Posted on 01/08/2008 7:32:20 PM PST by Aristotelian
In a stunning upset victory, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton beat Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary election in New Hampshire.
MNJonnie, your is the best explanation yet.
I hope our country will not be punished. The Clintoons are a power hungry, extremely corrupt groups of thugs. I’m sick of them already but I do not underestimate the appalling approval some still show for his presidency and people wanting him back, even though they don’t necessarily like Hillary. I was hoping we could be done with them, but the Demonrats are Demonrats after all and the party is intertwined with corruption and dirty politics and the Clintoons are finest at it.
Darn right. Thing is, to win, Hillary will have to damage Obama's reputation (e.g., too inexperienced) to some degree. Afterwards, would he still be a plus for the ticket? And would he be willing to join her?
Yeah, he has a way of disarming you. Seriously, I watch his speeches and am in awe. If I weren’t so conservative, I would easily be sucked in along with many other young people.
More likely they discounted the Clinton machine.
But it’s not over yet. One and one and a long ten months to go...
Well, really it has to do with the areas that still have to come in; there was a possibility he could have pulled it out.
Not the case with McCain and Romney....the math just doesn’t there.
There is a big difference between tearing up at a memorial service for a war hero and feeling sorry for yourself in a campaign you’ve chosen to be in.
The first is compassion for someone else and the second is self-absorption which characterized the first Clinton administration.
Absolutely. Pollsters weight their results of the demographics of their samples hew to the demographics of the voting population; as a rough example, if over-30 voters make up 10% of your sample and they make up 15% of voters, they count the seniors 1.5 times apiece.
It's a method that generally gets good results. But throw a curve ball in terms of turnout, toss in a lot of folks voting who weren't expected to, and that busts up the demographic assumptions. Especially if a lot of under-30s, who are assumed to be apathetic non-voters, show up.
Those “iron my shirt” disruptors were clearly planted by the Clintoon campaign as well. Deceipt is what they are all about and they will go to any length.
Crying, eliciting sympathy, and playing the victim....WORKS!!
I could see her choosing Bill Richardson who would fall in line. New Mexico is a toss up state and they already have the black vote, why not assure the hispanic vote?
It’s the “walks on water” phenomenon. Remember the scene in BIG where Hanks trashes the guy’s “transformer building” idea at a meeting and suggests an alternative which captivates the boss? The guy complains afterward, “You don’t just walk into a meeting and say ‘BUGS’ !” With Obama it was ‘CHANGE’.
So, the Bradley Effect is prevalent in New Hampshire but nonexistent in Iowa? Maybe Midwesterners are more honest than New Englanders.
You are correct that she is more corrupt, but there are some Democrats and Independents that would never vote for her that would vote for Obama. He is full of charm and charisma. He brings out the young and inspires with his “change” message which is really about making the government more liberal. He is just as liberal as she is. I think people would be more likely to follow Obama like the pied piper than Hillary.
That one of the reasons they are “Independents” they cannot make up their mind which side to be so they are easily lead by news media polls. Since they pretty much lack any firm principals, they can easily talk themselves into voting either for a Demo or a Repub.
Making a projection is not a simple matter of weighing the votes counted. It also requires weighing where the votes that aren't yet counted are coming from. Based on demographics, on exit polls, and so on, the networks believed that the late precincts could swing back to Obama; the late precincts on the GOP side were expected to cement McCain's lead.
Good point.
“Brit Hume on fox is giddy over this hildebeast win. He is actually bubbly. I despise fox these days... I really despise them bigtime!”
Probably because he realizes Hillary is going to be easier to beat than Obama.
Investor's Business Daily editorializes:
Clinton quipped that she had some help with her hair, then morphed into a general discussion of her campaign. "It's not easy, it's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I just didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do," she said. "I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards."
Then her voice broke.
Somehow we can't imagine Margaret Thatcher having such a moment as she battled with the Labor Party on the floor of the British Parliament or stood alongside Ronald Reagan as he defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Politics, especially world politics, ain't beanbag.
Forgive us for being cynical, but Hillary has been known to plant questions and questioners in the audience before. Certainly she is struggling to get the woman's vote and shed her ice queen image. How better to do that than by showing emotion and that she cares?
Sad that the GOP wants to continue to ignore Duncan Hunter. Man as solid as he is and could call her out and win a general election. But we are getting empty ‘names’ who are in for extremely dirty politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.