Skip to main content

Despite the hyperbole of TV political pundits, Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Granite state primary did not "shock the political world," or was "a Titanic upset of politics in the history of primaries or the history of politics."

Let’s look at some salient facts:

·         Sixty percent of NH voters voted for one of the change candidates

·         Clinton seems unable to attract independents—a death knell in a General Election campaign

·         Exit polls showed Clinton may have a problem attracting male voters

·         The "Bradley" or Black phenomenon and how it affects the public response to pollsters may be at work here.

Remember former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford’s defeat in 2006, opinion polls just prior to the election showed Ford would be the winner.  What he won was the chairmanship of the DLC.

Is the Democratic Party going to stick with the old special interest group politics that slice and dice the American people: see,  http://www.democrats.org/... Voters in state primaries where the ability to vote is based on party affiliation, (for example NY and Conn.),will tell the tale.

Should we assume that a plurality of Democratic voters support the status quo because they fear change will affect social security, Medicare, and certain middle class tax loopholes?

I never thought that I would agree with a Pat Buchanan analysis. The conservative commentator opined that a spit may be brewing within the Democratic Party between the educated, African Americans and Hispanics—a redux of the McGovern coalition. I witnessed how McGovernites were treated by the then Democratic establishment, if Senator Obama’s analysis is correct and it is possible for a New Majority to be forged in America; it is extremely possible that the special interest dominated Democratic Party is not the vehicle for real, bold, dynamic change.

As the Granite state primary results demonstrate regardless of Senator Clinton’s plurality, the people out of doors much like the McGovernites of a generation ago seek a radical change in the status quo. How can a party funded by those who cling to the status quo and entrenched special interest groups with an axe to grind be the catalysis of this radical transformation?

By the way, the most important primary in modern political history remains the 1968 face-off between an obscure Minnesota Senator, Eugene McCarthy, and President Lyndon Johnson that result--McCarthy garnering 38 percent of the vote convinced LBJ the political savvy warhorse not to seek reelection.

Originally posted to joegarcia on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:26 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please fix your tags (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LNK, dconrad

    Tag guidelines instruct that when names are used both the first and last names should be included ) (with no titles like Rep. or Senator), and in cases like the George Bushes - the middle initials are essential.

    The Tag Guidelines also ask that you reuse existing tags and do not create "cutsey" tags.

    Standard election diary tags:

    2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats

    Since tags are an indexing system, (and many people bookmark tags or add them to their blog rolls)  it makes sense to use the tags used by the majority of the community for the same subject.  Please save for reuse and help check the tags in other diaries for your candidate.

    ====================
    Tagging Tips for Everyone
    ====================
    Review standard election related tags here.  
    Tips on Creating Good Diary Tags
    We suggest that you try to use tags from this list of the most used tags. since those are the tags the majority of community members use, bookmark and search on.
    You can find other tags and their diaries by using this Tag Search Tool (the higher the number the better the tag since it means more people are using it.) – enter only part of a word or phrase to help check that there is not an even better used tag for the same subject matter.

    •  Can I? (0+ / 0-)

      Sarah, I didn't fully follow all the latest changes to tagging guidelines, but are we somehow forbidden from doing this for diarists? I know we're not supposed to take away their tags, or use "troll diary" (not that that would apply here, anyway). I'm under the impression that it is still cool to give the diarist a little assist, and I just did.

      I filled out the names, added the standard election tags, and fixed the obvious typo "staus quo" -> "status quo". If I've overstepped, my only defense is that I've internalized the "Be Bold" maxim from Wikipedia.

      "Stick a fork in Clinton." — me, just before Clinton's comeback. Oops!

      by dconrad on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Link to well-documented article: (0+ / 0-)

    "The Science of Propaganda" http://www.nypl.org/ and search NYPL website for "Lakoff"

    by LNK on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM PST

  •  The Bradley effect, or Wilder effect (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think this put in an appearance in New Hampshire. I saw someone else make the point that Obama got what the polls had projected. Looking back, I see that's correct.

    Early Tuesday morning I looked at the polls on pollster.com. I took the numbers for each of the top three candidates, threw out the low and high number for each, eliminated duplicates, and then averaged the numbers.† I got 36% for Obama, 31% for Clinton, and 19% for Edwards.*

    So how did Obama actually do? He got 36% (actually, slightly over), matching the pre-primary polls.

    Clinton obviously outperformed expectations. Edwards slightly underperformed expectations, based on those polls. But Obama got just what the polls said he would get.

    If it was actually the Bradley/Wilder effect, he should have failed to garner that 36%, right?

    The big difference seems to be, my estimate based on the polls only accounted for 86% of the vote (36+31+19), leaving 14% undecided/other. In the actual vote, Richardson got 5% and other got 3%, for 8%. It looks to me like the undecideds broke for Hillary, and she may have picked up a few Edwards votes that were turned off by his initial sharp comment about her showing some emotion.

    * Actually, it was 35.8333% for Obama, and 18.6667% for Edwards. I'm rounding, here. Clinton actually worked out to 31% even.

    † I'm nobody special, and this was just my ad hoc way of coming up with my own personal guesstimate of what the result would be.

    "Stick a fork in Clinton." — me, just before Clinton's comeback. Oops!

    by dconrad on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site