Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

So, What Happened in NH?

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted January 9, 2008.


Little evidence Clinton's tears changed voters' minds.
Advertisement

The results from last night's New Hampshire primary have the political world grasping for explanations, and, in many cases stretching for them.

I've been doing some number crunching, looking at exit polls for NH this cycle and last, the returns, the Iowa entrance poll and Pollingreport's standardized rolling average of polls taken before the NH primary.

Here are the main take-aways:

  • Pro-Hillary women surged

  • Obama's support remained relatively stable

  • John Edwards lost support among women

  • Clinton's ground game turned out a large number of Democrats, especially in areas that were her strongest

  • Most of Biden's supporters went to Clinton

Here are some theories that I find little support for in the data:

  • There was a "Bradley Effect," in which people told pollsters they'd support a black man and then voted a different way in the privacy of the voting booth

  • Hillary's emotional moment caused people to "break" for Clinton late

I'm agnostic on this one:

  • Obama seemed like such a sure thing that independents decided to go for McCain on the GOP ticket

Women and Hillary's "softer side"

The exit polls showed that 57 percent of those voting on the Dem ballot were women. There was a huge turnout overall -- far higher than projected -- and among those who were not expected to come out and vote, Hillary's support was very high.

Many of those who turned out appear to have been women who already tended to support Hillary but were inspired to get to the polls in larger than expected numbers. There's little evidence of a late break for Clinton -- Obama beat her among voters who decided their votes within three days of the primary. That suggests that Clinton's display of emotion and the perception that she was being ganged up on was not the determining factor for these late-deciding voters.

Clinton's support among women doesn't appear to have come out of Obama's hide -- he won the support of 35 percent of women in Iowa and 34 percent of those in New Hampshire. It does appear that some women who may have been inclined to support Edwards went for Clinton; Edwards had the support of 23 percent of the women caucusing in Iowa, but his support in that demo dropped to 15% in NH -- a pretty significant hit.

Speculation: When Clinton had a tearful moment, Obama responded gracefully, saying that the process is a long grind and all the candidates were exhausted. Edwards, on the other hand, took the opportunity to fire a shot at Hillary, suggesting that America needed a tough Commander-in-Chief. If there was a general sense among women that Edwards and Obama were piling on at the debate and in the days leading up to the vote, it may be that because of Edwards' reaction, he bore the brunt of their anger. Caveat: Edwards overall support was within the pre-election polls' margin of error.

Obama didn't lose much ground

The pre-election polls didn't get it all wrong; they nailed everyone's support except for Hillary's. Obama's average support in the pre-primary polls was 36.7 percent, and he scored 36 percent of the vote (rounded to the nearest whole number), which is basically on the money. Obama lost ground among voters aged 25-29, and among ideological liberals compared to Iowa. There's a little bit of trickiness here, because they didn't track the same age groups in Iowa and NH. In Iowa, Obama won the 17-29 year-olds by a big 57-14 margin over Edwards. Hillary got 11. In NH, the exit poll split that demographic into two: Obama did just as well, slightly better even, among the 18-24 group, while Clinton doubled her support and Edwards slipped behind. But in the 25-29 group, Hillary won by 2 points. In Iowa, Edwards got the mom and dad voters -- aged 45-64, while in NH Clinton won every group over 40 by wide margins.

Why? How should I know? They're different states. The weather was especially nice, so maybe some of those younger people played Frisbee instead of going to the polls. Speculation: these micro-groups breaking differently than in Iowa suggest a very strong ground game by Team Clinton -- they turned out their supporters. More on that in a second.

The fact that Obama had a similar percentage of the women's vote in NH and Iowa, which also had the same gender split overall, really shows that although he might have lost some ground, there was no major shift away from him among women.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: new hampshire, election08

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Perhaps Obama's sunny post-partisan stuff backfired ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jan 9, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a good rule of thumb when analyzing polling data: pay attention to what Chris Bowers says.

"Did Obama's message of conciliatory unity cost him the New Hampshire primary? Sure looks like it. According to exit polls, 30% of Democrats identified themselves as "dissatisfied" with the Bush administration. Obama narrowly won those voters, 39%-38%. However, among the 62% of participants in the Democratic primary who described themselves as "angry" with the Bush administration, Clinton won 39%-34%. And thus, we have Clinton's 2.6% margin of victory almost precisely.

"Democrats are pissed off at Bush, I mean really pissed off and angry. There simply isn't anyway to win this primary without winning the support of those voters. It appears "change" isn't enough to put one over the top in that category. Clinton won the angrier voters, and so she won New Hampshire."

It's impossible to say for sure with voters being tugged in different directions by different factors, but I suspect Chris is onto something here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Me too Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Blame, blame, blame Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Numbers Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Numbers Posted by: Joshua Holland
Staged....
Posted by: CatDad on Jan 9, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There isn't one nanosecond that Hillary's emotions aren't under her complete control. Opinion polls indicated that voters wanted to less a less brash/abrasive Hillary...so the tears flowed.

Sidenote: The Clinton's love to provoke/exploit attacks from the Right Wing to trick progressives into defending/supporting them....People, wake up to this trick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maybe, but ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» She's human... Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: She's human... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» No Socialist Healthcare Plan Here Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: She's human... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Maybe, but ... Posted by: carrie jean
» RE: Staged.... Posted by: Bibsi
The pundits want to make ME cry
Posted by: primalscream on Jan 9, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tears had nothing to do with it. That's just typical off-the-cuff, superficial pundit talk. It's also demeaning to women.

Here's what really happened: Undecideds who like Obama but are not yet convinced by him need to know more specifically what he will do as president. Talking about hope isn't enough. If Clinton doesn't force him to get specific, the Republicans will do so in the general election. Obama can use this early disappointment to refine his message.

Second, Clinton supporters voted for her because they thought she is more electable. In my view, this is unconvincing and shortsighted, but they bring it up constantly. What they don't ask is what's the point? Elect her and you just have a moderate Republican with the name Clinton. Remember how the first Clinton gutted the Progressive vision from the Democratic Party?

Both candidates have a compelling "story," though, in my view, becoming the Jackie Robinson of the White House is more compelling than taking over your husband's old job. Still, America will make history electing either candidate.

Obama does not have Clinton's negatives with non-Democrats, so he has the potential of being much more electable. As New Hampshire showed us, however, he isn't there yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The pundits want to make ME cry Posted by: primalscream
or is this Ohio '04 Redux
Posted by: EncinoM on Jan 9, 2008 1:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exit polls and election results for every other candidate were within the maragin of error, but Clintons. Obama won every county that did not use electronic voting machines.

Funny business?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: or is this Ohio '04 Redux Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: or is this Ohio '04 Redux Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Ah Ha....... Posted by: gellero
» RE: or is this Ohio '04 Redux Posted by: carrie jean
» RE: or is this Ohio '04 Redux Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» On the Other Hand ... Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
I think it was her tears
Posted by: hellofriends on Jan 9, 2008 2:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what made me want to vote for her. I know you're trying to come up with a contrary thesis, but why don't you interview people instead of toying with numbers? Everyone I know said the same thing. When you're on national television and you're told that people don't "like you," that sucks. when the leading candidate, full of assumption, says "you're likable enough," that's patronizing.

There's nothing rational about humans, especially not elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I think it was her tears Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: I think it was her tears Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: I think it was her tears Posted by: Joshua Holland
WHY DID PRO-HILLARY WOMEN TURN OUT?
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 9, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Josh Holland for the excellent deconstruction and analysis.

But why did so many pro-Hillary women haul their butts into the Hew Hampshire voting booths? Warm weather?

Thanks again.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sutter
Posted by: Sutter on Jan 9, 2008 2:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very odd "confrontation" between the US carrier group and Iranian speedboats came at an optimal time pre-election, enhancing the "fear factor" that favors Republicans. It could have inspired some independents to vote for McCain instead of Obama, or even for Hillary instead of Obama, as she seems more likely to go along with any plans to bomb Iran.

Maybe I'm getting paranoid, but the incident smells a bit too much like Karl Rove.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sutter Posted by: irenderit
» Don't be a fool..... Posted by: gellero
» RE: Don't be a fool..... Posted by: johnclark
» RE: Sutter Posted by: particle
» Well said, Paul! Posted by: Cathyc
Was it issue-oriented? Not a topic that the media are covering.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 9, 2008 3:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting how all the pundits are focusing on issues of image, appearance and emotion, and not on any substantive debate of the issues.

Who has a realistic plan to get the permanent military bases out of Iraq? Who has a plan to rein in the pharmaceutical and health care barons? Who has a solution to the massive corruption that led to the subprime crisis? Well, maybe some of the candidates do, but the topic is being avoided - by the corporate press.

Let's review the questions asked by ABC in the August 19, 2007 debate (ABC is owned by Disney, whose top four shareholders are the following banks and funds: Fidelity, Barclays, State Street and Vanguard).

1) And the first one is: Is Barack Obama ready to be president, experienced enough to be president?

Heavily spun to Clinton, right?

2) Senator Clinton, you did tell the Quad City Times that Senator Obama's views on meeting with foreign dictators are naive and irresponsible. Doesn't that imply that he's not ready for the office?

Umm... more spin?

3) Senator Dodd, you've called Senator Obama's views confusing and confused, dangerous and irresponsible. Do you think he's ready to be president?

Attack much, "moderator"?

4) Senator Biden, it seems like your colleagues here don't want to reach the judgment that you've made. Why isn't Senator Obama ready?

What's the definition of "leading question", again?

5) Senator Biden, you did go beyond talking about Pakistan. You were asked: Is he ready? You said, "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

Then the debate goes into a discussion of nuclear weapons and what to do about Pakistan. Edwards actually discusses the issue, not whether Obama was right or wrong.

This is followed by a wishy-washy discussion of the war in Iraq. Kucinich manages to get a word in edgewise (without being 'called on') and says this:

"We cannot leave more troops there. We cannot privatize Iraq's oil. We cannot partition that country and expect there's going to be peace."

Followed immediately by a rapid change of topic by the corporate media jackal running the show:

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on now. We've got a question -- we've got an e-mail question from Seth Ford of South Jordan, Utah. And he said, "My question is to understand each candidates' view of a personal God."

Then, in the ABC Jan 5 debate, Kucinich gets locked out, and instead we get drivel from Clinton - "But there has not been a willingness on the part of the Iraqi government to do what the surge was intended to do, to push them to begin to make the tough decisions."

Translation: tough decisions like passing a hydrocarbon law that gives up control of the oil to Exxon, Total, Chevron etc. Tough decisions like allowing the U.S. to keep permanent military bases in Iraq.

That's the real difference between the various Democratic contenders - and the corporate media, owned by the same interests that control Exxon and Chevron, is pushing for Clinton.

That's the real reason that Clinton has been getting so much positive spin, and also the reason why Kucinich was not allowed on.

Face it: the corporate media is trying to put the election in a box, where they control what issues get discussed.

How about a discussion of Edward's plan to break up media conglomerates? Would ABC and Disney like to see that discussed on prime time?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» agreed Posted by: hellofriends
the USA is the new USSR
Posted by: Cathyc on Jan 9, 2008 3:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
21st century style!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the USA is the new USSR Posted by: aka_bozo
» RE: the USA is the new USSR Posted by: futurefarm
It's a twofer-one.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 9, 2008 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Mark Penn's strategy was to pull the rug out from under the race card for the rest of what will be a long campaign, he could not have done better than to have helped Obama win in Iowa.

However, that takes a big chance since everyone knows the proximity of the NH election gets an influence from the Iowa outcome. (But who knows NH better than the Clinton machine? Look at the history there.)

Following a loss with a convincing come from behind victory has Hillary looking like Joan of Arc. She has never looked better and never been stronger than right now. I'm willing to bet she's not going to slow down a bit, either.

(I admit, Penn playing Ali vs. Geo. Forman rope-a-dope strategy is unlikely. Yet the outcome is the same.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Frank Luntz called N.H. for Obama based on exit polls
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 9, 2008 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's up here? Check out this report from http://fairdealphil.blogspot.com/

"Tuesday, January 08, 2008

NH exit polls say Obama wins, but not by a landslide...
Veteran American pollster Frank Luntz has called the New Hampshire primary for Barack Obama - but not by a double-digit margin over Hillary Clinton.

With the benefit of exit polls, Luntz was interviewed on BBC Newsnight. He says there's been another record turnout for both parties - similar to what happened in Iowa.

"Something's happening to the psyche of Americans that is getting people engaged..." he told Jeremy Paxman.

So, it looks as though Hillary will survive New Hampshire after all - Luntz says don't write Hillary off yet - he predicts the state of Nevada could be the big decider, which raises the spectre of Las Vegas calling the shots!

Whatever margin Barack Obama wins by tonight in New Hampshire, the electricity generated by Obama is already lighting up South Carolina where he has opened massive 20 points lead ahead of Hillary 19 days before the state decides.

One New York paper is even contemplating the unthinkable - the prospect of Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton in her own backyard...

3.45am UPDATE: Looks like Hillary managed an astonishing comeback and is now heading to actually WIN the New Hampshire primary. With over two thirds of the precincts now reported, Hillary is ahead of Barack Obama by three points - 39 to 36 with John Edwards in third."


Something else odd - only one exit poll appears to be reported in the corporate press - the National Election Pool Exit Poll, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. (National Election Pool members are ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC - i.e. the corporate press establishment that's been spinning for Clinton nonstop).

What exit poll was Luntz looking at?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is All AIPAC, Obama, a bit less controlled
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 9, 2008 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Hillary is she is a watered down neo-con. AIPAC and the big banks/corporations have her in their back pocket. With Obama, the banks and corps. also have him in their back pocket, but, not so much does AIPAC. He is a bit less "national security" and military expansion/war as Hillary is. Hillary is too tied in to the national security nexus and the view of the neo-con's (ie: whatever the USA does is good, if you don't agree or go along, you are bad). With Obama, he is a pro-elite, corporate ruling class man. But, he also recognizes that if the country does well economically, then the rich are even more likely to do better then they are now. So, it is a win-win proposition. Hillary will be too busy with foreign affairs, and probably not as effective as Obama on the domestic side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A difference of degree, not kind Posted by: hellofriends
» Who PAID for the TRIP TO ISRAEL?? Posted by: Prairie Waif
Hillary Du Jour
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 9, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see. The voters are tired of the partisan, militaristic status quo, so a plurality of New Hampshire Democrats vote for a candidate who is at least as hawkish and divisive as George W. Bush--a fortiori, at the same point in her career, far more. I'm sure her new personality du jour, cooked up from the menu proposed by consultants, has helped. No one cares that she hasn't shed a tear for the 4000 Americans and million Iraqis who have died in a war, founded on a patently fraudulent casus belli, that she has always gleefully supported; it's enough that she choked up about the difficulties of campaigning, riding on her husband's frayed and semen-stained coattails while portaying herself as a feminist, a strong and self-sufficient women while Bill talks as if he were running for reelection. At least she seems to have discovered the first person plural.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary Du Jour Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: Hillary Du Jour Posted by: particle
» RE: Hillary Du Jour Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Hillary Du Jour Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Hillary Du Jour Posted by: Bibsi
Black Box Voting
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 9, 2008 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone needs to check the differential between the voting machines and the polls. Not one poll- many polls differed from the official count.
If this was a general election this would be the first question in many people's minds. Diebold may have struck again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quit Complaining
Posted by: gellero on Jan 9, 2008 6:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you think there's fraud in elections stop being a complaining weenie and volunteer to be a poll watcher or official. Then what you have to say won't smell of BS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Quit Complaining Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Quit Complaining Posted by: johnclark
PROtips
Posted by: abbadon2007 on Jan 9, 2008 8:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
protip1: she has to fight harder than anybody in this forum. think about the hardest you've ever fought for anything and that's where she's at right now.

protip2: she's been the perpetual victim of the GOP hate machine for over a decade. that would make me cry too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PROtips Posted by: Bibsi
The "Bradley Effect" is an ubran myth created by election fraud
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, thank you for not "believing" this myth (us GenX'ers use quotes and parenthesis for affect).

I told my kids tonight that it was the Harvey Gantt effect --- the man who beat Jessie Helms but "lost" the election. The PTB stole (see my comments on election stealing above) it for that cracker (sorry about the racial thing, I am mostly European-American myself).

Joshua, you do great work not only writing your articles, but defending and changing, and PS'ing them, too. Thanks for the comments from open left & CLG. I will tell all of my friends.

I'm hoping Obama-Edwards in the coming days, and Henry Waxman as AG to form a truth commission that goes from the Church committee to the present (re: Elliott Abrams, John Poindexter, Karl Rove ...) I mean, Obama can be all touchy feeling just getting to truth about daddy Bush, the Chicago-school CIA, the October "Surprise" (sorry, more GenX'ing), Iran-Contra-gate, ... can't he?

I do believe that the next couple of weeks can very well determine if the DLC will blow yet another election for fear of losing a seat downtown (DC is 10 blocks away from me, and I have worked in the Capitol many times, which I, as an American taxpayer, is a co-owner of). I can only hope that us Americans can save ourselves (as well as the other 5.7 billion people on the planet who can't vote in this election) by turning to a man that looks more like the rest of the world than any other guy that has EVER occupied the WH (maybe Alexander Hamilton, but he was NOT progressive at all, and he passed for white anyway).

Obama is pro-pot, voted against CAFTA, anti-NRA, for stopping the cops from enforcing DWB, in all its forms, pro-civil union, fighter for choice (don't believe the 527's), and his handlers are keeping him from talking on all of these. The ONLY guy that voted AGAINST the PATRIOT-Act is at Barack's back. A basketball star is with him. All of the good people I've known from campaigns past is with him. His staffers turn back checks from business accounts (3rd hand, but true), he is an insurgent candidate, he is currently gaining "foreign policy experience" trying to fix the mess in Kenya (not reported in the MSM, but they all "love" him)...

GET ON THE ef'ing BOAT, AMERICA! It's time to take back this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe it was Diebold
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 10, 2008 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are talking about a desperate Clinton, after all. Maybe the difference in the polling (multiple) and the results is an indicator of fraud or failure of the machines.

Google New Hampshire and Black Box voting. Look a the links and see what I'm hinting at. If this disparity had happened in a general election people would be crying foul at the top of their lungs.

I'm not accusing, just saying it smells really bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maybe it was Diebold Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Maybe it was Diebold Posted by: clocksmith
» RE: Maybe it was Diebold Posted by: Bibsi
Obama bomba
Posted by: dale0k on Jan 10, 2008 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, it scared me. Polsters were annointing Obama king, after Iowa. I like a good speech, but agree with those who say, "where's the beef?"

So, I'm glad the race isn't quite over, and we have a chance to rock and roll some more. Let's hear some real positions, instead of all singing Kumbaya.

Maybe NH voters thought the same - let's not end this thing so quick...

I for one, think we need to crack down on all the abuse of the waning adminstration and hold republicans feet to the fire, address all the miscarriages of policy and judgement.

I want to hear some strident stands against the Bush policies, and also what we are going to do about setting things right.

Everyone is afraid to call the little ba#%@$d out. Still.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama sank his own boat
Posted by: Jo1028 on Jan 10, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the comments from people in NH suggested that Obama's campaign sunk their own boat: recounting many instances of overly aggressive Obama volunteers disrespecting NH voters with early and late night phone calls, rallies that blocked traffic where the candidate was late or didn't show up at all and generally irritating people with their insensitivity. All the earmarks of an overly enthusiastic, but neophyte, disorganized, incompetent campaign, not ready for primetime. That would make me switch too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about class, Joshua
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 10, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I were working for Clinton (and I'm emphatically not) I'd get moving on the country music front. It wasn't just the tears but a clear change in her tone of voice that made her seem more human and less like some corporate trainer.

The polls showed that Clinton supporters were on the whole less affluent than Obama's. All those pink collar women whose men tend to stray—imagine the size of that demographic— are potential Clinton supporters. The less viable Edwards looks, the more his women are vulnerable to move over.

I got an email from Democracy for America, a progressive site they claim, bragging about how many women they turned out in New Hampshire. Way to go!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Diebold favors Clinton analysis + Hillarys out of state supporters get the news on how to make her a
Posted by: DanielleClarke on Jan 10, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Diebold favors Clinton analysis

I used the Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines from BlackBoxVoting.org to see if there was a deviation between the results from precincts which used hand counts and those which relied on Diebold machines. The results were astonishing. :
Updated: 5:05 AM (EST) - Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities.

By Percentage
Method
Diebold Machines Clinton 53.23% Obama:46.77%
Hand Count 47.47% 52.53%

By Votes
Method
Diebold Machines Clinton,82860 Obama, 72807
Hand Count Clinaton, 18898 Obama, 20912

About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines.
Source:http://presscue.com/node/38034
By Number of Municipalities Won
Method
Diebold Machines Clinton,54 Obama,33
Hand Count Clinton,43 Obama, 77

About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines.


Hillarys out of state supporters get the news on how to make her a winner in NH

WHO CAN REGISTER http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm

New Hampshire residents who will be 18 years of age or
older on election day, and a United States Citizen,
may register with the town or city clerk where they
live up to 10 days before any election. You may also
register on election day at the polling place. The
town clerk's office can inform voters of what proof of
qualification they should bring to register.

There is no minimum period of time you are required to
have lived in the state before being allowed to
register. You may register as soon as you move into
your new community.

HOW TO REGISTER
1) Apply to your town or city clerk's office. You
will be required to fill out a standard voter
registration form and will be required to show proof
of age, citizenship and domicile.
2) It may be easier for you to register with your
community's Supervisors of the Checklist. By law they
are required to meet on the Saturday 10 days prior to
each election. Check the local newspaper(s) or call
your clerk's office for the date and time of such
meeting.
3) Qualified individuals may also register to vote at
the polling place on election day at all elections.
You will be asked to show proof of age, citizenship,
and domicile.

ABSENTEE REGISTRATION
If you meet the state's voter requirements and
qualifications and are unable to register in person
because of physical disability, religious beliefs,
military service, or because of temporary absence, you
may register by mail. You should request an absentee
voter registration affidavit and a standard voter
registration form from your town/city clerk. The
absentee voter registration affidavit must be
witnessed and then both the affidavit and the voter
registration form are to be returned to your town/city
clerk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tears and a "Soft, Maternal, Caring" voice??
Posted by: Prairie Waif on Jan 10, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am one female NOT buying in to this scheme.

As someone who has worked on National Boards of Directors and prominent University Senate Committees and Hiring Committees, this whole orchestrated week of Hillary Clinton's was more than this feminist could bear.

First, the switch from a strong, leadership tone of voice to the quiet "can I get you a cup of tea?" June Cleever softer vocalizations(and didn't we all just adore the Beav and Wally's Mom?).

Then came the "That hurts my feelings." Oh! And how hurt will your feelings be when you are at a G-8 meeting and the ENTIRE riot of irate people from around the world are there to tell you they hate your policy, lack of brains and burn you in effigy?

What will you do when the WORLD's Press starts commenting on your figure and it's expanding girth (as was the case with Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell) Or your bad taste in clothing (as is the case with many political leaders)?

Obviously, if being told you "are thought to be unlikable" and it then leads you to a quavering voiced reply, how ready are you for the Global Games of "Uncle"?

TEARS? OH! REALLY! SPARE ME!!

Other women who haven't played with the big boys (and I have, top executives at most Canadian Universities, development agencies, Ambassadors and embassy representatives) may have fallen for your, "I'm just a girl who wants to be "all that I can be." I definitely have *not*

I've learned LONG AGO, as any kid has, the effect of tears.

TEARS ARE EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL. Every kid, that wants a new toy, cries. Every weak woman cries over her credit card bill spent on luxury items that went above and beyond her budget. Every man cries when his favourite "toy" needs a new drive belt that will break the family budget but beaks his heart more because he cannot go ATVing with the boys.

Spare me your BLACKMAIL TEARS.

Women!! If you REALLY *ARE* feminists, you will rise above this display and vote above the emotionality of a woman who believes the Presidency is her ENTITLEMENT.

Waif

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow, what an excellent post! nm Posted by: MobileSucks
I didn't know 17 year olds could vote.
Posted by: surfreality on Jan 10, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Obama won the 17-29 year-olds by a big 57-14 margin over Edwards. Hillary got 11. In NH, the exit poll split that demographic into two: Obama did just as well, slightly better even, among the 17-24 group, while Clinton doubled her support and Edwards slipped behind"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off subject
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jan 10, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who hates the broken pages format as much as I do and would like to see the "view as a single page" option at the top of the articles, please, please, please write to Alternet and ask them to change it.

I have written and got a nice response saying they would pass the suggestion on to their tech people. But every time I read an article and get to the bottom of the first page and then have to either continue to read it as separate pages or click the "view as a single page" link and then scroll down to where I was, I get annoyed.

Anyone else who gets annoyed should contact Alternet and put on the pressure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Off subject Posted by: Joshua Holland
Issues, & FACTS
Posted by: Andie927 on Jan 10, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both are Greatly Lacking!

I am a 50+ female, veteran voter, who lived in NH for 18 years! It was all a stupid show, to get more media money spent there. NH has no income tax, no sales tax, yet over half the population works in Mass. and pays Mass. Income Tax. It's a horribly regressive place.
Extremely high property taxes, poor schools, no social safety net, Republican!

You don't decide who to vote for by what they say in campaign speeches, if they even say anything of substance!

I'd LOVE a women president, or a black one! But it has to be the right women or black. Need proof, just look at Pelosi! (Hillary's cut from the same cloth)
Hillary is a Centrist/Corporatist, just like Bill. Yea, he balanced the budget, but don't forget NAFTA and Media Consolidation! Want more of that?
Barak, is a real nice guy, who means well, but doesn't have a clue! BOTH, his parents are Harvard gradutes, he's never 'worked' for a living. He's in favor of the ONLY thing Bush didn't get that he wanted, "Private Accounts" to replace Social Security! He has repeated the 'Republican Lie' that Social Security is going bankrupt several times. SS is not going bankrupt, Our government is, that has outstanding Treasury Bonds in the SS fund!

Neither Barak or Hillary, want to get the Insurance Co. out from betwen me and my doctor! I want my doctor to decide how much and what kind of healthcare I need, not some non-medically educated bean counter at a For Profit Insurance Co.

I want MY representatives in Washington, to work for and listen to me, not Special Interests on K Street! (follow the money)

I've donated the few dollars I can afford to Edwards, and will go to work on his campaign as soon as I can. He went to New Orleans and actually worked, he marched on picket lines, his parents worked in a mill! Yea, he has money now. Money he earned! No silver spoon in his mouth when he was born! No Ivy league colleges, with a free ride from Mommy and Daddy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing Changes with Hillary or Obama
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 10, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That a black man and woman candidate are leading contenders in the Democratic Party race for president could only be a miracle of unprecedented history, Right? Wrong!

I find it suspiciously interesting that the two top Dem contenders are not white males but represent the status quo in real politics in america. Actually, I am not suspicious at all. White male power is so deeply entrenched in the american political system that subverting that power would not be possible without a coup by the masses to restrain white patriarchal power. That doesn't seem to be happening at this point.

White male power is intact. Hillary and Obama are the side show to distract us and from the reality of the high cost of the main attraction. The white male owned media has made our choices for us. The media went to the polls ahead of us, locked in our votes and marginalized any dissenting voices.

Moreover, the fact that the polls showed Obama ahead in New Hampshire just prior to the primary, then Hillary winning, is again, irrelevant, a distraction from the real issues of change that won't occur if either candidate is nominated, and Obama or Hillary will be nominated come hell or high water.

Because, the remaining candidates are committed to preserving white male power, and unless Hillary and Obama are very cleverly disguising their true intentions once they enter office, nothing will dramatically change in the american political landscape.

That's not cynicism speaking. That's realism and honest criticism steeped in desperate hope for a better tomorrow.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]