Hillary's remarkable triumph
James Forsyth 8:29am
Hillary Clinton’s comeback win took everyone, including her own campaign, by surprise. The theories are flowing as to how she pulled it out. Some are claiming it is because people tell pollsters that they’re planning to vote for the black candidate then in the privacy of the ballot box don’t. This is certainly the simplest explanation for what happened but I’m wary of it as it lets people like me who predicted that he’d win big off the hook far too easily.
The other theories doing the rounds are that New Hampshire voters didn’t want to end the contest this early. Or, that they reacted against the media narrative. One definite factor is that the Clinton campaign had the best field operative in American politics working for them.
Looking at the details of where Hillary drew her support from shows that she won what is called the beer track; voters without a college degree, union families and households on less than $50,000 a year broke heavily in her favour. This suggests that the weakness of John Edwards, who has been running as an economic populist, was key to Clinton’s victory.
There’ll be lots of talk in the next few days about how the media invented the ‘Obama phenomenon’. Having been on the ground here, all I can say is that the crowds, the queues to get in to his event were all there. The fact that the Clinton campaign were so convinced that it was going to lose that they had already started a staff shake-up shows just how real the Obama surge appeared to be on the ground.
What the media may have missed is how many people were coming to Obama events out of curiosity more than anything else. But that still doesn’t explain the polls.
Previous
Comments
gop in singapore
January 9th, 2008 9:05amOh please you are making yourself and this blog look worse with your defensive "we didn't invent" Obasms.
Well actually, you sortta did. You and the rest of the media checked your objectivity and skepticism about a political candidate and in doing so fed the hype.
The implication being that Obama was a prophet of all things good and noble.
Scholarly articles and books will be written about these past few weeks and the media's cheerleading for Obama.
You and the rest of your foolish ilk will not come out looking well.
The simplest explanation for these polls is that when asked, who is going to admit to voting against the second coming......
The simplest explanation for why the Clinton campaign was spooked was because like all Dems (and those on the left) they have an incestuous relation with the MSM and thus cannot not believe them. It was only when the Clintons took a tact from the GOP playbook and started attacking the media for being in the tank for Obama that they started to gain confidence.
Republicans have stopped believing in the media and polls many cycles ago......now perhaps the Clintons have entered this stage of enlightenment.
It is quite liberating to read pieces in the Times (New York and London), the Post etc and realize that the writers are full of S$%&.
Max Kaye
January 9th, 2008 9:27amgop in right in his analysis (and in his posts on the previous thread). Obama is - in the words of one Clinton supporter - an 'empty suit'. James, one of the joys of The Spectator is that its writers are usually healthily and sensibly sceptical about political rhetoric. Please don't get caught up in the spiel.
As before, I maintain that the best outcome for the Republicans is for Hilary to secure the nomination after a long, bitter and internecine struggle. Let's put on our safety belts and hope for a bumpy flight.
Old Hack
January 9th, 2008 10:24amThis result does suggest that whoever the Dems pick will be a divisive leader. Hillary has used the teary moment to its best effect. Which I suspect was largely why she was able to make a come-back. But she will not be allowed to sob her way to 1600 Pennsylvania. Obama is not an empty suit cannot be written off yet. This is a fascinating contest.
Hugh Kerr
January 9th, 2008 11:23amGOP you cant blame James or the media for the result last night.Clearly a number of factors were at work.Firstly race and truth,people when polled dont want to be seen as racist but when in the privacy of the polling booth well thats different.We have a similar polling problem in Scotland,people dont like to admit they are voting Tory but in private they do, so the Tory vote is always underestimated.Secondly the New Hampshire primary is very different from the Iowa Caucuses there the minor candidates drop out and their votes are cast for other candidates in Iowa most of them went to Obama in New Hampshire Richardson, Kucenich et al took 7% which would have gone mainly to Obama. Thirdly will the Edwards votes finally go to Obama or Clinton if he drops out after super Tuesday or at the Convention. Lets face it a black liberal american getting near to victory in a very conservative white state is still remarkable.In South Carolina where half the electorate is black we may see a very different result, currently Obama is 20 points ahead.
gop in singapore
January 10th, 2008 2:25amHugh, a few things:
1) "A black liberal american getting near to a victory in a very conservative white state is still remarkable" Which state are you referring to here? New Hampshire? Hardly a very conservative state anymore old friend, indeed it went blue in 2004 and even more so in 2006. Finally, this was not a general election vote but rather a primary.....so err....your point is rather less remarkable.
2) South Carolina's electorate is not "half black"...rather it is 30%. Which is not half by a long shot. This is just the type of laziness that typifies election coverage.....some media person claims that SC's electorate is "almost 50% black" (a bit of a stretch, since one could go the other way then and say that it is almost only 10% black) and that becomes "is 50%".
The laziness!
3) I never wrote that James and the media were responsible for last night! Indeed my whole point was that last night occurred (HRC winning) precisely because she fought against the cloyingly enthusiastic and non objective coverage of Obama by James and his ilk.
In 1992, all the polls showed that Bill Clinton would get 50+ percent of the vote. Indeed, he ended up with only 43%. James Carville a fews years later admitted that this occurred because the Bush Sr. Campaign developed a smart strategy a few weeks before the election...they started passing out bumper stickers that said "Annoy the Media: Re-elect Bush". This turned out to be the most visible bumper sticker of the election. To be sure, Bush Sr. lost- but it showed how fighting against media hype (perhaps had he done so much earlier he may have won) can never hurt a candidate.
Ezomon Osagie
January 10th, 2008 10:44amI think the people that matters, in USA politics do not want a black man to be the president of the united states.
David
January 10th, 2008 3:42pmIf the Demms really sit back and look at what they have got--'The Drean Ticket' --Hillary and Barak---they might stop in-fighting, and go all the way!
Gloria
January 10th, 2008 9:54pmI have to agree with the race suggestion regarding the swing from Obama to Clinton most of those independents who voted obviously have such entrenched racism they would rather vote for Charles Manson than a very credible black candidate. On realising Obama may win they would probably have voted for whichever candidate they thought could beat him, Clinton just happened to be the strongest opposition. Most of them probably don't even like her. I mean how could you, shes so hyper ambitious desperate for power and glory she would do anything say anything and step on anyone in the pursuit of her ambitions, that feigning of emotion from her almost made me sick you can be sure that came from some campaign think tank in desperation at seeing her ambitions drifting away. Whilst i know almost all politicians are of this ilk i get the feeling Obama would at least have a modicom of sincerity and honesty 2 things you could never accuse Hilary Clinton of.
Roy Sulyly
January 11th, 2008 6:40pmMy Message is for both Democrat and Idependent a like. Can we all demasnd to ask from Crockodile tear Hillary Clinton to tell us, what exacly she had forgotten at White House? It is becoming increasingly likely that X president Clinton was not adhering to Hillary's advice. If so, this was contrary to X president preclusion that he did listen to her wive's Brilliant assistant for Public demands and other Policies to effect changes. ass such, the democrat alike can see vividly that Hillary's Tears coul;d be seen as a sign of Frustration a head during the coming campaign as she saw the wave of Change that already beaconing on one and only one Obamas's Slogan for Change in all that matters to peoples of america either Blue or Green. Obviously The Change that Obama wants shall not affect the like of The Clintons. The only change that the Clintons want is about creatingb New History for themselves and that will be all. Hence, i see it and others will agree or undestand my assertion and make their own mind. How many Clintos do we need to see again? Sorry The answer is No more Clintons for the White House again. It is therefore, to be demanded that it is the X President Clinton that shouldgive Americans a Break and Not the Impressive and Charistmatic Obama.
Raymond Daughton
January 12th, 2008 8:25pmIts time for change in the white house. I wonder how the country looked $ wise when Mr Clinton left the white house compared to what it will look like when Mr Bush leaves the White House. American voters ask how much money is the Goverment in debt useing your tax dollars and how long will it take to pay back with a New White House Administration ?
phelpsy
January 13th, 2008 9:45amhi hilary i think you will be realy good at president so i hope you get it goog luck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
b_hau2054@hotmail.com
January 13th, 2008 4:06pmI'm just wondering why the main stream media in the United States are so relunctant to talk about suppose deliberate fraud at the New Hempshire caucus. It is a shame for the main stream media in the United States. The CNN before now has been my best channel but having noticed their game plans, I have resulted to Russia Today as my main source of international news.
leon k
January 14th, 2008 12:13pmall the best myself and my family wish you good luck we want a lady with ambition on america history.
olounwa
January 18th, 2008 4:27pmOBAMA IN 2008!! Finally the yanks are cranking it up with a candidate the world can do business with.!! we have had 8yrs of unrelenting neo conservative oil politics and where has it got us.. its not just about the americans here, what about the rest of the world..? americans forget that they are the worlds only current super power headed by a nincompoop. but he is history and its time for americans to make history and stop living in the past. there are far too many problems that bush has created now and he wont solve them.. am not saying one man can in so short a time, but there just has to be change in the way america does business and having someone who can actually read a cue card is a good place to start.