January 9, 2008

"Women in New Hampshire did what they did not do in Iowa: rally behind her."

Adam Nagourney analyzes the Clinton victory:
Most strikingly for Mrs. Clinton, women in New Hampshire did what they did not do in Iowa: rally behind her. Women supported her by 47 percent to 34 percent, according to a survey of voters leaving the polls; women voters in Iowa had been evenly divided between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton campaigned in the final days of the contest with her daughter, Chelsea. She emphasized her sex in a debate of the candidates on Saturday night, in which John. Edwards, who placed third here, and Mr. Obama joined forces in attacking her. And in a gripping moment shown repeatedly on television on Monday night, Mrs. Clinton appeared momentarily overtaken by emotion when a questioner asked how she was enduring the strains of the campaign.
Women! So things like this work on us?

31 comments:

Paul Zrimsek said...

I suspect the secret ballot made more of a difference than the weepiness did.

Paco Wové said...

Yup. I think a lot of people are more than willing to vote for Obama, almost but not quite the Son of God, when doing so in public surrounded by people they know. In secret? Not so much.

Mortimer Brezny said...

The secret ballot argument is just a rehash of the Bradley Effect argument; that white people lie about their likelihood to vote for black candidates. But Obama won the white male vote handily in New Hampshire, so that would mean that only white women lie to pollsters, not white men.

While it is true that white women are far less likely than white men to date interracially, and a white woman is the frontrunner, not a white man, so it is white women who would have a motive to lie, not to mention old white women, not old white men, run the Democratic Party, I am a bit skeptical. If you don't like the anti-male, pro-white sentiments of the Democratic Party, I don't know what to tell you. It's called the Mommy Party for a reason!

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Acting on the basis of feelings is the essence of liberalism.

Unfortunately in this emotion-besotted culture -- in which kids are trained to express their feelings, but not how to reason clearly -- the result has been a shift even amongst Republicans towards the liberal side of things.

Eventually reality slaps everyone back to a more conservative position, but it's usually not pretty.

dax said...

How do all the polls turnout spot-on in Iowa both for Republican and Democrats?
How do the polls perfectly 'nail it' on the Republican side in NH?
How the polls miss by over 11% on the Democrat side in NH?

GOD SAVE THE AL

Ben (The Tiger) said...

The polls got Obama's vote right -- they just didn't get Clinton's vote.

Middle Class Guy said...

Hillary struck a chord. But there are still forty eight states left. The woman factor will only go so far. Hillary has not faced any seriious scrutiny yet- from the opposition or the media, compared to all the other candidates. Her campaign has scrutinized every facet of the opposition and demanded that her opponents be put under a microscope. Now it is her turn. The gloves come off, if the media and her opponents have courage.

She will have to face the same tactics that her campaign uses. She will not only have to defend her record, she will have to prove it.

She will also have to explain how Obama is different than Bill- two untested, unknown, neophytes on the national stage.

EnigmatiCore said...

I was thinking about the Bradley Effect last night, but like Mort I don't think it makes sense here.

First off, it it was that people were lying to the pollsters, then the exit poll, which is done with pollsters, would also have been wrong.

TROBlog said...

My wife hated her crying. But then she was predisposed to hate her anyway.

knoxwhirled said...

So things like this work on us?

Certainly not us women with common sense in flyover country. New Hampshire... apparently.

George said...

Wonder why Oprah did not campaign for Sen. Obama in New Hampshire?

Was her presence earlier somehow an overall negative, not the positive everyone thought it was?

Paul Zrimsek said...

I wasn't even thinking specifically of the Bradley Effect. I just think that when you have to get up and pick a caucus seat in front of everyone it could change your behavior in any number of ways that don't necessarily have anything to do with race.

somefeller said...

There was a Bradley Effect alright - the Bill Bradley Effect, namely the primary candidate of the press and post-partisan crowd loses to the candidate that connects better with average Democrats. That's the Bradley effect going on here.

Mortimer Brezny said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
peter hoh said...

Sure, a primary is a secret ballot, but it's also one in which one's second choice doesn't come into play. In a caucus, people in favor of non-viable candidates move their support to their second or third choice.

Another possibility to consider: polls may have influenced some voters to believe that Obama was so far ahead, that they could throw their vote to Clinton so that she wouldn't lose by such a great margin.

Whatever. It's a primary. I'm glad that more than two states will get to determine the nominees for both parties.

Theo Boehm said...

FWIW, my rather liberal wife is a big Hillary-hater. Personally, I was willing to consider Mrs. Clinton, but my wife really, really dislikes her, and talked me out of my former support.

That said, my wife was quite happy with the results. The reason had nothing to do with Hillary's choking up, etc., but everything to do with all the gloating and Hillary-bashing going on in the last 48 hours. Talk radio (thank you, Michael Graham here in Boston), much of the media otherwise, and people in general were already sticking forks in Mrs. Clinton, as done as she seemed to be.

The grotesque, b-word-filled conversations my wife heard finally made her happy that Hillary won.

Keep calling Hillary a bitch. Pretty soon you'll get every woman in the country to vote for her.

P. Rich said...

AA said: "Women! So things like this work on us?"

No, I think it's more that such trite tactics work on the feelers, rather than the thinkers. And I suspect the large mass of independent voters in NH lean heavily toward the former. I haven't seen any demographic data on that group insofar as female vs male.

My guess is that male independents went heavily for McCain, females for Mrs. Clinton - the poor victim of gender oppression from an unfeeling system. Tears and a steady stream of perfectly articulated talking points. What utter crap.

B said...

I think peter hoh (above)got it right .

Roger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger said...

Another good reason for repeal of the 19th Amendment!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Women! So things like this work on us?

But of course. Didn't you get the memo?

All women think alike and move in lockstep. We all think with our emotions instead of our brains and are naturally swayed by the tears of other women to leap to their defense. If we don't (just ask Ms Steinem) we are unnatural traitors to our gender and hate other women.

Come on Ann.. Keep up. :-)

knoxwhirled said...

It's not Althouse who needs to keep up, it's any woman who would vote for Hillary--or anyone--because they are a woman.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Knox... that was sarcasm on my part. Sorry, I guess I wasn't snarky enough.

reader_iam said...

I can see that this election cycle is really going to bring out the devil's advocate (and maybe even the devil) in me. Here's my latest spasm:

Anyone who would vote for someone "just" because that person is of one party rather than another (regardless of whether that person's principles and track record are in line with that party's stated principles, or has even betrayed a good chunk of them) but feels all justified and puffed up over mocking others who they feel are voting for someone "just" because they're a woman, or black, or whatever, makes me laugh.

Talk about blind and self-serving.

How is one more noble and a-brimming with integrity than the other? How is one truly more based on "reasoning through" than the other? How does it come down any less to a default of group loyalty or one's own self-identification?

Talk about grating.

knoxwhirled said...

but feels all justified and puffed up over mocking others who they feel are voting for someone "just" because they're a woman, or black, or whatever, makes me laugh.

reader, I don't know if that's directed at me, but I do think it's silly to vote for someone based on identity politics. And I feel defensive enough to add that if Hillary hadn't flipped on her support of the war, I would have voted for her over Huckabee, if it came to that. So I don't stick with any party. Admittedly, as a youth, I definitely would ONLY have voted Democrat for sure, but I'm too jaded to promise any party my vote at this point.

reader_iam said...

It wasn't specific to you, but rather a more general observation--well, question, or challenge, really for people to think about it for a moment. Because it's not an idea I see addressed, and especially by those who most decry group-symbol voting.

reader_iam said...

Also: OK, but if your primary concern is the war, national security and foreign policy, how exactly does Huckabee track with that?

Where's the beef?

reader_iam said...

That last was more a rhetorical question, btw, given the thread we're on. A discussion for another day, a different thread.

knoxwhirled said...

I should have clarified... I won't vote for Huckabee ever. If it's between Hillary or him, I will vote libertarian, I guess, or not at all.

Blake said...

Go Wayne Root!

Trooper York said...

Liz Lemon: Well how are you going to win this award?
Jenna Maroney: I am going to use my...."
Liz Lemon: No, no not that again.
Jenna Maroney:...sexuality!
Hillary Clinton (passing in the hall on the way to Meet the Press)
Hhhhhh! Sounds good. Let's give that a try.