Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary's New Hampshire problem is independents will make up 40% to 50% of the vote

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Herman Munster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:28 AM
Original message
Hillary's New Hampshire problem is independents will make up 40% to 50% of the vote
In 2000 independents represented 40% of turnout in the democratic primary. In 2004, it was 48%. The state just doesn't line up well for her at all. Too many independents and she lost them 2:1 to Obama in Iowa.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/04/will_nh_be_obama_territory_too.html?hpid=topnews

But compare the states of Iowa and New Hampshire and the landscape looks far less favorable for Clinton. The reality is, this is the state that always set up best for Obama, even when he was struggling here. The demographics and political culture lean more in the direction of Obama than toward Clinton. His goal now is to realize the potential that the electorate in New Hampshire offers.

Look first at Iowa and where Obama did best. According to the National Election Poll entranced poll, Obama enjoyed a margin of better than 2-1 over Clinton among independents. He won overwhelmingly among young voters between the ages of 17 and 29 and among voters between the ages of 30 and 44. He was the clear choice of liberals. He beat Clinton decisively among voters with incomes above $75,000.

The entrance poll questionnaire did not ask respondents to say how much education they had, so that critical measurement of the electorate is missing. But the Iowa Poll published two days before the caucuses in the Des Moines Register, which nearly nailed his victory margin exactly, showed Obama the clear choice of those with college degrees.

In virtually every demographic category where Obama found his greatest strength in Iowa, New Hampshire's electorate has at least as many or more of those voters, based on a comparison of the entrance polls from Thursday's caucuses in Iowa and from the 2004 Democratic primary in Hampshire.

Take independents. They constituted 20 percent of the caucus electorate in Iowa on Thursday, but four years ago in New Hampshire they constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the Democratic electorate.

Some seasonal adjustment may be necessary because there was no competitive Republican primary in 2004 to siphon off some of those independent voters. But even in 2000, when John McCain was swept to victory on the strength of big support from independents, the electorate in the Democratic primary between Al Gore and Bill Bradley was 40 percent independents.

Older voters were Clinton's friends in Iowa, not Obama's, and in the caucuses they accounted for 22 percent of the participants. In New Hampshire four years ago, voters over age 65 represented just 11 percent of thee Democratic electorate.

Younger voters accounted for a larger share of the Iowa electorate on Thursday night than they did in New Hampshire in 2004 -- but that may be attributable to the Obama campaign's efforts to encourage college students and even 17-year-olds to participate in the caucuses. That pushed their share of the electorate up over 2004 in Iowa and the same could happen here.

Even without data from the Iowa entrance poll, it is a well-documented fact that New Hampshire's electorate is one of the best-educated of any of the states with early primaries or caucuses. That should help Obama, although in the most recent CNN/WMUR-TV poll by the University of New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton are running pretty evenly among those with college degrees or more.

Clinton's team has long believed they could offset many of those demographic disadvantages with strong support among women in New Hampshire. Women accounted for 54 percent of the electorate here in 2004 and 62 percent in 2000 and in the most recent CNN/WMUR poll, Clinton held an 11-point lead among them.

Look too at past history. It's true that New Hampshire has often favored insurgents or underdogs over front-runners, but that has been the case most often when front-runners were establishment Democrats. Walter Mondale was the establishment front-runner who swept Iowa but lost to insurgent Gary Hart. Al Gore, the establishment front-runner in 2000, trounced Bill Bradley in Iowa but struggled to win New Hampshire.

Clinton will smartly cast herself as the underdog in the final days in New Hampshire and no one knows better than her husband how to put on a stretch drive in this state. But not everything sets up for the senator for New York here, which is why she faces such an enormous struggle over the next four days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MalloyLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't think independents and Republicans should be choosing the DEMOCRAT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MS Liberal Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I am with you but rules are rules.
I think Hillary is going to lose in NH because she is not "inspirational." She is just a woman who has worked hard her whole life and can get the job done. Her biggest problem is she does not look as good as Obama to the media. Nevertheless, I want the best person for the job therefore when it is time to vote here in Mississippi, I will vote for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. IMO, Independts should be, I'd consider not allowing Republicans to
There's really no perfect system for choosing a nominee and it has changed many many times throughout our country's history.

Frankly I don't see the point of excluding independents. If party affiliation were as strong as it was in some European countries where party membership was more of a solid thing I'd say it might be different. But here all you have to do to be a Democrat is check a box. I'm sure that there are some registered independents that vote, volunteer, and give more to Democratic candidates than some registered Democrats.

Including independents gives them a say in the process and makes them more likely to vote for us in the General Election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nick_Irving Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. HILLARY UNELECTABLE
See it and weep.

Attention Democrat Voters: Who's Electable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNdQUVA5JHs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. The candidates haven't campaigned yet. This is navel gazing n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. New Hampshire not campaigned yet? HUH?!!!!!!!!
It has been campaigned in for over a year
!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Did I sleep through the results? No, not yet? Oh good!!!
Do I need a sarcasm tag?

Seriously, I remember when HRC debated going to Iowa ... she started late. Remember this?

Jul 12, 2006 Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Iowa) decides to visit the state. So far, the "Goliath" of the Democratic presidential primary contest is steering clear of Iowa


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. Independent, my ass. The Iowans have told them how to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
5. A Clinton defeat in NH would be even more devastating for her
NH was supposed to be her "fire wall". At one time she had a lead so large, support by the establishment, and neighboring state status that nobody dreamed anyone could seriously challenge her, let alone actually win.

My how things have changed. Now they are trying to paint Hillary as the underdog.

Maybe she is. But that itself is a drastic change. She used to be the prohibitive favorite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. Tactically, it's a good change. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It wasn't hillary's tactical move to lose Iowa decidedly....
So I don't think it is tactically a good change. It is just how things got away from hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmosh42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:54 AM
Response to Original message
7. Analyze Iowa and you can see that 'corporate money' pay off!...
Obama spend big in Des Moine and Iowa City, where large amounts of independents were available, mostly younger crowd. These districts went for Edwards in 2004, but the turnout of Independents for Obama was so much, the trend went out the window. Hillary still has gobs of that medical and insurance money, so she's going to have to let go. All this stuff is in the 'Karl Rove' playbook, they just need to get down and dirty!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Not if you look at the Republican side it didn't.
How much corporate money did Huckabee have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinbgoode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
10. I'd like to know how many of those "independents"
voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmosh42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Exactly! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. well complain to NH Sec of State becuz indies have always been welcome
to be in either party primary. We need a candidate who wins indies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC