Some numbers from Iowa support one of my previous claims about Hillary--and indicate problems for her in New Hampshire.
The breakdown of the numbers I referred to in the previous post can be found here.
Republicans might vote for a Democrat, but it ain't gonna be Hillary.
Some of the statistics support a point I made a year ago:
Voters want change, and they don't see it happening with Hillary.
Other data show further potential problems for Hillary. Recall that my first post from Thursday cited a December 9 poll in which Hillary was found to be the candidate least representative of change by Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. In Iowa, 52% of caucus participants said that the most important quality which determined their choice of candidate was "Can bring about needed change." Of that group, 51% voted for Obama, 20% for Edwards, and 19% for Hillary. So the results actually matched the pre-caucus polls. That is not good news for Hillary, particularly since back in early December, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that a majority (53%) of Democrats in New Hampshire considered "new direction and new ideas" (in other words, "change") as the most important characteristic in a candidate. Perhaps more to the point, 37% of Democrats in New Hampshire considered "experience" to be the most important characteristic. The cornerstone of Hillary's campaign has been--and continues to be--that she has the necessary experience to be President while none of the other candidates do. So, it appears that change is the key consideration in New Hampshire, some poll numbers show that Hillary is seen as least likely to bring about change, and the results from Iowa bear that out.
Hillary has also said she is going to bring change, but the numbers so far show that people don't believe her. And as for her prime campaign point--her alleged experience--the numbers show people don't really care.
Independents could be a big factor.
Hillary also faces a potential problem with independents in New Hampshire. See, in Iowa, 20% of the caucus members were Independents. Out of that group, 41% voted for Obama, 23% for Edwards, and 17% for Hillary. The problem for Hillary is that Independents make up a far greater percentage of voters in New Hampshire. In the primary, Independents can vote in either primary. As noted by Dan Balz, in 2004, independents made up 48% of those who voted in the New Hampshire primary, and in 2000, the figure was 40%. In 2004, there was no contested Republican primary, and that fact drove up the number of Independents voting in the Democratic primary. Thus, 2000 might be a better indicator of how many Independents will vote in the Democratic primary this time. Another indicator came from the aforementioned Wapo-ABC poll, which found that 60% of the state's Independents were planning to vote in the Democratic primary. What all these figures indicate is that Independents could have a bigger effect on the New Hampshire primary, and if Hillary has a repeat performance from Iowa, that will be bad for her.
Hillary better hope there is no repeat from 2004.
In 2004, prior to the Iowa caucuses, John Kerry's campaign was almost dead. Howard Dean was leading in New Hampshire, and Wes Clark was in a solid second place. And then (partly due to the biggest mistake the Clark campaign made, namely deciding not to be part of the Iowa caucuses), Kerry magically won Iowa, and the next day he was leading the polls in New Hampshire. He went on to win big in New Hampshire, and from there the race was pretty much over.
Quick turn around to New Hampshire
With all the ridiculous maneuvering by states to have their primaries sooner and sooner, New Hampshire moved up its primary date. That means that all of five days will pass between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. That's not enough time to correct mistakes or alter a campaign under general circumstances, but it is an even greater challenge in New Hampshire. That state is the king of "retail politics." Because of New Hampshire's traditional "first primary" status, campaigns have more time ahead of that primary to campaign in that state, and because of that AND the nature of New Hampshire citizens in general, voters in New Hampshire not only like but demand that candidates spend a lot of time on the ground face to face to voters. Candidates have to go all over the state and make all kinds of personal appearances, and if they don't, they're screwed. What I am trying to say is that if any campaign needs to make changes very quickly and have those changes have an almost immediate effect, New Hampshire is not a place that is likely to happen.
That's not good news for Hillary. Like I mentioned in my previous post, Andrea Mitchell felt like the Iowa results shot the wheels off Hillary's wagon of campaign points, and if you look at the rest of the numbers, you will see that Mitchell has a pretty good point. Hillary needs to make some changes because she cannot afford another third place finish. Making those changes before Tuesday is going to be very difficult.
More bad news for Hillary: new poll numbers in New Hampshire
The latest polls emphasize the previous two sections of this post. In just about every poll, Obama is either tied with Hillary or is leading in New Hampshire. You can see all the results here (this link is updated, so the results will likely change from when this post is published).
Most of the polls show big changes after the Iowa results were in. In other words, Hillary was leading in every poll before the Iowa caucuses. Now she is not.
Ruh-roh.
Of course, tomorrow is another day, and tonight's debate might impact the poll numbers. Stay tuned...
Republicans might vote for a Democrat, but it ain't gonna be Hillary.
Some of the statistics support a point I made a year ago:
I said it repeatedly during the 2004 campaign, and I think it is still true today and will be true in 2008--any Democrat who wants to win a Presidential election has to get some Republican votes. Of all the Dems currently in the race, the one who by far has the least chance of doing that is Hillary. Hillary instead will galvanize the GOP. In 2004, there were plenty of Republicans who were looking for a reason not to vote for Bush, but could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry.In the Iowa caucuses, it is possible for participants to cross party lines, and some of that happened on Thursday. Of the Republicans who participated in the Democratic caucuses, 44% voted for Obama, 32% voted for Edwards, and 10% voted for Hillary. And there, folks, is some empirical evidence that Hillary far and away has the least chance of getting Republican votes in a general election.
Voters want change, and they don't see it happening with Hillary.
Other data show further potential problems for Hillary. Recall that my first post from Thursday cited a December 9 poll in which Hillary was found to be the candidate least representative of change by Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. In Iowa, 52% of caucus participants said that the most important quality which determined their choice of candidate was "Can bring about needed change." Of that group, 51% voted for Obama, 20% for Edwards, and 19% for Hillary. So the results actually matched the pre-caucus polls. That is not good news for Hillary, particularly since back in early December, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that a majority (53%) of Democrats in New Hampshire considered "new direction and new ideas" (in other words, "change") as the most important characteristic in a candidate. Perhaps more to the point, 37% of Democrats in New Hampshire considered "experience" to be the most important characteristic. The cornerstone of Hillary's campaign has been--and continues to be--that she has the necessary experience to be President while none of the other candidates do. So, it appears that change is the key consideration in New Hampshire, some poll numbers show that Hillary is seen as least likely to bring about change, and the results from Iowa bear that out.
Hillary has also said she is going to bring change, but the numbers so far show that people don't believe her. And as for her prime campaign point--her alleged experience--the numbers show people don't really care.
Independents could be a big factor.
Hillary also faces a potential problem with independents in New Hampshire. See, in Iowa, 20% of the caucus members were Independents. Out of that group, 41% voted for Obama, 23% for Edwards, and 17% for Hillary. The problem for Hillary is that Independents make up a far greater percentage of voters in New Hampshire. In the primary, Independents can vote in either primary. As noted by Dan Balz, in 2004, independents made up 48% of those who voted in the New Hampshire primary, and in 2000, the figure was 40%. In 2004, there was no contested Republican primary, and that fact drove up the number of Independents voting in the Democratic primary. Thus, 2000 might be a better indicator of how many Independents will vote in the Democratic primary this time. Another indicator came from the aforementioned Wapo-ABC poll, which found that 60% of the state's Independents were planning to vote in the Democratic primary. What all these figures indicate is that Independents could have a bigger effect on the New Hampshire primary, and if Hillary has a repeat performance from Iowa, that will be bad for her.
Hillary better hope there is no repeat from 2004.
In 2004, prior to the Iowa caucuses, John Kerry's campaign was almost dead. Howard Dean was leading in New Hampshire, and Wes Clark was in a solid second place. And then (partly due to the biggest mistake the Clark campaign made, namely deciding not to be part of the Iowa caucuses), Kerry magically won Iowa, and the next day he was leading the polls in New Hampshire. He went on to win big in New Hampshire, and from there the race was pretty much over.
Quick turn around to New Hampshire
With all the ridiculous maneuvering by states to have their primaries sooner and sooner, New Hampshire moved up its primary date. That means that all of five days will pass between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. That's not enough time to correct mistakes or alter a campaign under general circumstances, but it is an even greater challenge in New Hampshire. That state is the king of "retail politics." Because of New Hampshire's traditional "first primary" status, campaigns have more time ahead of that primary to campaign in that state, and because of that AND the nature of New Hampshire citizens in general, voters in New Hampshire not only like but demand that candidates spend a lot of time on the ground face to face to voters. Candidates have to go all over the state and make all kinds of personal appearances, and if they don't, they're screwed. What I am trying to say is that if any campaign needs to make changes very quickly and have those changes have an almost immediate effect, New Hampshire is not a place that is likely to happen.
That's not good news for Hillary. Like I mentioned in my previous post, Andrea Mitchell felt like the Iowa results shot the wheels off Hillary's wagon of campaign points, and if you look at the rest of the numbers, you will see that Mitchell has a pretty good point. Hillary needs to make some changes because she cannot afford another third place finish. Making those changes before Tuesday is going to be very difficult.
More bad news for Hillary: new poll numbers in New Hampshire
The latest polls emphasize the previous two sections of this post. In just about every poll, Obama is either tied with Hillary or is leading in New Hampshire. You can see all the results here (this link is updated, so the results will likely change from when this post is published).
Most of the polls show big changes after the Iowa results were in. In other words, Hillary was leading in every poll before the Iowa caucuses. Now she is not.
Ruh-roh.
Of course, tomorrow is another day, and tonight's debate might impact the poll numbers. Stay tuned...
posted by WCharles @ 1/05/2008 10:55:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home