Some states are winner take all, but yes, you’re right that the media makes too big a deal out of who “wins” in some of these events. The person who comes in first benefits by being perceived as the “frontrunner,” and that helps with fundraising because nobody wants to donate to a loser. A really decisive win in New Hampshire can dry up the fundraising for the also rans and create a presumptive nominee. It’s a snowball effect. The more you are perceived as a “winner,” the more you are perceived as the presumptive nominee , the more you are perceived as the inevitable nominee, the more you win.
There is also an endless game of “expectations” that plays into it. Hillary was expected to lose by double digits last night. She won by three points, so that’ a huge “upset” in expectations, which rejuvenates her campaign and may give her a bump in some upcoming states.
All said, though, the American media is far too breathless about almost every aspect of US Presidential politics.
I agree. And I’m not sure you were commenting about the recent primary results, but if you were, let’s keep in mind that those were Democratic voters, not folks “on the right”. There is definitely an irrational hatred of Hillary by a lot of conservatives, though. Most of my friends fall in that category, and I find myself defending her all the time-- which is not all that fun because I really don’t care for her all that much myself. She wouldn’t be my first choice (by a long shot), but I’d probably vote for her without having to hold my nose.
New Hampshire isn’t winner-take-all. I think Obama has 26 delegates right now and Clinton has 25. So really, in this case, the reason is all (1). It just makes for a more interesting story, so off we go.
What I’m trying to say is: those who are secretly sexist are taking a position that they are openly against Hillary for various other reasons.
Even if the media didn’t do that, people in other states would be interested in who go the most votes in New Hampshire. The result would affect how people view the candidates.
I was commenting on last night to the extent that I don’t buy racism as the reason for Hillary’s win. I think she just had a better apparatus in place. The Clinton ground machine is nothing to sneeze at. They’ve got the unions, they’ve got the busses and they can get the bodies to the polls.
Ok…thanks for that folks in one sense it’s clearer but in another the entire process seems even more murky then the electoral collage system
Does the fact that Obama only lost by 3% in a state that is mostly white mean that people are using their brains and aren’t voting for or against someone due to their skin color?
Isn’t this even bigger news than the fact that Clinton won ?
How many undecideds were there in the poll results? I seem to remember seeing that a lot of people hadn’t made up their minds yet even up until the last day.
True, something like 15% of those who voted for democrats decided on the last day. But there was still discrepancy between the exit polls and the ultimate results, which would be unexplained by late deciders.
I think you’re not getting how much the media here hyped up Obama after Iowa. His nomination and election seemed ineviatble at 7PM last night. He strode across the Granite State as a titan, restored the Old Man in the Mountain with beams of light from his eyes. He made the lame walk, and the blind see. The Dwarves called him Earthfriend, and also Khazâd ai-mênu, which in their tongue means both “hopemonger” and “he who does not wear patriotic lapel pins”.
Clinton, meanwhile, was cast to Tartarus, she had consumed her campaign managers in a cannibalistic rage, and was reduced to hysterical sobbing, surely to be locked up with Britney Spears in the Home for Crazy Ladies.
So yeah, they were when the voters proved their somewhat irrationally exuberant expectations wrong, the overturn of the expectations became the story.
As much as I enjoyed menocchio’s analysis to some extent, you’re right. It is a bit astounding. I think we’ve come a bit farther than we (and other countries) give ourselves credit for – 20 years ago, a black candidate winning a primary, and in 2 lily=white states, would’ve been HUGE news.
I had BBC World Service on last night. They were talking like Hillary had already won the nomination.
Garrgh.
I think we’re moving toward a split between two to four candidates (no states with a lot of moderates or Hispanics for Richardson yet) & a brokered convention.
Part of the problem here is that the media always tries to blow up the importance of every one of these votes. How many times have we heard that a candidate MUST win primary X or it’s all over? So far, there’s been a caucus and two primaries in three small states. Not even 1/20 of the delegates have been chosen. Looking at the history of primaries and caucuses, there’s lots of room for a candidate to win big early and fade later. There are lots of historical examples of candidates coming up late in the game to take the prize.
Bill Clinton only got 3% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses in 1992. Tom Harkin won. In the election cycle before that, Dick Gephardt won. Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa caucuses to George HW Bush.
Clinton also lost the New Hampshire primary in 1992 to Paul Tsongas.
Since 1960, excluding sitting presidents running for re-election or sitting vice presidents running for election, the democratic winner of the New Hampshire primary went on to be the party’s nominee three times (John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter first time around). Five times, the winner failed to take the nomination. Of the three who won, only one went on to be president.
On the Republican side, again excluding sitting presidents and vice presidents, the New Hampshire primary hasn’t picked a president since Reagan in 1980 (the last three choices were McCain, McCain, and Pat Buchanan - all who failed to even get the nomination).
So the New Hampshire primary has a lousy track record.
So everyone relax and take a deep breath. There have been no blowouts on either side, the race is still wide open. I’d lay good money that either Barack or Hillary will be the nominee for the Dems (Edwards has no shot). On the Republican side, I really think it’s a five-way race right now, and we’re not going to know who the real front-runner is until after Florida, and maybe not even until after Super Tuesday. The most clarity we might get before then is for a couple of the weaker candidates to drop out. Thompson needs a big showing in South Carolina next week or he’s probably gone. But if he gets it and starts getting some coverage, he’ll be up with the front-runners a week from now. Rudy’s there until Florida, Huckabee isn’t going anywhere, and neither are Romney or McCain.
I don’t think this is a good time for him to be showing such weakness, particularly when voters have the example of Guiliani’s ‘late state’ strategy crashing and burning fresh in their minds.
I concur. How about this: Obama has only 2 years of experience on the national stage and was at most a state senator in Illinois before then. I would never vote for Obama with this group of candidates - but it has nothing to do with race.
