"Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!" – Drudge Report
That's enough punditry for now. Here's the only quote that matters:
"Clinton 39%, Obama 37%" – The New Hampshire Voters
After most polls predicted a huge, double digit victory for Illinois Senator Barack Obama in New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, the actual voters had an entirely different idea.
Hillary Clinton's win is not just a win for her campaign and supporters, but it's a win for democracy and a democratic process, and a defeat for a media that's become over obsessed with horse races and poll numbers.
It's amazing, or at least it should be, that most of the national media had, to one degree or another, anointed Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for President after a victory in the small state of Iowa, at a time when the vast majority of the country hasn't really started to pay any real attention yet, much less actually cast a vote!
Why Obama Lost
In New Hampshire, Clinton didn't so much win as Barack Obama was rejected. Exit poll data reported by CNN shows that an estimated 15% of voters in the Democratic primary made up their minds in the final three days of the election, after Obama's stunning Iowa upset.
What the numbers mean is that actually took a harder, closer look at Obama as not only a candidate, but one who could well eventually become the nominee. A majority decided that they didn't want that day to come.
One reason for the defeat is Obama's relative inexperience in the political sphere combined with a perception that he might not win against a Republican "when it counts," said 29 year old Kelly Johnston of Manchester, NH to the Rev Rob Times. "I was behind Obama since the whole thing started, but I changed my mind at the last minute because I never thought he was really going to win – I just liked his message a lot – I really do like it, but then I imagined him in the oval office and voted for Hillary instead, because I think she can win and do a good job too."
Founder of "The Rev. Rob Times," (www.revrob.com) Rev. Robert A. Vinciguerra has been a longtime student of journalism. Currently, he holds a government job where is a technical writer, instructional designer, and an IT trainer. From Phoenix, Arizona.
Your article is good but, with all due respect, you are simply incorrect when you say that there was no way to cheat in NH. As various election integrity watchdogs have pointed out, 81% of the votes were counted on the exact same Diebold machine which was easily hacked on film for the documentary "Hacking Democracy". All of the machine votes are counted by one company with a shadowy reputation. It raises many questions. This is not a system that fosters voter confidence, I'm afraid.
by
Joan Brunwasser (132 articles, 3335 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 588 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 6:53:46 AM
Just a note on one factual error in your article. You state:
"What the numbers mean is that actually took a harder, closer look at Obama as not only a candidate, but one who could well eventually become the nominee. A majority decided that they didn't want that day to come."
A one percent victory, one that is lower than 50%, does not constitute a majority. I believe Edwards got a percentage too (17% or so), so there was no majority. It is more of a squeeked out victory.
by
MichaelOhio (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 7:06:21 AM
Many factors -- Hillary's win not easily explained
Apparently Obama did not get the same number of younger voters out to the polls, and women incresingly went for Hillary. It was very close. There are many factors in play here. Such as men went overwhelmingly for Obama, as did independents (which is a strong signal for the general election).
by
Pete Perry (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 7:58:37 AM
Nice spin, but your logic is somewhat lacking. First, let's look at the population of Iowa (2.9 million) and New Hampshire (1.3 million). Pretty small populations and hardly reflective of the over 300 million people in the US. Second, let's look at the margin of victory for Clinton (39%) versus Obama (36%) in the New Hampshire primary with about 60% of eligable voters voting. Hardly a rejection of Obama. Clinton won in New Hampshire primary, period. Obama won in Iowa. They both put their best foot forward and neither cheated to attain their victories as implied of Obama. There are rules and procedures for each system and those rules and procedures were followed. If you don't like the rules and procedures, complain to the State of Iowa. Don't diss the candidate.
Edwards is right, 99% of the US public has not been given an opportunity to be heard. There is a race on and no one should take anything for granted in any camp. I felt the attitude and composure of Obama was dignified. It was very different from the Clinton campaign after the Iowa loss. That is a reflection of their very different dispositions which affects not only their campaigns and response to pressure but will be reflected in their leadership styles as well.
Everyone has a right to vote for whomever they wish. New Hampshire decided in favor of Clinton yesterday. Let's see what happens in the weeks and months ahead before we dismiss a leading candidate as out.
by
Peter Wedlund (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 154 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 8:16:51 AM
Myself I find it sad that two small mostly republican states are the voice that picks the democratic canadit. I wish the others hadn't dropped out of the race so fast. Maybe there should be a national primary in which every state votes either republican or democrate and then we pick the winners. I live in Michigan and we will have no say in who is the leader of our party. I am very disappointed because I don't think any of the top three have the experience I want for my president.
by
beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 7:51:23 PM
at around 9 pm EST, a hue and cry arose from Karl Rove's White House that the exit polls were all wrong in critical swing states. Not only were they all wrong, but they were all wrong by a consistent value of around three percent. Moreover, they were only wrong in the race for president, not the other races on the ballot. That is why I like to call a three percent margin the "Hacker's Margin".
Last night, in a state where around 85% of the precincts are using Diebold optical scanning machines, we saw a situation where, contrary to even her own campaign's polls, Hillary Clinton led in the counting by a consistent three percent margin. Moreover, not a single poll predicting the outcome of the Democratic primary was correct. They were, however, dead on target on the Republican side. This would seem to eliminate problems with procedure and sampling. What, then can account for this discrepancy?
