On To New Hampshire

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:01:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In just 4 short days, New Hampshire voters will be voting for Presidential nominees. The results in Iowa will loom large for Democrats at least. Does Huckabee benefit at all? I would think so myself. But the Media is behind McCain so we will see.

Barack Obama will be the prohibitve favorite to win New Hampshire. Even though today's Zogby poll of New Hampshire has this result:

Clinton 32
Obama 26
Edwards 20

This was pre-Iowa. Obama is ahead today. There seems to me be only one scenario which imperils Obama in New Hampshire - a full court press, pun intended, for McCain. The Media WANTS McCain. And if McCain gets Independents to come out for him in large numbers (after all, Hillary has already been knocked down, do they need to knock her down again?), that hurts Obama. [More....]

Yes, that is the irony I think - Clinton needs a strong McCain to hurt Obama with Independents. If I was running the Clinton campaign, I would go partisan Dem big time, ripping Republicans (and not Obama DIRECTLY) big time. Become the candidate of partisan contrast. And hope McCain can eat ito Obama's support from Indpendents.

It could make for an interesting choice for Democratic primary voters. Partisanship vs. Unity. A Fighter vs. Kumbaya. We'll see what happens.

POSTCRIPT:

Why no discussion of Edwards some of you might ask? Simply because, I think he has no chance. If someone can explain a scenario where he does well in New Hampshire I would like to hear it. He finishes a distant third, which hurts Clinton BTW as much of his support is likely to go to Obama.

< Another Wrongful Conviction in Texas | What Obama's Victory Stands For >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On To New Hampshire | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Senator McCain in some ways is the GOP's best shot (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 08:14:17 AM EST

Senator McCain, who last night said he would be happy if American troops were in Iraq for 100 years. Senator McCain, the "out of Iraq now caucus" thanks you. That quote is guaranteed to have a long shelf life.

I hope HRC does rip the GOP. Best thing that could happen for the Democrats regardless who the nominee is. They aren't going to compromise with Obama or anyone else.

And now I've got to run.

: Ripping the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:38:00 AM EST

The more I think about it, the more I think this strategy is the best one for Clinton. First, it doesn't require a completely new approach - she's good at ripping Republicans and it's expected of her. It also lets her go at Obama in a way that isn't a direct attack on him - but is more of an attack on Bush and the obstructionist Congress, which are both incredibly unpopular already. Something like,
"I would love it if we could sit down with Republicans in Congress and work together to get healthcare. But we can't even get S-CHIP expanded because Republicans wouldn't compromise even though most Americans, democrats and republicans, are for it. We can't get them to work with us on getting out of Iraq, even though most Americans, democrats and republicans want to. We can't get them to work with us on immigration even though most Americans, democrats and republicans, agree that we need to address this critical issue.
Barak Obama is a Senator, if he can get Republicans in Congress to compromise, then why haven't they. Why don't we have S-CHIP? Why aren't we leaving Iraq? I'll tell you why - George Bush, Mitch McConnell and the Republican party aren't interested in compromise. They are interested in obstructing and keeping us from changing America.
Small changes occur when you work with Republicans. Big changes - like Social Security, Medicare, and healthcare reform come when you beat them. I want big changes for the country and I can beat them."
Or something.
This also benefits her by providing a rationale for her staying in the race - she wants to build a stronger democratic party and by talking down Republicans she helps the democrats whether she's the nominee or not.
The other thing she might want to talk up is John McCain. Just as Republicans talked her up, she might want to repeatedly talk about how difficult it will be to beat John McCain in November. Nothing wrong with her inflating his chances as being the nominee - it might make independents think he has a chance and go vote for him.
It's still an uphill battle for her. Obama is definitely the favorite. I don't think she's lost, but winning is a lot harder than it was two days ago.

[ Parent ]

The "deal" that wasn't (none / 0) (#2)
by commissar on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:00:09 AM EST

The guys at TPM Election Central have debunked the "deal" rumors that BTD was furiously peddling lat night. Any retraction or correction post gonna happen here?

: How does that debunk the Ruchardson deal? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:10:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]

the data (none / 0) (#4)
by commissar on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:21:05 AM EST

show that Edwards picked up 7 points, compared to only three points for Obama and two for Hillary.

Which was also consistent with what pre-caucus polls showed about 2nd choices.

Of course, if you insist that all the polling data is wrong, and various anecdotal evidence (see Matt Bai at NYT) of a lack of a deal is misleading, and earlier poll data was wrong, and that your anonymous rumors are more accurate, I can't disprove that.

I wrote the Richardson deal (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:32:07 AM EST

which I understand DID happen.

Marc Ambinder reported on it.

that Edwards seems to have gained MORE seems immaterial to that point.

It seems Richardson had little to offer, just as I predicted.

[ Parent ]

Does Richardson Stay In (none / 0) (#10)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST

And if so, why? Could he be an Obama stalking horse? Obama hasn't been polling well with latinos and Clinton does very well, could Richardson be there to try to pull some latino votes away from Clinton in Nevada?

