An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Hillary Clinton Wins New Hampshire Democratic Primary

In the end, polls leading up to the New Hampshire primary vote showing a double-digit lead for Democratic Senator Barack Obama were wrong — and Senator Hillary Clinton scored an upset victory — once again tossing the (new) conventional wisdom out the window and creating a new political dynamic.

And so the stage is set for a battle royal — one likely to go the distance:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire’s Democratic primary Tuesday night, pulling out a stunning victory over Sen. Barack Obama in a contest that she had been forecast to lose.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and climbed back into contention for their party’s presidential nomination.

Obama had beaten Clinton, who has been the national front-runner, in the Iowa caucuses last week, and he had appeared to be poised for victory in New Hampshire with tracking polls showing him surging into the lead.

But with 63 percent of Democrats precincts reporting Tuesday night, Clinton had 39 percent of the vote to 36 percent for Obama, who is seeking to become the nation’s first black president. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina trailed with 17 percent.

Polling place interviews showed that the female vote — which deserted the former first lady when she finished third in last week’s Iowa caucuses — was solidly in Clinton’s New Hampshire column.

The former first lady also was winning handily among registered Democrats. Obama led her by an even larger margin among independents.

CBS News also has declared her the winner — and noted that the returns even surprised the Clinton camp:

Clinton, the former first lady who finished third in Iowa, was mounting an unexpectedly stiff challenge to Obama in the nation’s first primary. Polling place interviews showed that the female vote — which deserted the former first lady when she finished third in last week’s Iowa caucuses — was solidly in her New Hampshire column.

Clinton also was winning handily among registered Democrats. Obama led her by an even larger margin among independents.

She had 39 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary to 37 percent for Obama, who is seeking to become the nation’s first black president. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina trailed with 17 percent.

Despite running a distant third to his better-funded rivals, Edwards had no plans to step aside. He pointed toward the South Carolina primary on Jan. 26, hoping to prevail in the state where he was born – and where he claimed his only victory in the presidential primaries four years ago.
Clinton’s performance, based on the early returns, surprised even her own inner circle.

The question is now being asked (we asked it much earlier): could the widely-publicized incident of Ms. Clinton choking up have played a role in an election result not mirrored in a slew of pre-election polls?

Stay tuned…

ALSO OF INTEREST:

–Be sure to read TMV co-blogger Mark Daniel’s reaction to the Clinton victory.

Taegan Goddard asks some tantalizing questions about the surprise Clinton win.

  • DLS
    If Obama had won a narrow race, would Clinton had started filing lawsuits and demanding a re-vote?
  • DLS
    C'mon, lefties -- now that Obama has lost, go ahead and resume calling New Hampshire unrepresentative, too white, maybe too old, too.
  • Yoshi
    Well, the republicans were counting on this. Obama doesn't have the corruption and special interests in his pocket. It's too bad the unscrupulous Clintons will remain to dirty up and divide the country again.
  • JSpencer
    The question is now being asked (we asked it much earlier): could the widely-publicized incident of Ms. Clinton choking up have played a role in an election result not mirrored in a slew of pre-election polls?

    My answer to that would be a definite maybe. It was an unscripted moment of humanness and sincerity, something that for many has been lacking in Clinton's demeanor. Some have written it off to sympathy, but I tend to think it had more to do with believeability. I thought she was fairly restrained in her emotion, it wasn't a display by any means. I'm happy with Clinton and McCain being frontrunners here; I don't want to see anyone sweep this early in the game.
  • Yoshi
    I think the choking up scene worked well on the more tender hearted women in New Hampshire. I found it suspect when she borrowed Edward's words, "this is personal" and was a tad offended that she would use a woman's frailty and the threat of more tears to get votes. Nobody wants to make a woman cry.
  • cosmoetica
    That Hillary was weeping while using her standard Obama talking points is the proof that it was planned, but whether that did it, who knows?

    DLS: All it proves is that NH voters are less maverick than they believe, since the two winners were the most well known candidates in the race.
  • Jakey
    Why do people including Democrats have so much vitriolic hatred for the Clintons? The country was much better off during Bill Clinton's stint the last time I checked.
    It's a bit unreal for some people to actually believe that whether Hilllary seemed to cry or didn't cry that that actually turned the election in her favour. We have now been reduced to the very simple things defining the outcome of an election. I blame it on the media which has been feeding us this nonenese for so long that we are actually believing it.
    I don't base my judgement in choosing the right candidate on words like "change" , "hope" and the like in flowery speeches. I look at a candidate and how the stand on issues not the "feel good" factor. Do they have a proven track record? Do they have experience Yes "EXPERIENCE" which is a word that will come to haunt in the upcoming general election. Have they been tried and tested against the GOP?
    I am very dispassionate when I look at issues. Many of us make critical decisons based on our emotions and end up being sourly dissapointed in the process. Sometimes you have to agree to dissagree.
    Hillary Clinton in my judgement is the one who can lead. Barrack is a good candidate but is not my choice after critically and carefully looking at him. He is certainly a good orator. Oratory is not what is necessarily going to put bread on the table.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC