« A major upset? | Main | It was the economy, stupid »
January 09, 2008
Don't cry for Hillary in N.H.
Posted by: Chris
Exit polls show that voters who decided over the last 24 hours before yesterday's New Hampshire primary broke for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama by 39 to 36 percent -- and we already knew that 15 percent of those voting in the Democratic primary decided their vote in that last day. And we also know that the last 24 hours of news coverage was saturated with Hillary's choked-up response to a voter's question about "how she does it."
I don't buy completely the explanation from some that seeing Hillary emotional made her more sympathetic. No doubt that's partially true, and something she used to her advantage in her first run for the U.S. Senate. Remember when Republican Congressman Rick Lazio walked across the stage menacingly to demand that she sign a pledge not to accept "soft money" campaign contributions? It came off as bullying and his poll numbers plummeted.
Still, a less cynical explanation would be that Hillary did, in fact, find "her voice" as she said in her victory speech last night. She found a way to explain with evident passion why she is in politics and wants to be president.
It didn't work on me, because I'm convinced the emotion came early on in her response, when she talked about people who treat politics as a game -- laughing about who's up and who's down. And I was completely turned off when she concluded her emotional exchange by saying, ""But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on Day One, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough."
But me and my kind weren't the target audience, clearly. Older women turned out in larger than expected numbers and voted in greater numbers for Clinton than anticipated -- 57 to 27 percent over Obama among women over 65. (Is that just gender at work or also a generation less comfortable with a black leader?)
The question is how does she sustain the momentum? Obviously she can't become emotional in every primary state, and if she uses the same trick again it would no doubt backfire. She will have to rely on the momentum itself, and perhaps a more invigorated stump speech, to carry her into February.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e54fd9f9998834
Comments
-
Dave, I agree. The tears did help, but Hillary has the "machine" behind her. When she announced she was running, it was a done deal in the mind of old time democrats.
Obama has thrown a monkey wrench into the "machine" and it's surprising a lot of people. If Obama takes office a lot of people(dem.s) are going to have culture shock.The fact that the good ole boys can't fix a nomination is a real kick in the balls.
I like Chris' writing style, but I agree with you. He's is far from independent and without agenda, at least when the name is Clinton.
Sorry Chris, not trying to bash you, just the way I see it.
I didn't expect her to win NH, but I did predict she was not having a meltdown.
-
Sorry Chris, not trying to bash you, just the way I see it.
I didn't expect her to win NH, but I did predict she was not having a meltdown
The comments to this entry are closed.
David on Jan 9, 2008 2:14:25 PM:
"I don't buy completely the explanation from some that seeing Hillary emotional made her more sympathetic." Yet you're gonna beat it to death. The one thing that the polls and all the pundits are failing to mention here is the short polling time between IA and NH. Hillary had a solid base in NH, always has. Chris, people like you and the pundits tried to rip her down because of the "tears" and now you're trying to say she only won because of it. Your agenda here has made you less of a voice I appreciate. I use to be able to read you and see a clear opinion based on real information...now I only see you as a huge Hillary hater with a huge agenda. You are doing a huge diservice to the good people of NH by calling them gullible. I'll never figure out how you can claim one set of voters (in this case Iowa) are so smart and another set (in thei case New Hampshire) are so stupid just based on how you wish they would have voted.