How and why did Barack Obama lose tonight?

[MarkWarner08]

How about this less cynical reason: Because NH voters wanted the civic process to continue a little longer. They also worried Obama wasn't vetted enough (e.g. JFK in 2004).

Not with that Clinton coalition.  I mean her support isn't the Harvard-educated voter we're talking about.

I forgot that her coalition consisted of gullible, easily manipulated saps and blue-collar machine voters.

[Sam Spade]

How about this less cynical reason: Because NH voters wanted the civic process to continue a little longer. They also worried Obama wasn't vetted enough (e.g. JFK in 2004).

Not with that Clinton coalition.  I mean her support isn't the Harvard-educated voter we're talking about.

I forgot that her coalition consisted of gullible, easily manipulated saps and blue-collar machine voters.

Let me put it this way - I doubt racism was a "huge" factor.  But I feel like it would be false to state that it was "not" a factor.  Take that as you may.

[MarkWarner08]

How about this less cynical reason: Because NH voters wanted the civic process to continue a little longer. They also worried Obama wasn't vetted enough (e.g. JFK in 2004).

Not with that Clinton coalition.  I mean her support isn't the Harvard-educated voter we're talking about.

I forgot that her coalition consisted of gullible, easily manipulated saps and blue-collar machine voters.

Let me put it this way - I doubt racism was a "huge" factor.  But I feel like it would be false to state that it was "not" a factor.  Take that as you may.

How come it wasn't a factor in Iowa? That's what's so confusing. Is it ok to vote for a black man when he has less of a chance and is thus less threatening to white political hegemony?

[Sam Spade]

How about this less cynical reason: Because NH voters wanted the civic process to continue a little longer. They also worried Obama wasn't vetted enough (e.g. JFK in 2004).

Not with that Clinton coalition.  I mean her support isn't the Harvard-educated voter we're talking about.

I forgot that her coalition consisted of gullible, easily manipulated saps and blue-collar machine voters.

Let me put it this way - I doubt racism was a "huge" factor.  But I feel like it would be false to state that it was "not" a factor.  Take that as you may.

How come it wasn't a factor in Iowa? That's what's so confusing. Is it ok to vote for a black man when he has less of a chance and is thus less threatening to white political hegemony?

As I said earlier - in Iowa caucuses, you must "publicly" announce who you are supporting.  In a certain sense, that means that the caucus is no different than a poll.

In NH, you vote behind a curtain.  You don't publicly announce who you are supporting to anyone.  It is different than a poll.

Moreover, Iowa was not really the type of place where this effect might be pronounced.  Ask Al.  Besides, remember that Bradley was mayor of LA in CA.  Wilder was Governor of VA.  Which state is more like CA or VA - IA or NH?  Especially remember that most of eastern NH is essentially part of MA.  I have my answer and why...

Food for thought.

[Jacobtm]

A friend of mine in New Hampshire says that early, when there was record turnout, the media essentially was saying Obama will win easily. Lots of people he knew who intended to vote for Obama didn't bother  because of this.

The youth vote failed to turn out; who would've ever guessed?

[Eraserhead]

It is also worth noting that Iowa doesn't elect women. Period.

New Hampshire elects women left and right.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is also worth noting that Iowa doesn't elect women. Period.

New Hampshire elects women left and right.

That's actually one of the things that worries me about Minnesota. Historically women perform far better in Minnesota.

Since 1998 there has been only one instance of a male candidate defeating a female one: Mark Ritchie for Secretary of State over incumbent Mary Kiffmeyer in 2006. And Kiffmeyer did the best of all GOP candidates for downballot constitutional offices. The largest DFL victory was of a female candidate over a male GOP one.

[J. J.]

Gender is a part; the tears helped.

When you look at Obama, there really is not that much of a record and he has not run a substantive campaign, to date.  He's been given a free pass by the fawning media, largely because they were enamored with the prospect of a Black president.

If he looses now, and wins re-election, he could be formidable, but not just yet.

[Ebowed]

The tears weren't the only gender factor.

Clinton distributed pamphlets shortly before voting started accusing Obama of not being pro-choice.

[opebo]

How and why did Barack lose to Killary?

[joking]

When almost all the crazy libs on this forum started pulling for Obama after Iowa, you just knew Obama was toast.  For not only do the libs on this forum not represent voting America, most of them aren't Americans in their hearts. 

[/joking]

Being American in your heart = crazy

As for my take on why Obama lost, the two main reasons are racism and media bias.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Obama lost because Indy voters saw him way up in the polls and saw McCain winning by a few and vote for McCain to give him a win. Stupid polls.

[Bacon King]

McCain took some indies away from Obama, and Hillary took women away from him with the tear thing. In addition, the drop wasn't so drastic; he was probably overpolling due to the Bradley effect.

[Ben.]

First off i just don't buy the racism/Bradley effect thing... i just don't believe it could be factor in a state like NH (call be naive).

I had a nasty inkling that things could be closer than they looked following the tear moment and the way the polls might convice the indies to favour the GOP race over the Dem contest - but i thought there wasn't enough time for it to affect the result.

My hunch is combination of complacency on the part of Obama supporters, Clinton's appeal to women voters, a very strong Clinton ground operation (managed by Shaheen) and indies switch to the 'closer' GOP contest all played their part... to a certain extent i wonder if it was a bit of a fluke... Either way, it's the reality now.

The critical thing is that the Obama doesn't allow this to turn into the spring board for a big Clinton revival, at things stand its too soon to tell if it will or not, but his campaign must make sure that "comeback kid" narrative doesn't take route. If Obama can do well in NV and retain his lead in SC, it's highly likely Edwards drops out and endroses him, that gives him momentum going into FL... neither Clinton or Obama has the edge right now IMHO it's wide open.

Let the spinning begin!
 

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Any candidate who relies on the "youth" vote is ultimately doomed.

Obama = McGovern, Howard Dean rolled into one.

[agcatter]

Obviosly Obama's close to 50 - 50 support with women crashed at the last moment.  The tears worked to perfection.  Women by and large are non thinking, emotional creatures.  Hillary played them like a violin.

[Wakie]

Obviosly Obama's close to 50 - 50 support with women crashed at the last moment.  The tears worked to perfection.  Women by and large are non thinking, emotional creatures.  Hillary played them like a violin.

Wow ... is that how you feel about your mother and your wife/girlfriend?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Any candidate who relies on the "youth" vote is ultimately doomed.

Obama = McGovern, Howard Dean rolled into one.

That's the truth, the youth vote is notoriously unreliable and fickle.

I think we should wait a few days and see what happens with the poll numbers... although after NH why am I even saying that?

Obviosly Obama's close to 50 - 50 support with women crashed at the last moment.  The tears worked to perfection.  Women by and large are non thinking, emotional creatures.  Hillary played them like a violin.

One thing I think should be pointed out. In IA, Obama got 35% of the female vote, this time 34% - Clinton went from 30-47% - a LOT of that came from Edwards, not Obama. The emotion made her more likeable, but the bullying from Obama and Edwards, followed up by Edward's horrible reaction to her moment... good lord talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

You know what, she's copping crap from some because she's a woman (in some parts...hmmm that didn't sound right) - if she's able to play the helpless card... you know what? Good on her.

[tik 🪀✨]

Obviosly Obama's close to 50 - 50 support with women crashed at the last moment.  The tears worked to perfection.  Women by and large are non thinking, emotional creatures.  Hillary played them like a violin.

I don't understand why nearly everyone in this thread insists that Hillary's "cry" churned out women voters or was a calculated move to do so. Maybe I'm naive for thinking many of you aren't so shallow and sexist, or at least that you believe the electorate is. There are plenty of ignorant, uninformed voters, of course, but what does Hillary crying (and she really didn't) have to do with women voting for her?

[Wakie]

Consider the following, in Iowa both Kucinich and Richardson told their supporters to join with the Obama people if they couldn't get a majority.  If you take Richardson's 5% and Kucinich's 1% and add it to Obama he goes up to 43% and wins New Hampshire.

Kucinich will not drop from the race.  I think the only reason he is running is an excercise in ego.

Richardson, on the other hand, is running for VP on an Obama/Richardson ticket.  If Obama cuts a deal with him he will certainly drop and endorse Barack (throwing his supporters in that direction and giving Obama the lead).

Edwards though represents the "kingmaker" ability.  Sure he's the 3rd horse in the race, but he has a sizable block of support.  Certainly big enough to tip the scales in one direction or the other.  He's not especially attractive to have as a running mate though as he doesn't really add experience to Obama and his ties to the 2004 Kerry campaign remind people that Hillary is old school.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hillary needs to be the unemotional calculating hosebeat/shrew hybrid - it's funny how the right propaganda has worked so well.

[J. J.]

Any candidate who relies on the "youth" vote is ultimately doomed.

Obama = McGovern, Howard Dean rolled into one.

J. J.'s Second Rule.

[John Dibble]

Obviosly Obama's close to 50 - 50 support with women crashed at the last moment.  The tears worked to perfection.  Women by and large are non thinking, emotional creatures.  Hillary played them like a violin.

I don't understand why nearly everyone in this thread insists that Hillary's "cry" churned out women voters or was a calculated move to do so. Maybe I'm naive for thinking many of you aren't so shallow and sexist, or at least that you believe the electorate is. There are plenty of ignorant, uninformed voters, of course, but what does Hillary crying (and she really didn't) have to do with women voting for her?

Well, while I don't feel women are non-thinking, I do feel they are more emotional as a generality than men. That's not to say that men can't be swayed by emotional displays, but in general I think women are more easily swayed by emotions. To many Hillary comes off as cold and calculating. An emotional display softens her image, especially among those who are swayed by emotions, and makes the candidate seem more human and thus the voters may get a more personal attachement to the candidate in question. This ultimately increases the chances of such people voting for that candidate. So thusly some people think that Hillary's emotional display helped among women since they are generally more easily swayed by emotion.

As far as it being calculated, I suppose that's up for debate. What matters in the end is that it was taken as a genuine emotion.

[PBrunsel]

You may have guessed I am not an Obama supporter (which may be the understatement of the week), but I generally feel sorry for the good man this morning, as I do the good old country. He ran an honest and clean campaign, with no mudslinging or lie-mongering, and lost to a person who did all that, and infinitely more. That is a very sad reflection on American politics. All I can say for the GOP is that at least an honorable man defeated a sleazy flip flopper who distorted the facts. It is a shame the Democrats couldn’t do the same thing. I think New Hampshire is a beautiful state and a great one at that, but yesterday I liked it a little less.

On a lighter note, I still am sure Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee. I cite his speech last night. He lost a primary he was expected to win, but gave one of the most uplifting addresses I have heard in a long while. It was better than his Iowan address, and I know oratory, I did Original Oratory in high school for four years. Obama has the oratorical skills of Daniel Webster, and no man who can speak that well and convey a message so great will lose, no matter how strong the machine against him.

Yesterday was not a bright spot for American political history, but as Obama’s supporters will always tell you, “Hope springs eternal.” I still feel that this nation will choose the politics of hope over the politics of fear. I respect and like Senator Obama, because he talks straight to the American people, and it is always from his heart. He sends out an aura of sincerity (like JFK and Reagan) that no one can fake. Senator Clinton can cry until she fills a river, and it will never match the sincerity of Senator Obama.

All I can hope for is that New Hampshire 2008 can be dispelled to the ash heap of history, and the politics of joy and uplifting hope be embraced by our nation. I fervently pray that, and I fervently hope that.  

[J. J.]

Consider the following, in Iowa both Kucinich and Richardson told their supporters to join with the Obama people if they couldn't get a majority.  If you take Richardson's 5% and Kucinich's 1% and add it to Obama he goes up to 43% and wins New Hampshire.

You have to assume that Kucinich and Richardson supporters are mindless robots.  Hint:  They are not.  Likewise, if the voter wants to vote for experience, Obama will not be a second choice for Richardson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While a fairly good choice (horrific politically), Obama isn't strong enough to guarantee that promise, even if Richardson drops.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The main problem with Edwards is that he brings nothing to the ticket in the general.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Any candidate who relies on the "youth" vote is ultimately doomed.

Obama = McGovern, Howard Dean rolled into one.

J. J.'s Second Rule.

I'm starting to wonder if most of the Obama supporters on this forum are even registered to vote.  Something strongly tells me they are not.