I honestly have never understood why he was running in the first place.

[ Parent ]

Rciahrdson is a joke (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:36:49 AM EST

And always was. Worst candidate in the race.

[ Parent ]

Stalking Horse (none / 0) (#18)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST

I think that's exactly what he's about to become.

[ Parent ]

What is he stalking? (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:15:54 PM EST

Heis irrelevant unless he does something weird in the debate.

That is his only relevance.

[ Parent ]

: Obama's weakness w/ latinos (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST

Hillary might pick them up and win CA/TX/NM, etc.

[ Parent ]

OT: what will the gay, lesbian, (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST

transgender activists do now that Obama is apparently the man to beat?

[ Parent ]

Good question (none / 0) (#22)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST

Getting behind Hillary is tempting.

[ Parent ]

That's what I thought you would say. (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST

But would this help or hurt here, after don't ask, don't tell?

[ Parent ]

: We'd have to rely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:28:57 PM EST

on Hillary to follow that old political aphorism: "dance with the one that brung you?"

[ Parent ]

Partisanship (none / 0) (#6)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:40:38 AM EST

I agree with your thoughts on what Clinton needs to do. It seems Edwards has figured that out and I think he's taking the right tack in trying to kill of Clinton with the "change won tonight meme." It will be too little too late though.

Partisanship (none / 0) (#7)
by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:40:54 AM EST

: Edwards' Problem (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:55:49 AM EST

Edwards has long been third in NH. He has the weakest organization of the three there and no roots (Clinton is the one with the roots in NH). He must be down to very little money compared to the other two. He needs free media and isn't going to get much of it.
I understand why he's trying to make this argument, but I don't think anyone's going to be listening. The media hate him almost as much as they hate Clinton. Actually, when it comes to NH, they may hate him more because Clinton is at least a compelling story for them (Can Clinton be a comeback kid in NH?), he just messes up their narrative. They are done with him and so I honestly don't see how he gets much of a bounce. I expect to see him drop and his supporters go to Obama and Clinton.

[ Parent ]
: Edwards is finished (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Clinton (none / 0) (#8)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:50:53 AM EST

I agree with you on what Clinton needs to do - she needs to take on the partisan mantle. She isn't going to win independents anyway and she needs to fire up liberal base voters. She won union voters in Iowa and I think there are more in New Hampshire. She should be trying to take votes from Edwards, he's damaged (I don't care what he says, the media hates him and isn't about to give him any oxygen in NH - the better story for them is Obama v. Comeback? Clinton). And it goes to her history with Republicans and electability - I'm a partisan democrat, I've been through the wars and won. Obama says great things, but he simply doesn't realize what he's in for. It helps that Edwards is also going after Obama on his happy talk.

She also needs to at least reach out to younger voters, they killed her in Iowa. She doesn't have much time in NH, but she needs to start working on it for the Feb 5th states. I think I read somewhere that without the under-29 vote, Obama's lead disappeared. She's not going to win this group, but she needs to compete for it. I think she basically ceded it in Iowa and then got killed when it showed up in record numbers.

The other thing Clinton has going for her is that she has better roots in NH and NH hates to be predictable. They love a comeback story.

What hurts her is Obama's resources and media darling status. Although he may very well play second fiddle to McCain in NH - I cannot believe the number of pundits who pronounced McCain a winner last night. WTF?

The turnout models in Iowa were remarkably right - Edwards won prior caucus goers, but came in third among new voters. So Clinton would've won if she could've turned out her new voters and Obama couldn't turn out his. But of course, Obama did turn out his.

Here's how Clinton can combine (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM EST

the partisan theme and the appeal to young voters.
She should emphasize that only by fighting Republicans will we be able to bring our troops home from Iraq. Kumbayah won't cut it.

[ Parent ]

McCain states 100 more years in Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST

is o.k. w/him if no one gets hurt.

[ Parent ]

Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:16:39 PM EST

Reid and Pelosi have tried to cut a deal with Republicans and have gotten nowhere. They will not compromise on this one.

The only problem is that the president can pretty much end the war by himself. But Iraq is a good example of a big issue where most Americans agree, but the Republicans are completely unwilling to compromise.

[ Parent ]

: And the elected Dems are gutless. (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST

Maybe it doesn't really matter who the next President is. We'll still be Iraq anyway.

[ Parent ]

Not sure I understand (none / 0) (#24)
by Al on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:23:12 PM EST

Why would an independent voter be swayed from Obama to McCain? The two have absolutely nothing in common.

: On the Surface, A Lot (none / 0) (#26)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST

They are both outside mavericks, able to work with the other party to try to resolve big issues, working to fix the system by fighting lobbyists and moneyed interests. They are honest straight talkers who promise to tell you the truth, not just what you want to hear. They believe in a better America, a united America, where the representatives in Washington work together to solve this country's problems. We can defeat terrorists and make America safer, but not through fear that divides us, but through our values that unites us. We can win by taking the high road, the American road. Because we are better than Guantanamo.
Yada, yada, yada.

[ Parent ]