TOPICS:
JAN 09, 2008 12:19 AM
Kindle said:
Bastardo said:
PointBlank said:
A lot of it has to do with New Hampshire voting for the person that Iowa didn't vote for. Just to be dicks.
97% of the people in New Hampshire are complete assholes.
I know, right? They're like a lite version of massholes.
Not even. People in Connecticut are lite versions of Massholes. People in New Hampshire are fat free versions.
So they're just holes, then?
I'll be here all night. Try the chicken salad. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
JAN 09, 2008 12:41 AM
So, this one caught me by surprise. I thought NH would end up closer than the polls said but that Obama would still come away with it. Pretty shocking.
Still, even though the real cache in these early states is the positive media buzz and flow of cash, it is worth noting that Obama and Clinton actually tied in the amount of delegates won tonight - they both picked up 9. The current delegate count has Obama at 25, Clinton 23 (that's not including super delegates).
Even though I would vastly have preferred Obama to win, an open race has its appeal - there's something distasteful about the media's desire to anoint a winner after only two states out of fifty have voted. It should at least keep things interesting for another month with Nevada and South Carolina ahead of Super Tuesday. He's been running well behind in Nevada, but reports say that both the influential Culinary Workers Union and the Service Employees International Union, the two largest labor groups in the state, are set to endorse Obama tomorrow.
JAN 09, 2008 01:46 AM
Heres some more Analysis of the New Hampshire primary with some previews:
The outcome of the Democratic primary suggests that Clinton benefited from a growing concern among working class voters over the state of the US economy. Clinton was the only candidate to raise the growing danger of recession in Saturday's televised debate, and exit polls showed that the economy was the number one issue of those who turned out to vote, whether they cast a Democratic or a Republican ballot. A staggering 98 percent of those who voted in the Democratic primary said they were "very" or "somewhat" worried about the economy.
Clinton ran ahead of Obama in the working class industrial city of Manchester, New Hampshire's largest, and there were significant class and economic distinctions between their voters. Clinton led Obama by sizeable margins among those with family incomes less than $100,000 a year, among union members, among those without college degrees, among those who felt that the state of the US economy is poor, and among those with children in the home. Her largest margin was among single working women.......
In her victory speech, Clinton reiterated the economic appeal adopted by her campaign in the last several days. She referred to meeting "people who've lost their homes to foreclosures, people who work but can't pay their bills, young people who can't afford to go to college."
Embracing a populist appeal she had avoided in Iowa, Clinton went on to declare, "The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had for seven years a president who stands up for them. It's time you had a president who stands up for you."
According to exit polls Tuesday, McCain owed his victory largely to voters who were registered independents. Registered Republicans split their votes nearly evenly between McCain and Romney.
The defeat was a serious blow to the viability of the Romney campaign, whose strategy was based on winning in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two earliest contests. The former governor of neighboring Massachusetts had been leading in opinion polls until a few weeks ago. As he did in Iowa, Romney spent more on television advertising in New Hampshire than all his rivals combined. Romney's focus now is on the January 15 Michigan primary, where his main rivals will be McCain, who won the contest in 2000.
There was little comfort in Tuesday's results for any of the other Republican candidates. Giuliani had been leading in state opinion polls last spring and summer, but he plummeted as McCain rose and ended up virtually conceding the primary. He spent much of the New Hampshire campaign at events in Florida, whose primary is January 29.
Huckabee left New Hampshire for South Carolina, where Republicans vote January 19, hoping that a large turnout of evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists will produce a victory over McCain, likely his closest rival there. Thompson is expected to pull out of the race if he does as poorly in South Carolina as he has in Iowa and New Hampshire.
This means that at least four Republican candidates - McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani - are expected to contest the 20 state primaries to be held on February 5.
New Hampshire primary foreshadows protracted contest for US presidential nominations
By Patrick Martin
9 January 2008
The results of Tuesday's New Hampshire primary suggest there will be no quick resolution to the contest for the presidential nomination in either the Democratic or Republican parties.
The narrow victory by Senator Hillary Clinton over Senator Barack Obama, by a margin of 39 to 36 percent, appears to make the Democratic contest a two-candidate race. Both Obama, who won the Iowa caucuses last Thursday, and Clinton have huge campaign war chests that will take them through February 5, when 20 states hold primary votes.
The result upended the pre-election polls, which had predicted a comfortable Obama victory by a margin of at least 10 percentage points. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina trailed with 17 percent, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson received 5 percent, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich 2 percent.
The primary victory by Senator John McCain of Arizona leaves a splintered Republican field. McCain defeated former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by 37 to 32 percent. Romney, by far the best-financed Republican candidate, was the runner-up for the second consecutive contest. He also won poorly attended Republican caucuses in Wyoming.
The winner of the January 3 Iowa caucuses, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, finished well back in third place, with 11 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, once the frontrunner in national polls among Republicans, finished a poor fourth with 9 percent, while Congressman Ron Paul received 8 percent. Former Senator Fred Thompson trailed with only 1 percent.
According to exit polls Tuesday, McCain owed his victory largely to voters who were registered independents. Registered Republicans split their votes nearly evenly between McCain and Romney.
The defeat was a serious blow to the viability of the Romney campaign, whose strategy was based on winning in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two earliest contests. The former governor of neighboring Massachusetts had been leading in opinion polls until a few weeks ago. As he did in Iowa, Romney spent more on television advertising in New Hampshire than all his rivals combined. Romney's focus now is on the January 15 Michigan primary, where his main rivals will be McCain, who won the contest in 2000.
There was little comfort in Tuesday's results for any of the other Republican candidates. Giuliani had been leading in state opinion polls last spring and summer, but he plummeted as McCain rose and ended up virtually conceding the primary. He spent much of the New Hampshire campaign at events in Florida, whose primary is January 29.
Huckabee left New Hampshire for South Carolina, where Republicans vote January 19, hoping that a large turnout of evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists will produce a victory over McCain, likely his closest rival there. Thompson is expected to pull out of the race if he does as poorly in South Carolina as he has in Iowa and New Hampshire.
This means that at least four Republican candidates - McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani - are expected to contest the 20 state primaries to be held on February 5.
The outcome of the Democratic primary suggests that Clinton benefited from a growing concern among working class voters over the state of the US economy. Clinton was the only candidate to raise the growing danger of recession in Saturday's televised debate, and exit polls showed that the economy was the number one issue of those who turned out to vote, whether they cast a Democratic or a Republican ballot. A staggering 98 percent of those who voted in the Democratic primary said they were "very" or "somewhat" worried about the economy.
Clinton ran ahead of Obama in the working class industrial city of Manchester, New Hampshire's largest, and there were significant class and economic distinctions between their voters. Clinton led Obama by sizeable margins among those with family incomes less than $100,000 a year, among union members, among those without college degrees, among those who felt that the state of the US economy is poor, and among those with children in the home. Her largest margin was among single working women.
Perhaps the most striking distinction between Clinton and Obama voters concerned feelings about their family's economic futures. Those who said their families were "getting ahead" backed Obama by 48 to 31 percent. Those who said their families were "falling behind" - a much larger group - voted for Clinton by 43 to 33 percent.
There was a significant age difference in the nearly evenly divided vote. Clinton's entire margin of victory came among voters aged 65 or over. Among those aged 18 to 64, the two candidates were virtually tied. There were fewer younger voters as a proportion of those voting - 18 percent were under 30, compared to 22 percent in Iowa. But the proportion of the elderly was down even more: they comprised 13 percent of the Democratic voters, compared to 22 percent in Iowa. This in part reflects the difference between a primary, where working-age voters can more easily get to the polls, and a caucus, which involves a greater commitment of time.
The exit polls suggested that voters did not make much of a distinction among the principal Democratic candidates on the issue of the war in Iraq. Despite Obama's frequent claims of early opposition to the war, voters who favored the quickest possible withdrawal of US forces in Iraq backed Clinton by 41 to 34 percent.
In her victory speech, Clinton reiterated the economic appeal adopted by her campaign in the last several days. She referred to meeting "people who've lost their homes to foreclosures, people who work but can't pay their bills, young people who can't afford to go to college."
Embracing a populist appeal she had avoided in Iowa, Clinton went on to declare, "The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had for seven years a president who stands up for them. It's time you had a president who stands up for you."
In demagogic fashion, she pledged, "There will be no more invisible Americans," adding that she advocated, "Government of the people, for the people, by the people, not just for the privileged few."
The effectiveness of such appeals as an electoral tactic does not obviate the fact that this kind of rhetoric is completely bogus and cynical. Clinton, like all of her fellow Democratic and Republican candidates, is a representative of the class of millionaires and multi-millionaires who dominate US political and social life.
The Democratic Party has been for many decades the favored instrument of the ruling elite in times of widespread economic distress, employing populist demagogy to one degree or another to focus public anger on particular companies or industries, diverting the working class from any broader struggle against the profit system as a whole.
It is notable in the 2008 campaign that Obama, while constantly invoking the theme of "change," has largely downplayed the economic populism embraced by Edwards in Iowa and now taken up by Clinton in New Hampshire. In his concession speech Tuesday night, in a typically vague formulation, he declared, "We're ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction," without ever specifying what that direction was. He said little about the economic issues that are increasingly overshadowing the presidential campaign.
JAN 09, 2008 02:24 AM
Interesting about the economic factor. That makes more sense than anything. Obama needs to give depth to his stump speech, the "hope" shit will only carry him so far.
This quote from Hillary
Embracing a populist appeal she had avoided in Iowa, Clinton went on to declare, "The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had for seven years a president who stands up for them. It's time you had a president who stands up for you."
If fucking ridiculous. Is she going to protect us from herself?
JAN 09, 2008 04:09 AM
i appreciate obama's congratulations to hillary after the results were out. he gives out an image of fundalmental unity in the dems, instead of a bitter rivalry.
personally, i wouldn't vote for a president who was seen crying in public cause she could not win pre-election polls. what would happen if iran aimed bombs towards the usa? another good cry followed by a good night of sleep would solve things? i appreciate emotional people,but the potusa needs to be ice-cold all the time, in my opinion... and project an image of strenght outside.
JAN 09, 2008 05:07 AM
FearTheReaper said:
Interesting about the economic factor. That makes more sense than anything. Obama needs to give depth to his stump speech, the "hope" shit will only carry him so far.
This quote from Hillary
Embracing a populist appeal she had avoided in Iowa, Clinton went on to declare, "The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had for seven years a president who stands up for them. It's time you had a president who stands up for you."
If fucking ridiculous. Is she going to protect us from herself?
Yes my irony meter nearly exploded after reading that excerpt speech from a 100+ million dollar corporate funded campaign, so unless she has re-written her healthcare plan since turning up the pop (and I would imagine economic platform as well) I dont see how such a turn will help her in this primary as from your own expose on the DEM healthcare platform issue highlights, Health insurance companies want to have Clinton standing up for the little guy.....
Never the less political blood is in the water, as I have read that b.Clinton has now attacked Obama's record on voting against Iraq as a fairy tale, I gotta give that man props for his ability to act decisively in a change in political momentum; the NH primaries have barely closed showing a fundamental weakness in Obamas campaign and b.clinton nearly instantaneously charges further into that achillies heel: Obama's bipartisan/centrist position.
(Previously B.C had been defending H.C's lack of time to prepare for campaigning between primaries).
There is very good reason to beleive that Obama will fail in a fight for the left or be able to redraw the debating ground in favour of his political history in "bi-partisan political change", a political perspective that has done much more damage to the Democratic party in the publics eye by prostrating itself before the bush administration.
I would like to hi-light one sentence to reaffirm why sucha centrist position is going to lose.
exit polls showed that the economy was the number one issue of those who turned out to vote, whether they cast a Democratic or a Republican ballot.
This also explains the outcome for Republican primary results as well, considering that Romney who I seem to have read is considered to have a near liberal record as governor of Mass in spending on healthcare and such, while McCain has a history from the 2000 primaries of running on a more economic compassionate program then the capitalist cowboy GWB.
More importantly what this points to is that the swing votes momentum is in dealing with the reccession in its various forms facing the U.S, and it seems that this issue is on allot of peoples minds- though I would add that the republicans have a historically worse record(not to mention a 2 term incumbent republican overseeing the current dive into recession) in dealing with economic crisis then the dems and thus such a swing will be from the republicans to the dems rather then vice versa.
Unless a republican candidate pulls an FDR like program out of their hats(extremely unlikely) during the primaries/election to steal the economic clout that the dems have under their banner, Hillary Clinton has most effectively wrapped herself<so far> in the key issue of the election while Obama has all but repudiated it as a rag of partisanship.
In other words I dont think BO will be able to make HC look like a U.S Margaraet Thatcher because he has to much invested in being the American Tony Blair.
JAN 09, 2008 07:21 AM
And this is what I don't get...how did Hillary "win" New Hampshire. She beat out Obama by 2% of the vote, sure...but since the Democrats use a porportional primary system...both Clinton and Obama got the SAME NUMBER of delegates to go to the presidential nomination convention. That would make it a tie wouldn't it?
Not that I think any of this matters. Because in reality, Obama is going to have to win by a clear majority in most of the elections to sway the establishment SuperDelegate votes within the Democratic party. Those votes aren't decided by the rank and file voters, but rather by Democratic party leaders (governers, congress members, Party Chairpeople etc.) and they make up almost 40% of the votes needed to nominate a candidate.
I think the Dems are smart for using the porportional primary....and I think it doesn't mean crap because it's offset by a overly influential establishment vote that can easily override the popular vote...especially in a close election.
But I'm just bitter because Edwards is trailing.
JAN 09, 2008 07:54 AM
Volkov said:
And this is what I don't get...how did Hillary "win" New Hampshire. She beat out Obama by 2% of the vote, sure...but since the Democrats use a porportional primary system...both Clinton and Obama got the SAME NUMBER of delegates to go to the presidential nomination convention. That would make it a tie wouldn't it?
It's a tie in terms of delegates, but in terms of public opinion, campaign donations and the "media narrative" of the campaign, it's a "comeback kid" victory for Clinton, which will have a much different impact on the upcoming primaries than if Obama won by 2% and split the delegates with Clinton.
JAN 09, 2008 08:15 AM
Rafi said:
So, this one caught me by surprise. I thought NH would end up closer than the polls said but that Obama would still come away with it. Pretty shocking.
Still, even though the real cache in these early states is the positive media buzz and flow of cash, it is worth noting that Obama and Clinton actually tied in the amount of delegates won tonight - they both picked up 9. The current delegate count has Obama at 25, Clinton 23 (that's not including super delegates).
Even though I would vastly have preferred Obama to win, an open race has its appeal - there's something distasteful about the media's desire to anoint a winner after only two states out of fifty have voted. It should at least keep things interesting for another month with Nevada and South Carolina ahead of Super Tuesday. He's been running well behind in Nevada, but reports say that both the influential Culinary Workers Union and the Service Employees International Union, the two largest labor groups in the state, are set to endorse Obama tomorrow.
As much as I like Obama and as brilliant as he is, this so-called "defeat" has a silver lining. He is young, and is in fact lacking in experience, and overall I think it's positive that he be tested throughout the campaign. If he can go head to head with an old pro like Hillary, emerge as the nominee, and survive the Republican attack dogs, then he will have gone a long way toward proving that he really does have "The Stuff". Because whoever takes the Oath of Office in Jan. 2009 is going to have one heel of a tough job ahead.
JAN 09, 2008 11:05 AM
phrogg said:
As much as I like Obama and as brilliant as he is, this so-called "defeat" has a silver lining. He is young, and is in fact lacking in experience, and overall I think it's positive that he be tested throughout the campaign. If he can go head to head with an old pro like Hillary, emerge as the nominee, and survive the Republican attack dogs, then he will have gone a long way toward proving that he really does have "The Stuff". Because whoever takes the Oath of Office in Jan. 2009 is going to have one heel of a tough job ahead.
I've heard this argument. I think it is wildly optimistic for Dems. The truth is, Americans will become turned off as the campaigns go more and more negative and could very easily split the party. Clinton has been running around NH comparing Obama to Bush. How many of his supporters will vote for her after that kind of shit? Also, many of Obama's supporters are young and voting for the first time, to believe they will switch over is naive.
I think Hillary's voters would switch to Obama, because they are Dems to the core and will vote for whatever clown the party throws up. Obama is a different story. But either way, many people will be turned off by an ugly Dem primary campaign, just as they will be turned off by an ugly Rep campaign.
JAN 09, 2008 11:49 AM
MrCrisp said:
FearTheReaper said:
MrCrisp said:
FearTheReaper said:
MrCrisp said:
AceT said:
FearTheReaper said:
Based on exit polling numbers, it looks like Hillary won. Seems all the misogynist media bullshit the past week had an effect. 57% of voters were women.
Quasi-related note: Obama had more women vote for him in Iowa than Hillary.
i guess the oprah-effect wore off faster than expected.
I think this is more a reaction to Hillary crying and the media's blatant misogyny this past week. A lot of women in New Hampshire were particularly upset about it.
i didn't catch any of that. was it all over television?
The misogyny or the reaction?
The misogyny has been on the TV, yes. And in print, etc.
i hate television and the only readily available paper on base is the base's paper. thanks for the update, i'll have to check it out. (surprised you didn't write an article about it, hint hint.)
And it continues. Here they go today.
JAN 09, 2008 11:53 AM
the reason she was elected senator and is running for president is because her husband had an extra-marital affair and people feel sorry for her?
what the fuck?
JAN 09, 2008 12:49 PM
MrCrisp said:
the reason she was elected senator and is running for president is because her husband had an extra-marital affair and people feel sorry for her?
what the fuck?
Yes, that's surprisingly unfounded for Matthews. He obviously has strong feelings about Hillary.
Given the numbers, I'm going with the hypothesis that the anti-feminist backlash against the supposed "crying" (note that there were no visible tears, and arguably only a catch in the throat as she spoke) from the media underscored the gender issue for Democrats in NH.
I think we'll definitely see if that is the case when the next primary results come in.
_kungfoo_
Los Angeles, CA
April 2005
JAN 09, 2008 01:04 PM
Sometimes I think Chris Matthews is an alcoholic.
Rafi
Santa Monica, CA
January 2003
JAN 09, 2008 12:16 AM