and roll!

 

[Infinity]

It does exist, but it's not an issue like sexism against women is. It's much smaller than that.

But how can you say it is not an issue? You are basically saying it is not that important because it doesn't happen as often. It is an issue of course. Men are affected by it, so it is important and it is an issue and there is nothing wrong in making a point of it.

This is like saying that racism against Hispanics is not an issue like racism against African-Americans is, because it is much smaller. So what? No matter how smaller or bigger, if it exists why not talk about it? Hispanics are humans too, just like African-Americans are. Same way that men are humans too, just like women.

 

[BVS]

Apparently the Democrats can't either. They're equally divided.

But it's been down between two canidates the whole time for the Dems, the Republicans have been all over the place. You've switched, Diamond's changed 3 or 4 times, along with many others and the media.

Alright, John McCain is not 137, and even if he was, he's got just as much energy as anyone in the race. His victory speech last night was amazing. Much better than anything I've heard Obama give thus far.

 

[namkcuR]

Alright, John McCain is not 137, and even if he was, he's got just as much energy as anyone in the race. His victory speech last night was amazing. Much better than anything I've heard Obama give thus far. If you think he's got no shot, just wait. You might be surprised.

Hell no. Obama is leaps and bounds ahead of any of the other candidates on either side in terms of speaking ability. His speeches thus far have been transcendent. And poetic. And inspiring.

And whether you admit it or not, McCain's age is a real issue. Right now his health seems to be fine and his energy level appears to be fine as well, but whether that will last over four, let alone eight, years is another matter entirely.