My opinion is that Diebold Corporation endorsed Hillary Clinton last night.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1020 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 8:32:50 AM
Frankly I was surprised Obama won in Iowa. The Oprah factor played an important role in that race. I too believe many, like myself, were surprised Obama made such a showing in Iowa and decided complacency until election day was not the answser.
Political candidates do not exist in a vacume, candates are a manifestation of their constituency. Hillary is the marked winner all the way to the White House. Good, Bad, or Indifferent, the outcome is what it is. America is a loveless, Godless society and Hillary is their figurehead.
by
Larry Sparks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 8:53:16 AM
I said it on another thread that Rob Call Started..
Obama's name was at the bottom of the ballot, Hillary's was at the top. This according to ABC's pollster accounts for 3 percentage points all by itself.
The second point I want to make here.. Hillary won 9 delegates... Obama won 9 delegates...
Sorry, but Hillary did NOT win NH to the point where it actually counts...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 494 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 8:58:59 AM
We need to get beyond the chickenshit headlines and look at the nitty gritty: hijacked voting machines, party politics, racial fear, "other fear"--the twits who confuse Obama with Osama: in other words sheeple politics combined with election fraud and hijacked electronic misvoting machines.,
by
M. Davis (39 articles, 2 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 133 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 3:52:00 PM
I agree with most comments that those that control the voting machines threw the election for Hillary. You cannot ignore the fact that 81% of the machines were corruptable. It is like playing poker with stacked cards. Also, there is absolutely no way all the polls (20 to 30 polls) were all off by 12% to 15%. Zogby is usually very accurate. I can see them being off by 2% to 3% but not 15%.
You have to ask why these people want Hillary to win. There can only be two reasons. One being that she is part of the establishment and they want to continue Bush regime's imperialist agenda. The other being that they believe Hillary has the least chance of beating the Republican candidate. Both options are very bad for America.
Mark my word, Bush will begin another war with Iran and Hillary or McCain will continue or expand it. Another Gulf of Tonkin is in the agenda. Recent BS regarding Iranian boats threatening Navy ships is a warm up to what is to come. There is a good chance anther false flag operation involving a Navy ship will take place. History will repeat itself (because those in power commit the same crimes over and over again) it and it will happen this year.
Best bet for America is Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and possibly John Edwards. American cannot afford another Clinton in office. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. God help America.
GoBlue
by
Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 9:33:55 AM
" Come on, we all know that Diebold only endorses Republicans. ;)"
Diebold machines can easily be programmed to do whatever the programmer wants it to do. In a primary where the battle is between members of the SAME party, Republicans, or those in power, will throw the election to the candidate they want. Best way to assure that the outcome of the general election is exactly what they want is to have both the Democratic and Republican candidates in their pockets (willing puppets).
It would be extremely naive not to consider the fact that 81% of the voting machines were corruptible. The Republicans and those truly in power are rejoicing.
Let's see what happens in those states that have honest voting machines.
GoBlue
by
Goblue (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM
Or those on whom the Republicans have fifteen years of "opposition research." Including detailed Secret Service reports on everywhere they've been for that length of time.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 1020 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 10:36:58 AM
the "top tier" of both "sides" are Democrats or Republicans in name only.
Edwards may, deep in his millionaire's heart, want to do the right things, but he gave in to Skull and Bones Kerry throwing the 2004 stolen election to Skull and Bones GW Bullshit
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 404 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 874 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 3:22:13 PM
IT COMES DOWN TO THE SAME FACT, ITS NOT WHO VOTES ITS WHO COUNTS THE VOTES.
HERES A QUOTE THAT FITS THIS PICTURE OF LATE.
WE ARE FAST APPROACHING THE STAGE OF THE UNLITIMATE INVERSION; THE STAGE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE TO DO ANYTHING IT PLEASES, WHILE THE CITIZENS MAY ACT BY PERMISSION; WHICH IS THE STAGE OF THE DARKEST PERIODS OF HUMAN HISTORY, THE STAGE OF RULE BY BRUTE FORCE;
BY AYN RAND
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 2:13:28 AM
My personal opinion is that the pollsters didn't bother asking the urban blue-collar democrats who went strongly for Clinton. The weakness of unions these days means that working-class people aren't noticed any more because they have no institutional voice. The Democratic Party is going to have to play that role, if they can do that without losing the middle-class.
by
Karlek (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 9:49:38 AM
The middle class is just about gone. Either you are rich or some degree of poor, with a few hardly souls hanging on to their middle class status by their bloody fingernails.
by
memary (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 70 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 10:01:21 PM
I think there is something wrong with both elections. I also am very upset about the fact that the first 2 states to vote are both republican states. Not sure they should have so much power in who should be leading the democrates.
by
beccy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 8:01:33 PM
Obama used a teleprompter in his Iowa victory speech. Also, for any Black candidate you have to subtract 10 points from what the poll sare saying to get a true picture of how many votes he or she is going to get in a statewide or national election. Iowa was different because they couldn't hide their race views as it was a public vote.
by
Joel Wendland (34 articles, 106 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 15 comments)
on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 at 10:06:01 AM
