Monday, January 07, 2008


The Eve Of New Hampshire....


True... it's still too early to crown a victor for the Democratic party primary race. But on this day before the New Hampshire primary, the writing is starting to appear on the wall, and I'm liking what it says:

American Research Group (based in Manchester, NH) shows Obama over Clinton by a margin of 11 percent... 39% - 28%. As was the case in Iowa, Obama is carrying the youth vote (here widely defined as 18-64), by a margin of 21%. Those 65 and over prefer Clinton by almost the same margin. What's more interesting, however, is the breakdown according to gender. Not surprisingly, Obama and Edwards both lead Clinton among male voters. Women, however, also favor Obama over Clinton - 35%-34% - while 21% lean toward Edwards. Perhaps the most important indicator of success in the general election, however, is the independent voting block. Here, Obama enjoys a 47%-25% margin over Edwards.

Rasmussen Reports shows Obama over Clinton with a ten-point lead... 38%-28%. Edwards continues to hang on, with 18%. Rasmussen points out the same signifier - Clinton and Obama are largely even among Democrats, but Obama has a 2-1 lead over Clinton among Independents.

A Gallup poll shows Obama leading New Hampshire, with a 41%-28% margin over Clinton. Edwards maintains 19% of the vote. Gallup's report points out that the biggest jump in the numbers came when Democrats were asked who "has the best chance of beating the Republican in November." In mid-December, Clinton led on this question by 21 points. Today, Obama leads in this category by 11 points. Obama went up 19 points after the Iowa win, while Clinton lost 13 points.

A couple of other random thoughts here... it's become apparent that the race is largely a two-person race, between Obama and Clinton. The next two in line, however, seemed to have alligned themselves. Edwards has clearly taken a place behind Obama's shoulder, coming down on the side of change. Richardson, meanwhile, is doing everything possible to climb inside Clinton's side pocket. It is not clear that Edwards or Richardson have a clear shot at a veep slot, but it's worth taking note.

In my opinion, here's a telling sign of where the election is heading. To combat the "message of change," Clinton has been attacking Obama by encouraging people not to be swept up by "false hopes." Yesterday, during the debate in New Hampshire, she stopped a conversation between Obama and Edwards to encourage that they get a "reality check."

Obama, on Good Morning America today, addressed Clinton very simply, stating "I mean, you can picture JFK saying, 'we can't go to the moon, it's a false hope. Let's get a reality check.' It's not, sort of, I think, what our tradition has been."

True... it's still too early to crown a victor for the Democratic party primary race. But here are a few interesting facts. In 2004, John Kerry won the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and went on to win the Democratic nomination. In 2000, Al Gore won the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary and went on to win the Democratic nomination. We'll see what happens in 2008 if Barack Obama wins both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Posted by FleshPresser at 11:16 AM /

5 Comments

  • Blogger Cb posted at 5:34 PM  
    PF you say:
    "True... it's still too early to crown a victor for the Democratic party primary race. But here are a few interesting facts. In 2004, John Kerry won the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, and went on to win the Democratic nomination. In 2000, Al Gore won the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary and went on to win the Democratic nomination. We'll see what happens in 2008 if Barack Obama wins both Iowa and New Hampshire."

    You forgot to point out that Bill Clinton LOST Iowa and NH and still went on to get the nomination. He won the White House, of course, whereas the other two did not. So I am not sure that these primaries tell us anything of substance.

    One additional thing to consider. Popular wisdom says that Clinton won because Ross Perot split the votes for Bush. Now people are talking about Bloomberg coming into the race as an independent and he is likely to take votes away from the Democratic candidate.

    So we have a long way to go...

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 6:53 PM  
    Good to see you back, Chris.... though I'm not entirely sure I understand your point.

    I'm pretty sure I stated not once, but twice "It's still too early to crown a victor..."

    Yes, I ommitted Clinton. My point was that the trend has been such in 2000 and 2004, and that it would be INTERESTING to see what happens in 2008 IF Obama wins both of them.

    I also left out Mondale in 1984, who won Iowa, but lost New Hampshire, and wound up losing the White House. In addition, I left out Jimmy Carter, who essentially won both Iowa and New Hampshire and won the White House.

    The list wasn't meant to be exhaustive... just interesting, looking at the RECENT past.

    Are you maybe suggesting that Clinton is in good shape and has nothing to worry about?

    As for Bloomberg, it would be interesting to see what happened if he got into the race, but I've got a wallet full of crisp, green currency to give you if that happens.

  • Blogger Cb posted at 7:51 PM  
    I am always willing to receive fresh, crisp currency! So I will stay on top of that story. :-)

    My point was merely adding additional data to your own; these early primaries are rarely telling. I am not suggesting HRC is in good shape, if she loses NH she will need far more than I think she has to imitate her husband's feat of 15 years ago.

    And that is really her problem, as I read the tea leaves. She is Bill's wife. People really do want "change," even if they don't know what that means and realizing that change for change sake isn't always good. I think most Americans don't just see her as an "insider" who would bring more of the same, but that she would be a continuation of an odd couple sort of Clinton-Bush monarchy. I think most people just want someone new. Period, full stop.

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 12:36 PM  
    I agree with you entirely on the fact that Clinton bears the full weight of her name, both for better and for worse. There are those who love her - without even knowing her - for the fact that she's a Clinton, and therefore has to be good.... sort of in a Hatfield-McCoy kind of way.

    And there are those who will NEVER vote for her, regardless of her record, only because her last name is Clinton.

    Here's the weight that Iowa and New Hampshire bring, however. If Obama wins NH (which appears as an almost certainty now), it looks like the Culinary Workers Union in Nevada will endorse Obama. This union is the largest in the state, and in a state where the unions dominate the caucuses, this all but ensures the victory for Obama.

    South Carolina's polls show a HUGE upswing for Obama, as well, and Clinton camp people have all but ceded the state, citing that the large support she once received from the African-American population in SC is swinging now to Obama.

    So, Iowa and NH mean nothing... but now all of a sudden, we're looking at the possibility/probability of Clinton (the once-presumed frontrunner and royalty of the party) with four straight losses in the month of January, three days prior to the Florida Primary, and a week and a half prior to Tsunami Tuesday.

    So, yes... in and of themselves, Iowa and NH mean relatively little. Looking at their relevance to the BIG picture, however, shows their ultimate importance.

  • Blogger Cb posted at 8:53 PM  
    FP, we couldn't agree more at this point. Aside from the fact that as I watch the returns, with 21% in Clinton is in the lead (40-34). She may pull it out yet. But I think she will not be able to carry the nomination because too many Dems are focused upon electability and I just don't think she could win a national election.

  • Post a Comment

    « Home