More than one diarist on Daily Kos is asking why Hillary Clinton captured the most votes in NH. After reading newspapers, online radio reports, and even some right-wing websites (I've showered), only one reason stands above the rest
Voter turn-out. Period.
A record number of voters went to the polls in NH, roughly a half-million, 280,000 of whom were Democrats. That's 48% of registered voters in NH.
NH is a sloppy open primary wherein Indies can vote in either party's primary. (Something I find abhorrent and apparently so do NH Dems.) Fortunately for the Clinton campaign more Democrats and women voted than did any other sub-group -- youth, new voters, or Indies -- in the Democratic primary.
Of all the voters in NH only 18% are "youth" or under 30s. Their impact was minimal, as were "new" voters who enjoyed only a slight rise in numbers from 2004. Surprisingly, to me and probably a few readers here, apparently most voters had made up their minds well before Tuesday, which could explain why Obama did not enjoy a victory "bounce" from Iowa.
And most of the voters in the NH Democratic primary were Dems and women.
The impact of Indies was more important in both party's primaries, than youth or new voters. They broke mostly for Obama and McCain, which is very odd considering exit pollsters determined that NH voters regard Obama as more liberal and Clinton more moderate. One is led to conclude that either Indies are more liberal than Dems, or more Indies won't vote for a woman.
Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed Mr. Obama particularly strong among male voters, young people and independents.
--snip--
Mrs. Clinton got 45 percent of the registered Democrats, and Mr. Obama got a third of undeclared voters. NYT
That means two-thirds of the undeclared, or independent vote was split between Clinton and the rest of the field.
Which explains the results in Hillsborough, where Indies are 52% of the electorate, Obama captured only 414 votes to Clinton's 401 and Edwards' 211. