You Tell Me

(1) I wouldn't say they're wide open (it's a 2-person race for the Dems and maybe a 3-person race for the Reps), but there is no clear winner on either side.

(2) Probably. (Don't count Obama out, though.)

(3) Probably.

(4) Actually, I'd say they were right on the GOP side but wrong on the Democrat side, but that's just me. =P

(4.5) Without any real evidence, I'd shy away from those kinds of accusations.

(5) Yeah, I think it was.

(6) I think Hillary's display of emotion (and the resulting hype) did affect things somewhat, but I think there were other factors as well.

(7) Some may have; as with race, it's pretty much impossible to know for sure.

(8) Probably.

(9) At this point, I think Edwards should just hang it up, period. But I suspect Edwards might disagree.

(10) He should be. (A South Carolina victory could easily boost his momentum.)

(11) Not in this race, no.

Posted by DaveWoo | January 9, 2008 2:16 PM

The 1980's aren't recent history?

Damn. I must be getting old if high school (LHS 83) wasn't recent history but was, rather, ancient history.

Posted by wiredog | January 9, 2008 2:20 PM

1. Yep. The difference is that because there are only two (three?) viable candidates for the Dems, there will clearly be a winner before the convention. The Republicans seem to be headed to a brokered convention.
2. Yep.
3. Not sure. Probably a boost, but I think he needs a second victory before it would become a bonanza.
4. They should, but other than your admissions here, I doubt that they will. The Politico doesn't seem to feel that they need to eat crow for being so miserably wrong time after time.
4.5. Don't know. How about the possibility that Independents though that Obama had it wrapped up, so they went and voted for McCain?
5. No.
6. Probably not.
7. Probably not.
8. No opinion.
9. He better, but you can stick a fork in him--he's done.
10. Probably not.
11. Yes. More than Edwards. His strategy was ALWAYS to start with success in South Carolina. Mitt's dropping of ads in SC give oxygen to Fred there.

Posted by Joel | January 9, 2008 2:21 PM

Both camps will have all the money they need. Obama may have a little more. But not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

Clinton won because she was a good candidate who worked hard in New Hampshire and never gave up. I would credit her debate performance more than her getting choked up (lets be honest, it wasn't "crying").

Obama's support may be overrated because he is African American, but it may also be overrated because he is perceived as the anti-Clinton candidate. When reached at home some, who have NO INTENTION of voting may take part in the poll and get a kick out of sticking it to Clinton.

Clinton may also under poll as one pollster pointed out. Old ladies may tell pollsters "none of your damn business" when asked who they will vote for.

The press has been totally unfair to Clinton since her one bad debate in Nov. They all piled on. They seemed to enjoy it, that is the sick sad part. Many seemed to be in the tank for Obama and not even worried about showing it with the gleeful attacks on Clinton and praise for Obama.

If I were Clinton I would look west. I would spend in NV. The statewide organization backs her there and she has strong support among hispanics.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 9, 2008 2:37 PM

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_tears.php

cry me a river... over katrina... uggh... i thought Obama was going to move us beyond this stuff. not a good look by jesse jackson jr

Posted by obamahype | January 9, 2008 2:41 PM

After watching what happened in NH, I'm convinced Obama can't win the democratic primary. Anytime Chris Matthews goes off on Hillary or some guy runs out and says, "Iron my shirt!" at a Hillary event, Obama will become the surrogate target for female rage. Every time there's a new set of tears, or someone calling her unlikable, or some blogger criticizes her for looking frumpy, guess who gets the punishment?

Posted by Helter | January 9, 2008 2:42 PM

1) Yup. 1968 or 1988 are the closest analogues. I can't think of another contest ever in which the sitting president had less influence over his own party's race.
2) Maybe, but she needs to watch her burn rate. Jettisoning some of the (no doubt pricey) loyalists around her would save money and end a stream of bad advice.
3) Lots of McCain donors are maxed out. His team needs to go after a different universe of donors to get anywhere, and may not be able to ramp up quickly enough to be as competitive as they would like.
4) The semi-open primary format clouded the crystal ball a bit. The commentariat was too busy huffing sweet Obama fumes and too sick of the Clintons to understand how much people felt freed to like Hillary once she showed a human side.
4.5) Nah, at least not much.
5) Unfair to their readers, in the sense that they were too distracted by one candidate's narrative to the point that they were no longer effective interpreters of events. The short interval between Iowa and NH meant that the media had little time to get their bearings and got caught up in the glory. The responsibility is not to the candidates but to the readership.
6) Yes, but it's more a function of the sheer number of candidates and the brief time that the campaigns and the media had on the ground so soon after Iowa. They were covering events that rapidly overtook their own capacity to understand them.
7) Some of them, but not too many. Enough, evidently. Clinton had already cultivated various female constituencies in NH, who may have been disproportionately motivated to actually show up by the crying episode. They want to like her, and the cracks in her facade let them do that.
8) She'll wait to see the tracking polls. My guess is that she adopts a kind of Giuliani strategy and relies on her organization and establishment heft to deliver big-state delegates.
9) Edwards has a slow burn rate and enough cash to sustain a campaign pretty much indefinitely if he wants to, and he may well want to. Taking some southern states would be a needed shot in the arm for Edwards, but they're the absolute last hope for Thompson.
10) Huckabee's organization is pretty cheap, so they can do more with a modest but consistent stream of individual donations than most. An FEC that demanded more frequent financial reporting to meet an accelerated campaign schedule would help with this kind of thing. For that matter, an FEC that was functioning *at all* would come in handy during an election, don't you think?
11) God only knows.

Posted by hutchison | January 9, 2008 2:46 PM

(1) Two races, totally wide open. Unlike recent history -- more like the 1980s.
Well, the GOP contest is actually more reminiscent of one of the epic, sprawling 1970s nomination fights. Think 1972 with Huckabee as McGovern, McCain as Humphrey, Romney as Muskie, and Giuliani as John Lindsay.

(2) Clinton can expect a fund raising bonanza
Yes, she actually has a decent small donor program. Not Obama-scale, but big enough.

(3) McCain can expect a fund raising bonanza
Maybe. He really needs to win South Carolina or Florida to see real money flow in. He'll earn enough these next few weeks to keep gas in the Straight Talk Express

(4) The press eats crow; those who declared Clinton dead (me?) and Romney alive (me?) have some explaining to do. But the polls were right on the GOP side and wrong on the Republican side.

It was fair for the press to react to the polls as they did in Clinton's case, although I think that there's been an artificial inflation of Romney by the press for weeks now. They're still in willful disbelief about Huckabee.

(4.5) Was there a racial premium in Obama's support? Did whites in New Hampshire overstate their actual support for him?

The results from Iowa sketched the outlines of what an Obama-skeptical (it would be an overstatement to call it anti-Obama) voter coalition would look like. Edwards and Clinton roughly evenly split that coalition in Iowa; in New Hampshire, Clinton took a greater share of the Obama-skeptical vote than previously.

(5) Was the press really unfair to HRC?
Yes. Sexist, even. But not fundamentally different from any other press coverage HRC has ever received since '92.

(6) Can the events of one news cycle change an entire race? (HRC crying) -- Feiler's Faster Thesis.
Yes, the Clinton's quite masterfully dominated the last two daily newscycles leading up to Tuesday. Obama, outside of paid advertising, virtually disappeared from NH tv screens.

(7) Did women revolt as women?
This wasn't a "sisterhood" vote, so much as a base voter loyalty vote.
(8) Does Clinton revisit her decision to scale back operations in South Carolina? Nevada?
Yes. Although, they'll spin the press to judge them on margin of defeat in South Carolina.

(9) Does John Edwards hang his hat in southern states -- Alabama, Georgia -- and run a Fred-Thompson-like strategy? He still has a few million in the bank...
Edwards needs to play wherever the media attention is. If it's in the South, he'll play there, if it's elsewhere, he'll go elsewhere.

(10) Mike Huckabee's third place finish keeps him well in the hunt for the nomination. Is he raising money?
He's not raising as much cash as he should be, but he's enough of an earned media draw that he doesn't need as much.

(11) Does Fred Thompson have a raison d'etre?
No.

Posted by dry_fish | January 9, 2008 2:47 PM

My gut tells me McCain will be the GOP nominee. He's the only one who isn't fatally flawed, as I see it. The process will be a grind and anything but a coronation, but in the end I think he'll be the last man standing. As for the Dems, it'll come down to who can appeal to Edwards' supporters as he slowly fades. This'll be interesting. Do they go to Obama because of all the change biz, or to Hillary because she better appeals to working class voters? The next month has the potential to be a classic battle between two hugely talented politicians. If the two sides can resist the low road, it could be something to make all Democrats proud. Or it could result in a mortally wounded candidate. Cross my fingers that my hope for a race to be proud of won't end up being false hope.

Posted by JZ | January 9, 2008 2:49 PM

1) Yes
2) Somewhat. Many of her donors are maxed out. Look for mysterious 527's to come out of the woodwork to help her?
3) Probably
4)Relax, it's not your fault. Nobody saw this coming. I think Hillary threw a hail mary with the crying and the pass was caught by women voters while the defenders thought the game was over and decided to go play in the republican game on McCain's team.
4.5) Jury's out, but I say that this is smaller than the pro-woman surge induced by the crying.
5) It's a mixed bag. You guys have done plenty of shilling for her over the course of the campaign. In the end, the media creating a ganged up sense to her probably helped her with women. So the media probably helped Hillary in the end.
6) Yes, but it was not just the crying. It was the likable debate question, bill saying he can't make her into a man, the sexist hecklers, etc, etc. It was the perfect storm for a gender war.
7) Yes. It think this was just as much about vicarious identification with Hillary as victim than anything else. It's worked for her in the past.
8) Probably, but I think they are going to instead try to con you in the media to overplaying her "victory" in Michigan.
9) Hopefully John Edwards stays in the race to help Obama. He will help divide the anti-black vote in the south and deny Hillary these delegates. He takes some votes from Obama but I suspect in the south, he will take more from Hillary. If it goes down to the wire and the convention (highly unlikely), Edwards can throw his delegates to Obama to be kingmaker.
10) Yes, especially if he wins SC
11) Yes, to throw support to McCain at a later time.

Posted by RKA | January 9, 2008 2:54 PM

1) Yup, though I expect the Democrats will wrap up sooner than the Republicans, one way or the other (or the other other, I suppose).

2) I wouldn't necessarily expect a "bonanza", though obviously prospective donors still have a fair amount of thinking to do. Certainly more so than we would have expected 24 hours ago.

3) I'm even more skeptical of a "bonanza" here. Yes, McCain did well last night, but I'm betting that's the high point of his campaign. Any other victories he has will be on days when other folks are pulling in big wins, too. Huckabee will beat him up in the South, Romney will fight him in the West, Rudy may yet actually do something in the big coastal states. Last night was about the only pure McCain victory we're likely to see, and I think prospective donors know that.

4) Obviously there will be crow-eating for days to come...until the next big primary day when there will again be all kinds of hasty analysis and narrative-making, though all with the repeated-to-the-point-of-uselessness caveat "Remember what happened in New Hampshire."

4.5) I don't think so - see the conversation that's been going on over at Matt's blog for some good insights.

5) Yes, to a certain degree. In a way, though, they helped her not just by coming across as jerks but by making sure that she was the headline every day after Iowa. Even if prompted by potentially embarrassing stuff, we still got a lot more Clinton message than Obama message between IA and NH.

6) Putting it all on the crying seems a bit much, but the cumulative effects were definitely impactful (see #5)

7) "Revolt" might be a bit strong, but what we're seeing does seem to suggest a dramatic turnaround in the behavior of female voters from IA to NH. The "why" of that is still somewhat up in the air, by most appearances.

8) This is partially dependent on #2. If she gets a dramatic cash infusion, I don't see why she wouldn't fight in SC and NV. She needs some more real wins (Michigan shouldn't count for too much, seeing as how she's essentially uncontested there) if she's going to have the necessary momentum going into Feb 5, especially with the likely increased pressure from the Obama camp.

9) John Edwards' behavior is the hardest for me to predict. I don't get the feel that he wants to consolidate his efforts anywhere - it looks like he wants to fight as hard as he can everywhere. Considering the resource (and press) deficit he's facing, that could spread him awfully thin. But the difference between what I think John Edwards *should* do and what John Edwards *will* do could be quite strong.

10) Huck's going to be around for a while yet. Look for him to whup up on Thompson and everybody else in the South. He's got the momentum and the cultural/religious support he needs to clean up down there. Sure, he'll get money, but what Iowa shows is that, at least as far as Mike Huckabee is concerned, money isn't everything; free evangelical labor helps, too.

11) Has he ever?

Posted by Mercutio42 | January 9, 2008 2:59 PM

Matthews, Russert, and the various smug dickheads on their shows were nauseating. (Kudos to Brokaw for pointing out the obvious last night.) I actually think they quite enjoy affecting elections; it's not an issue of whether or not they have an effect. Russert is a practitioner of Gotcha journalism, and Matthews is simply another pundit. Even straight (ahem) guys like Anderson Cooper can't help but lapse into long moments of subjectivity——though they like to say things like 'this may sound subjective, but we're simply reporting on the mood in the nation right now.' Yeah right. The more they pile on Hillary the more sympathetic she becomes, especially to older women who relate to her. And the more Obama's popularity seems manufactured or subsidized by the media, the less motivated and inspired Obama supporters will be.

We like him as OUR candidate; we like him less when Chris Matthews can barely conceal the hard-on he has for the "attractive" Obama family.

Posted by tinisoli | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM

(1) I think 1988 is the closest analogue, or perhaps 1980. The big difference is instead of a two-person race on the GOP and a free-for-all on the Dem side, it's the reverse.
(2) Yes. Whether it will be bigger than Obama's is unclear, but probably yes.
(3) Less clear. Where do the big fundraisers go? McCain has some of them, most were with Romney or Rudy.
(4) The final pollster average had McCain up 5, close to the actual results (Romney & McCain split the final undecideds). So, yes, something changaed only on the Dem side ... it's not the pollster's fault.
(4.5) I don't think so, no. There was some discussion of this on e.g. Ygelsias's blog and the conclusion was there's no evidence of a Wilder/Bradley effect.
(5) Not if you believe in outcome-based evaluation. But that's a poor way to examine the situation. I think the press has to think very long and hard about ways in which many political narratives put female candidates at a severe disadvantage.
(6) I don't think anyone has any real handle on what happened on the Dem side. Other than women, it seems to me the results were geographic rather than demographic:
(7) I'm not sure what this means, but I think it's clear that Hillary does in fact enjoy a certain amount of sisterhood solidarity. If you control for the fact that Clinton had low favorables in Iowa, the fact that only lost women by about 5% there suggests she would open up a gender gap once she was on friendlier ground.
(8) She obviously should not scale back in NV if she can afford it. She might want to stay active in SC if she believes she can hold down the margin.
(9) No. He hangs his hat on the "White South" and lower Midwest: Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee. But I don't see how it can work unless one of the other two falter, and the only way that happens is with a big-way sweep for one or the other candidates. There are several questions about the Edwards campaign. What's he trying to accomplish? Where do the Edwards electability voters go (Obama?)? Where do the "cares about people like me" voters go (Clinton?)? According to NH exits, there are more Edwards "cares about people" voters than there are Edwards electability voters.
(10) Nobody knows.
(11) No. Huckabee has tacked sufficiently to the right on taxes and immigration that the rationale for the Thompson candidacy is gone. It's not clear who else the activist right could have picked with Allen out of the mix; Barbour? Cochran? Chambliss? Perdue?

A friend of mine points out that Clinton's experience/"I have been working hard for change for 35 years, and I don't think you can ignore that" message is sort of dog-whistle politics to women, particularly older women who are likely to have seen a younger, less experienced/qualified man get an undeserved job or promotion.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 9, 2008 3:01 PM

1. Agreed. Way to early to tell, and really, this is far superior to the too-quick nomination of Kerry in '04.
2. Yes, but I'm not sure as much. How many of her core supporters have maxed out? I think Obama will see an uptick in donations as well.
3. He needs one, whether he gets one or not is another question. At this point, it's still Romney who has the cash, assuming he's willing to continue using his own cash.
4. I don't think the press was necessarily that wrong on this, actually. Looking at exit poll data that shows Clinton drew a lot of her support from the core of the Democratic Party--those that had made up their minds days ago. Thus the whole media pile-on narrative is questionable.
4.5. No. No real evidence of it.
5. No. Just whining. She's been tested and vetted, remember? Ready on day one, no less! Well, so too will press criticism be ready on day one.
6. Perhaps, but #4 makes me think no. I thought it was cynical and I don't doubt for a second that it was staged. The Clintons would rather climb a tree and lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. Thus, I trust NOTHING they do as sincere and without calculation.
7. I hope not.
8. She has no choice. This is her catch-22: win NH, reclaim title as frontrunner, and then have to defend her title everywhere. She'll still get beaten in SC anyway, and a good chance in Nevada before that. Or, lose NH, have everyone pile on her for her back to back losses, and then still lose SC.
9. I don't see how he goes anywhere. It's simply a matter of when to bow out gracefully, and then, which candidate to endorse (Obama, most likely). If he's going to stay in it, he ought to concentrate his forces in a couple of places to generate a win hopefully. I don't see it happening.
10. Not from Wall Street he's not. Can he get large sums from anywhere else?
11. Not really, other than as a candidate for Arthur Branch fans. Unless he does incredibly well in SC, he's out the day after. He'll then endorse McCain.

Posted by CMC79 | January 9, 2008 3:07 PM

(1) No idea, I don't remember the races of the 1980s. (I'm 24)
(2) No, most of her donors are tapped out as I understand it.
(3) Perhaps, but it's hard to see him gaining new supporters... he's a very established, old figure in the GOP and folks seem to tend to love him or hate him.
(4) On the democratic side, I think the press forgot that Iowa was a caucus and NH a primary. Obama doubtless got a lot of 2nd place boost and Hillary got almost none.
(4.5) Riiiiight.
(5) No.
(6) I don't think HRC crying had anything to do with her victory. It was just a better GOTV effort b/c she has a much better organization in NH.
(7) No.
(8) No, she focuses on delegates and the nomination. Focus on Super Tuesday to put Obama out of the running then.
(9) Might as well, but not sure the good it'll do.
(10) His money bomb in late December failed horribly, and I haven't heard anything about his money raising efforts.
(11) Nope. Should have never run.

Posted by anon4rp | January 9, 2008 3:16 PM

1.) Yep. Particularly interesting on the Republican side; that former McCain staffer that wrote in the LA Times that one word uttered in 2006 totally changed the entire state of the race was dead on.
2.) Does she really need any more money? Heard Bill say something the other day about $110 million. Many of the Rs are still in the race with virtually nothing in the bank.
3.) Doubt it. The thing the media fail to understand is that people like myself that are conservatives first and Republicans second will vote for McCain when hell freezes over. And, sorry to say, New Hampshire and Iowa are not really indicative of the rest of the country. Check out the spread on the national numbers sometimes...the entire R field is separated by only a few points from top to bottom.
4.) A lot of rubbish. The fact is, polls have been broken for years because they ignore simple psychology...so-called "random" samples aren't random...it takes a certain person to be willing to waste time on a land-line (if you even have one anymore) and answer inane, poorly-designed questions from a pollster. Likewise, I think certain people are pre-disposed to answer exit polls.
4.5) Possible. I think there was a _media_ premium at the thought of getting to cover a "history-making" campaign by a non-white political novice who just a few years ago was sitting in the Illinois legislature. No one knew who he was (even people in Illinois); heck, how many of your own state legislators can you name?
5.) The press is unfair to all of the candidates. She needs to suck it up.
6.) I think we have our proof from last night. Better change it from "thesis" to "law."
7.) I can see that happening to the typical left-of-center female, but I still think it was pity among the female vote.
8.) I think she should make at least some effort in SC; slicing Obama's lead or stealing the state from his column there would be a huge blow to his campaign.
9.) John Edwards isn't going anywhere. He likes the spotlight too much, even if he can barely be seen behind the other two. Plus, what else does he have to do? He has been running for president for five years.
10.) I am sure he is raising money, but enough to compete in every state on Super Tuesday? Doubtful. There are a lot of Republicans keeping their powder dry at this point. As the polls have shown, the field is underwhelming.
11.) Thompson probably should stick around. If this thing actually does end up at a brokered convention, he will appeal across the whole spectrum of delegates. Or maybe George Allen has been in hiding long enough...Americans have notoriously short memories and attention spans. Look at McCain's recovery from the immigration fiasco.

Posted by JG | January 9, 2008 3:17 PM

1) It's certainly not like 2004.
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
4.5) I don't think so, then why tell the truth in the exit poll?
5-8) Yes
9) Interesting, apparently Edwards islooking to SC (which good for Obama). But on 2/5 look for him to also follow his unions, PA, OH, WV, and CA to some extent. The rust belt areas seem like his best.
10) He needs SC.
11) Did he ever?

Posted by AJ | January 9, 2008 3:27 PM

Marc here is a something that has gone under the radar. Take a listen to national black talk radio shows today. Listen to self identified black callers on C-Span on today’s show. Folks were not pleased at all with the subtle racism i.e. the Muslim, drug dealer, he is a good speaker that’s all, MLK didn’t do anything in the Civil Rights movement to get things done but LBJ did and his campaign being a fairy tale slights coming from the Clinton campaign. You may not see it but the AA voters do. She continues to attack him at her peril.

Posted by Ann | January 9, 2008 3:34 PM

(1) Two races, totally wide open. Unlike recent history -- more like the 1980s.

Yes, but two very different stories. On the democratic side, rather than buying the Clinton "inevitability" or the Obama "black JFK" acts we are going to really hammer out what these candidates are about. There are some big differences on foreign policy and how the country should view itself in the world, but not so much on domestic policy. The Republicans, OTOH, are deeply fractured between the evangelicals and the business conservatives. The establishment candidate (Romney) is teetering on the brink. Maybe he'll win MI this week to keep the confusion going.

(2) Clinton can expect a fund raising bonanza

She'll get a big shot in the arm, but probably no more than the shot Obama got last week, and perhaps slightly less since she has fewer small-dollar donors.

(3) McCain can expect a fund raising bonanza

I don't understand Republican politics well enough to comment. Is the establishment going to look at Clinton and Obama and run to him as the most electable candidate now? Or are they going to try to prop up Romney in MI?

(4) But the polls were right on the GOP side and wrong on the Republican side.

Anecdotally, a number of independents decided to vote for McCain because of the closeness of the race, and a number of older female voters changed in protest to the way the media was reacting. I bet there were also a ton of older undecided voters who didn't feel like they got a sense for Obama's substance in 5 days and went with re-electing Bill (see that 58% of Hillary's supporters would have preferred Bill to her.) That, plus the establishment was strongly behind Clinton here.

(4.5) Was there a racial premium in Obama's support? Did whites in New Hampshire overstate their actual support for him?

I had heard that exit polls vs. results showed a Bradley effect of 4%. I don't know if that's true. It's sure sad if it is.

(5) Was the press really unfair to HRC?

I thought the online reporting was fair. I guess there were some fairly unpleasant things on the TV, though, particularly the repeated focus on her voice breaking on sunday.

(6) Can the events of one news cycle change an entire race? (HRC crying) -- Feiler's Faster Thesis.

The only conclusion I can reach is yes.

(7) Did women revolt as women?

A lot of older women did, and I can't believe it. We're dealing with a candidate who is invoking 9/11 and said Putin has no soul, and you're supporting her out of some '60's notion of a media gender war? Ugggggh! I hate baby boomer politics.

(8) Does Clinton revisit her decision to scale back operations in South Carolina? Nevada?

Yes, right after she revisits her internal polls. The question is where Nevada is at and whether she can make any headway against the unions, and whether blacks are going to get off the Obama bandwagon in SC after NH. NV will probably not quiet their concerns about a Bradley effect no matter how it turns out.

(9) Does John Edwards hang his hat in southern states -- Alabama, Georgia -- and run a Fred-Thompson-like strategy? He still has a few million in the bank...

If he actually wanted a change candidate to win, he'd quit now. He will not be able to knock Clinton out of the race like he'd hoped. I don't know what's running through his mind.

(10) Mike Huckabee's third place finish keeps him well in the hunt for the nomination. Is he raising money?

Yes, I'm sure the evangelicals are supporting him and looking ahead to SC. FL might be a real litmus test.

(11) Does Fred Thompson have a raison d'etre?

Perhaps to draw some conservatives away from Huck and Romney (if he's still around?) in SC before he quits and throws his support to McCain?

Posted by John M. | January 9, 2008 3:42 PM

(1) I wouldn't call the races wide-open, but neither party has an odds-on favorite after New Hampshire. I really don't think that's EVER happened in the primary era. In 1988, there was still some doubt on both sides, but Bush was clearly a strong favorite.
(2) Clinton can expect her fund raising to improve, but if it weren't for a few days of wild polling in New Hampshire a 3% win would not have been seen as a strong result for her.
(3) McCain can expect a fund raising bonanza, but he's still coming from behind in that department.
(4) The press never eats crow.
(4.5) I really don't think there was much of a racial issue to the inaccurate polls in NH. I think the female vote swung decisively in the last 48 hours in response to some unconscionably horrible treatment of Clinton by the media.
(5) Was the press really unfair to HRC? Good god, yes. And I say this as an Obama supporter.
(6) Yes, but the corollary to this Feiler-Faster thesis is that next week's news cycles can also decisively swing the entire race.
(7) Even a great many men are fed up with the sexist behavior of the TV pundits. But this was more likely to be a decisive factor for women voters, for obvious reasons.
(8) No, and yes. I think she concedes SC and goes for the win in NV.
(9) I think JE is going to compete hard in SC, but second place is probably the best he can hope for. He really ought to see the writing on the wall if he can't win or come in a close second there.
(10) Huckabee can carry most of the South without raising much money. If he actually wants to win the nomination, he's going to have to build the ground support to turn out evangelical voters in places like Colorado and Washington. That will cost money.
(11) Does Fred Thompson have a raison d'etre? Ask his wife. He sure hasn't given anyone any reasons why he should be elected President.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 9, 2008 3:55 PM

I think the vote for Hillary wasn't so much a vote for Hillary as a vote against the press. It was too, too much. Many in the press started to editorialize in their coverage and instead of saying that Obama is better on this issue or that issue, it was all about how Hillary was cold, dull, etc... The photos of her that appeared on Drudge and then were gleefully reposted by the media were desperately unfair. No male candidate was treated to that kind of attention.

Dana Milbank had a video on yesterday on Washingtonpost.com showing one of her rallies. He had a little meter with a screaming Hillary face on it to measure her dullness at a rally. What other candidate has to face that? Not even Fred Thompson.

It would not surprise me if Obama sweeps the nomination from now on -- if he can keep Jesse Jr. from ruining it for him -- as long as the press plays fair. But women had had enough yesterday and were going to push back.

Posted by Teresa | January 9, 2008 4:03 PM

1) Finally, there is a fight in this shooting match. There is more fight in the GOP, though. If Obama can pick up SC and NV, Hilary should call it a day.

2) She shouldn't expect too much. I think Obama supporters will reel in the defeat and boost his campaign.

3) I think his surprising win will reinvigorate moderates of the party. Most probably counted him out as of last summer, but his win may inspire their support again.

4) Clinton's own polls had her losing NH, so the press wasn't completely wrong. Romney has been known to overstate his support...

4.5) I think that whites may have saw the Obama victory in IA as a premature victory for NH. Moderates felt the GOP race was more challenging so changed their votes in the booth.

5) Absolutely not. HRC wants, no, demands treatment equal to her male counterparts. One of them would have been berated for (almost) crying during a luncheon, too.

6) Yes, see: HRC 2008, Howard Dean 2004, John McCain 2004.

7) Unfortunately, older women did. I don't think that younger generations are ready to burn bras with HRC, though. The outcome of NH won't be the same for every other primary, though. Look for most other women to see her brazen politics as schoolyard bullying.

8) After the win, she will look more closely at SC and NV, no doubt. She will assume she is now "riding a wave." Voters in SC, especially, will not warm to her politics.

9) Hang up his hat completely. Put a fork in him.

10) As an Arkansan, I hope not. As governor, his politics left much to be desired. His shortsighted policies left such a bitter taste in the mouths of voters, that Arkansas's gubernatorial election was a landslide for the Democrats.

11) Fred Thompson has all the potential in the world to get a powerful following like Regan or Ike, but I just don't think that he wants it as bad as people want it for him. He is a Southern favorite and could split some Huckabee votes, allowing McCain (Guiliani?) to rise in the polls.

Posted by Amanda | January 9, 2008 4:25 PM

Teresa.. I am a woman. Strongly believe her actions were un-presidential. I was in the military and saw women do that CRYING crap all the time. It’s probably a Boomer/Feminism. You know the fight for womanhood thing from the 1960’s. Most of the younger women I know were skeptical at best.

P.S Was the media unfair when she was Mrs. Inevitable from the day she announced until January 3, 2008.

Was the media unfair when there was wall to wall coverage on every station when she announced her healthcare plan.

Is it fair when the media says she has 35 years of experience when she is including the years when she had just gotten out of college? I guess her experience started WHEN SHE WAS 25 YEARS OLD. She is including 1973. It was the year she volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center while still in LAW SCHOOL.

Was it fair to say she is the most experienced because she only has 8 years of BEING IN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL?

Was the media unfair when CNN stacked their debate Analyst with ex-Clinton advisors?

If she can’t handle the campaign what makes any of us think she can handle a terrorist attack or will she leave that up to her husband too.

Posted by Ann | January 9, 2008 4:30 PM

Respond, in the comments, to these thoughts and questions.

(1) For the democrats it's a little like 1988. The Republicans, maybe 1964.

(2) No, she has many maxed out donors. She will see a nice bump in fundraising, that's it.

(3) No not yet. If Romney and Giuliani drop out maybe he picks up their donors.

(4) Pollsters got the GOP side right. Something happened in the final three days of the Dem primary and polling couldn't pick up on it.

(4.5) A slight one, probably 2 or 3 points.

(5) Yes, there was a herd mentality in writing her poltical obit.

(6) Yes as evidenced by last night.

(7) I think women felt like Hillary was being ganged up on and stuck up for her.

(8) Yes, she needs to be competitive. Obama seems to have some structural advantages in NV and SC but she can't give her chief rival two victories heading into Super Tuesday without a challenge.

(9) Not sure it matters. He's becoming irrelevant and will continue to do worse and worse.

(10) Yes and no. He'll likely win South Carolina, and can win southern states on Super Tuesday. None of those guys are raising enough money.

(11) SC is his last stand and he came in third in Iowa. He polls decently in SC so why not fight until the cash is gone.

Posted by Ben | January 9, 2008 5:50 PM

(1) Two races, totally wide open. Unlike recent history -- more like the 1980s.

Well, Obama-Clinton and Huckabee-McCain-Romney, with Huckabee up pretty big in FL, SC. The race could still end up being basically decided in SC and confirmed on Feb. 5.

(2) Clinton can expect a fund raising bonanza

I don't think quite a bonanza. She has fewer small donors to ask again. She will pick up some new donors, but as her campaign termed them in NH, "downscale Democrats" and older women don't pump up fundraising online. The online donors fit the Obama supporter profile far better (more educated, more upper middle class but not upper class). She will get some more max donors who think she will win now, some who were hedging.

(3) McCain can expect a fund raising bonanza

Really? He doesn't have the grassroots GOP base support, nor the moneycon support. Maybe he'll get some of Rudy's neocon donors.

(4) The press eats crow; those who declared Clinton dead (me?) and Romney alive (me?) have some explaining to do. But the polls were right on the GOP side and wrong on the Democratic side.

The press should eat crow for 12 months of horserace coverage and 5 days of total hysteria.

(4.5) Was there a racial premium in Obama's support? Did whites in New Hampshire overstate their actual support for him?

No, there is simply evidence of it. This effect is virtually gone for Democratic candidates, who do not underperform polls, and now only exists for some black GOP candidates. Look it up, there are studies and much empirical evidence out there. This question, above all the others, is answerable and knowable based on facts.

(5) Was the press really unfair to HRC?

I think a better question is how much of the press and to what extent. I think the network news and local news were pretty fair, and that's what the most NH voters would have seen. They covered it but didn't say anything mean about it.

(6) Can the events of one news cycle change an entire race? (HRC crying) -- Feiler's Faster Thesis.

Absolutely and obviously yes. Look at the exit polls.

(7) Did women revolt as women?

Yes, again see the exit polls.

(8) Does Clinton revisit her decision to scale back operations in South Carolina? Nevada?

Let's hope so b/c I still think she will lose South Carolina and likely Nevada.

(9) Does John Edwards hang his hat in southern states -- Alabama, Georgia -- and run a Fred-Thompson-like strategy? He still has a few million in the bank...

Why bother? He will lose badly in all of the southern states where African-Americans make up a significant portion of the vote, esp. SC, AL, GA. He should concentrate on rust belt states like OH, maybe PA.

(10) Mike Huckabee's third place finish keeps him well in the hunt for the nomination. Is he raising money?

Who knows. He definitely SHOULD be, but his campaign operations appear so shoestring that it's hard to know if he actually is. He would be the Barack Obama small donor king of the GOP social conservative base if he had any sort of an effective operation.

(11) Does Fred Thompson have a raison d'etre?

No, no, a thousand times, no. A Huckablowout in SC will get him out of the race. Same goes for Rudy in FL. Look at the polls. I don't see the religious right voters moving to McCain or Romney no matter what happens in Michigan.

Posted by bob | January 9, 2008 6:44 PM

The Press is too often wrong because they are trying to manipulate the outcome instead of predict it.

The accelerated schedule this year is preventing thoughtful people from reaching a firm conclusion much before they vote, while the easily swayed band-wagoners don't have time to come to their senses and see through the smooth talk.

So what about Fred? He wants it - not for himself - for his country. He's working it, but at a serious disadvantage with all the liberal press spinning against him. He remains the only true conservative in the race (which is very different than the false conservatives, Mitt & Mike). He is the only Republican which can rally the base and capture the solid south - both of which we must do to win.

Fred has a chance if the SC conservatives remember what is really important. This election cycle could have a greater impact on abortion practices in the US than anything else since Roe v. Wade.
In the 70's, with a House & Senate and most State Houses controlled by his party, a Democratic President championed the ERA amendment to the Constitution. At a time much less contentious than today this relatively noncontroversial amendment could not be passed. That is how difficult it is to amend our Constitution.
Anyone that believes the Constitution can be amended to stop abortion is living a fool's dream and any candidate that claims that a Constitutional amendment is the way to end abortion in the US is playing us like fools. It can't be done. It won't happen. Why do you think no one has ever tried?
It is not within the President's power to amend the Constitution - candidates point to the amendment process to avoid taking any responsibility for action.
Only Thompson is serious about bringing abortion under control and has a practical plan to achieve that goal. The solution is to appoint one more strict constructionist to the Supreme Court. But the pro-abortionist know this, too. Winning confirmation for the right candidate will be the fight of the century. It will take every ounce of a President's political capital to win the fight. Any compromise in selecting the nominee will allow abortion to continue unchecked for another generation.
Huckabee and Romney have both demonstrated their willingness to seek compromise or shift positions whenever politically advantageous. I honestly don't think McCain or Giuliani would even try to appoint a strict constructionist. The only candidate we have that can be trusted NOT compromise his principles – or our faith in him - is Fred Thompson. It doesn't matter how hard or long the battle. Fred knows how important this is. Fred knows what really matters. If you really want the ongoing massacre of the unborn to stop - you need to get very serious about this election. Look at the facts. Look at the history of each candidate's actions. You will come to agree that Fred Thompson is our ONLY prayer.

Posted by Allan Stewart | January 9, 2008 8:18 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

Very interesting exercise - these questions. Those who have submitted their answers, above my comments, have done well. Here are my two cents.

1) I agree that the dynamic of the 2008 races thus far, does resemble those of the 1980s, with the protracted process. So far. Where they will diverge, though, is that it seems hard to imagine that we're going to have nominees decided any later than Feb. 5

2) HRC - I'd hesitate to say "bonanza", given that she wasn't having trouble raising money in 2007, to put it mildly. Also, I think there may be a ceiling as to how many HRC donors are out there. Compared to Obama, she has many more maxed-out donors. In addition, her polarizing personality would make recruiting more new donors difficult.

3) McCain - I publish a McCain-focused site, so naturally I'm going to focus the most on this point. I anticipate that he will have a fund-raising bonanza - and unlike HRC, he did not have a very good 2007 in the finance sector, to put it mildly. The campaign nearly imploded due to finance issues in the summer.

Again in contrast to HRC, the mere fact that McCain has raised only a fraction of what she has, means there's a higher potential ceiling for him. There are simply more potential McCain donors out there, and also a lot who haven't maxed out yet.

In addition, McCain lost his front-runner status halfway through - and thus lost donations from those who did so solely to ensure good relations with the front-runner. HRC, in contrast, maintained front-runner status all the way until 7 PM in Iowa a week ago.

4) No.

5) No.

6) Yes, I certainly think that the events of one news cycle CAN change an entire race. But it would need to be something of much greater significance than that particular episode.

7) No.

8) No. Still have to watch the $$$.

9) Yes. (That's the only path left open to him- as Joe Trippi was quoted as saying on one of the cable networks - "the hang around the drain" approach, hope to be the only one left intact.

10) By Huck standards, he is raising $$$. By the standards of 2008 presidential politics, no.

11) Yes. Fred will try to thread the needle, stay in the race as it moves to Fred-friendly Southern states - and hope for disasters for one of more of the top-tier players. You never know. (We've learned that on many occasions on this cycle, and it's only January 9!)

Thoughts?

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 9, 2008 10:50 PM

Of course Edwards is going to stay in the race. Edwards had a preferred strategy and a likely strategy and he is now following his likely strategy since he did not win Iowa. Once Obama entered the race, it was pretty clear Edwards would have to wait for one of the other candidates to falter. Edwards isn't sticking around because he likes to shake hands and enrgage Obama supporters. Edwards needs a win and a bunch of seconds in February to comfortably make it through that month. One positive for Edwards is that he was gaining support in the national polls for the past two weeks.

Clinton's and Obama's preferred strategies have both failed, so they are back to plan b as well.
The difference being those candidates entered December with roughly a 45% chance of winning the nomination whereas Edwards was somewhere around 10%.

Posted by if the atlantic is high info, I don't want to see low | January 10, 2008 6:26 AM

Marc,

We know that scientific models yeild mostly accurate weather forcasts and we know that polling models do what is similarly an amazing job modeling what will happen.
In NH there were so many variables that like the weather were occasionally a predicted storm system doesn't happen or theres rain instead of snow, the Obama thing didn't dominate the other variables.
Is it about race? I just don't think it is. Chris matthews wants to say its voter bias because he hates the idea that his bias and tingling spider sense is so out of line.
Hillary and clinton supporters have long known they can't bother with Hillary haters AND they quietly support the two of them without arguing with the rabid haters: how do I know this?
1, When people know I love the clintons they frequently let down thier guard and tell me they too feel that way. 2, books sales for both thier books show this to be true. 3, people turn out for them and Hillary has for eight years been the key money raiser for other dems nation-wide.
This results in all the blog and cable talk of men and hill-hating women saying anecdotally "where are the Hillary supporters? no one I know likes her": we just don't talk about it out loud with the rabid haters.
This means it wasn't a surge or backlash rage or the bradley effect: it's just hard to get at how much people do love Hillary because we've trained ourselves to quietly be there when it counts.
The crazy Iowa vote shows that evang christian women don't love east coast dems or Hillary: they may an outlier that contributed to obama's win and press getting it so wrong.
another crazy variable is the crowds: a lot of the crowds is folks who know this is thier chance to see the ones who may be the next president, to shake thier hand or see them speak: they are tourists and viewers but not necessarily voters. They watch american idol and go see folks on tv when they can, and want autographs but can't be counted as voters.
American politics are a pagaent and no one owes anyone an apology for making it more of a pageant: the ratings will just go up and up.
And obama is a balloon who punctured himself with arrogance last week: pride and the fall from grace.

Posted by michael | January 10, 2008 8:08 AM

(4.5) One thing I haven't heard mentioned, amid all the racial speculation, is what if there was a reverse effect on the gender question? As in, what if women didn't want to tell pollsters that they were voting for Hilary, for fear of appearing biased, but then on election day cast their ballots for her? That seems just as probably as the racial effect everyone is theorizing about.

Posted by Wes | January 11, 2008 12:02 PM

Comments (30)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives