NH suprising? Not at all.
With only 20% of precincts currently reporting, and Hillary holding a small lead, a lot of people are acting surprised Obama isn't yet winning in a blowout. Which makes no sense to me, and is a classic example of expectations being manipulated by the MSM to completely distort reality. And I was saying that days ago, when ARG and Zogby were putting out absurdly high numbers for Obama.
People need to remember some things:
1) Obama was double digits behind Hillary in NH just weeks ago.
2) The Iowa "bounce" isn't a physical law, it's something that may or not happen depending on a lot of things, not least of which is perceptions.
3) Distorted polls can cut both ways. they can boost candidates, but they can also create unrealistic expectations. Obama has alwasy said he's got a long hard battle, and no state is inevitable.
4) Edwards is splitting the "change" vote. that's huge. If his supporters went overwhelmingly to Obama, Obama would win in a blowout. But that's not happening yet.
5) ARG and Zogby called Iowa for Hillary by a landslide. And flipped to call Obama for a landslide. But they've generally been sloppy. More reliable polls had Obama picking up a lot of momentum after Iowa, but still a close race.
Edwards is splitting the "change" vote. that's huge. If his supporters went overwhelmingly to Obama, Obama would win in a blowout. But that's not happening yet.
This point is significant, and may lead to Clinton's nomination, no?
January 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It's serious. the main question is can Edwards get a Brokered Convention, and I think it's a dangerous gamble and foolish.
There's basically 3 voting blocs in the Dem nomination.
1) The hardcore Clinton camp. About 30%.
2) The "change" bloc. Split about 2/3 Obama 1/3 Edwards. About 45%.
3) The momentum and soft voter. Hillary has them by default. 25%. These are people who don't really follow politics and are kind of impressionable. They could be for Hillary if she's "inevitable." They could also switch in an instant if she's not inevitable.
The problem is that as long as Edwards hands Hillary plurality victories, then Hillary keeps getting that soft vote, the momentum voter, and her numbers are going to be hugely inflated on perceptions. She could very well dominate big states like CA, and go into the convention with a majority, on nothing but perception. Which would mean no Brokered Convention.
We'd wind up with another really weak candidate in the GE, with no moderate appeal, and easy to smack around as a Democratic partisan, triangulater, and phony. Another Kerry.
The Dem base will turn out for whoever the candidate is. But moderates and indies won't go for Hillary. McCain, or even Huckabee could bury Hillary.
January 9, 2008 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then again, maybe, Edwards and Clinton are splitting the "experience" vote. Obama ws predicted to get a much higher percentage of the second choice votes in Iowa than he got is my recollection.
January 8, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would Edwards be getting the experience vote? what experience?
January 9, 2008 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Double Obama's years in the Senate for starters. Running a continuous national level campaign ever since 2004. Having watched politics for long enough to know that coddling people like Lieberman will get you zip. Showing the compassion to have battled corporations in favor of individuals for most of his adult life which has given him the experience not to be taken in by the current corporate claim that politics need to be conducted in non-partisan fashion by Democrats -- a claim never made when the Republicans were in power.
Yeah, there might be a Clinton/Edwards finish if people really start delving into the records.
January 9, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol. That stuff is pathetically transparent.
January 9, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diebold, the very Republican vendor, takes and counts the ballots of 81% of NH voters. A Diebold distributor and another firm out of Massachusetts handle sales, servicing, programming, and vote tabulation. NO ONE is allowed to view vote counting or examine the voting machines at a level necessary to detect real election fraud; the latter by agreement between the purchasers of the voting machines, state/county, and Diebold.
Your interpretation is interesting and perhaps true.
We'll never know. Why?
Because elected and appointed officials have such contempt for the citizens they've created this absurd system that allows private vendors to "secret" voting information from the people who endure the results of that voting and in whose name the voting is conducted. How pathetic.
But it fits, doesn't it. We have a war based on lies which has cost the lives of 1.2 million Iraqi civilians and created 5.0 million (five million) orphans... and not one major candidate find those outrages worthy of mention. We have a planet headed down a path that will cost hundreds of millions of lives ...and not one major candidate finds that outrage worthy of mention.
Shame on them but not us. We deserve much better.
January 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink