« Did Independents Voting For McCain Hurt Obama And Help Clinton?
Clinton Wins in New Hampshire: Egg on My Face…for Now »



Hillary Clinton Wins New Hampshire Democratic Primary

January 8th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

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.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Independents, Primaries, Iowa, New Hampshire, Bill Clinton, Elections, Polls, 2008 Elections, Independent Voters, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    If Obama had won a narrow race, would Clinton had started filing lawsuits and demanding a re-vote?
    • ^
    • v
    C'mon, lefties -- now that Obama has lost, go ahead and resume calling New Hampshire unrepresentative, too white, maybe too old, too.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Did Independents Voting For McCain Hurt Obama And Help Clinton?
Clinton Wins in New Hampshire: Egg on My Face…for Now »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.