Exactly, this race is going to be grueling for HRC and Obama…that’s about all I have to say right now, I need to practice restraint of tongue and pen because I was so put off by her smug interview on GMA this morning…Ilk.
Reading this makes me feel a lot better about the NH result. I support Obama, but until Iowa I actually didn’t think he had much of a chance. His win in Iowa got me excited and then the recent polls showed him with a double digit lead in NH.
My hopes got raised, and then Hillary pulls a surprising “upset”. I hadn’t felt this disappointed about an election since the 1972 general election (in 2000 and 2004 I’d say my feelings were more of anger than disappointment).
Anyway, I thought I’d simply thank you DSeid. Your calming words have put things back into perspective for me. Maybe my vote in the Wisconsin primary will be meaningful for a change.
I agree with DSeid.
I also think that Obama *must *win South Carolina, lest Clinton become “inevitable” again. Clinton, to remain viable going into Super Tuesday, merely needs to not get creamed. Perhaps the relative importance to each candidate will work in Obama’s favor.
At least one commentator (MSNBC?) has questioned how much race was a factor in these results, with the ominous observation that Iowans did not have curtains concealing their votes, and New Hampshirites did – the obvious implication being that one can more safely indulge their racist tendencies when the curtain hides same from their neighbors.
I don’t buy it – how tough would it be for a closet racist to manufacture a list of acceptable reasons for voting HRC? But I offer it here to get further reactions and thoughts…
Yeah, I doubt it, too. It looks like Hill picked up a lot of female votes, and let’s keep in mind that it was basically a wash. The real conclusion is that Edwards is toast. Obama and Hillary are neck and neck, which is still a big change from a few months ago. But he needs to close the deal, and that’s not going to be easy.
Clinton is a fine candidate and there needn’t be secret, shameful reasons why she gets votes. Besides, sexism is going to play at least as big a role as racism, I’d guess.
I don’t buy the race angle. I think the numbers showed that boomer women came out in force, and voted for Hillary. I suspect Hillary’s emotional moment, and the reaction of the media, prompted them to turn out and support her.
In other words, I call anomaly.
Actually, the more I think about that commentator, the more I think that he or she is attempting to poison the well against Clinton by insinuating that the only reason Clinton would get votes is that people are racist.
Well, yes… but “sexism” is usually used as a perjorative, which wouldn’t be an appropriate analysis here, where Clinton won, and (less usually) used only when the target of the discrimination is female… that is to say, I wouldn’t usually expect the answer “sexism” if the intent was to say people voted FOR Clinton because of her sex.
And I agree that Clinton is a fine candidate. I’d vote for her over Ron Paul and most of the Dem field in a heartbeat. I’ve never been about the Hilary-hate.
While I think that guy was off the mark, I don’t think that’s what he was insinuating. It would only take a handful of “racists” to produce last night’s results, if it were in fact evidence of racism at all. There was only a 3% difference in their polling results.
Minor correction: it was the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson that raised the issue ON MSNBC last night:
Nah. This is a well-known trend in politics called the Bradley effect. Observing its possible effect here has nothing to do with Obama’s opponent.
But why would Hillary Clinton be the beneficiary when women are in the same position as blacks with regard to people paying lip-service to the idea of equality?
I think that there is a lot more submerged (or sometimes not so submerged) prejudice about Hillary’s gender than there is about Obama’s skin color. I honestly don’t think there is all that much racial antipathy for Obama outside the real wingnuts, but the prevelance of poorly concealed, misogynistic hostility towards Hillary is unmistakable, especially on the right. Ibviously that’s not to say that anyone who hates Hillary must be sexist, even on the right, but the hatred is often so disproportionate and irrational that the misogynistic edge is obvious (and people don’t always even bother to try to hide it).
WAG: On the mainstream/right-wing media, there are plenty of reasons mentioned for voting against Hillary. Actually there are plenty on the left-wing media as well (“corporatist”, “hawkish”, etc). They may not all be valid reasons, but it’s gotten to a point where nobody feels guilty saying they’re voting against Hillary. Not so much with Obama, I think a lot of people want to tell people (including pollsters) they’re voting for him, even if they aren’t.
I think more people are secretly resistant to voting for a woman than for a black man, though. Sexism cuts across all racial lines.
Small question from a European-doper that doesn’t understand everything about the American election process…
Why do so many people refer to one person winning a state over another candidate when you get delegate votes even for coming second? Isn’t how much you win a state by more important?
Didn’t HC and BO both get 9 delegates in New Hampshire making it a tie or am I just not getting something ?
You’re not missing a thing. The fact of the matter is HRC got 6,000 more votes than Obama, so with our inherently competitive culture, she won. With this she also won the prestige of winning a state. With this her campaign is still alive, even if technically she doesn’t win anything more than Obama.
Two reasons: (1) perception. At this stage in the process, the perception of being the front-runner is probably more important (especially with regard to fund-raising efforts) than actual delegates acquired; and (2) many state primaries are winner-take-all. Not sure if New Hampshire is one of them, though.
Logically, you’re right- it’s just not a point made very often in our media. They want people to watch a lot of news over a long period, so they transform it into a months-long narrative like a long sports game.
“Obama has a small delagate lead coming out of Iowa, and then in New Hampshire, Hillary and Obama split the difference. Obama retains a one-delegate lead.”
is not as “compelling” as
“Hillary is inevitable! Iowa is hers! It’s a coronation! Wait, Obama CRUSHED her. How about that speech he gave! She is DONE! Man, look at her crack! She’s crying! Her husband is fighting for her losing cause! WAIT! Hang on! She just DEFIED the polls to come back and HAND OBAMA HIS ASS in New Hampshire! Hillary is a NEW CANDIDATE!”
Repeat for as long as possible.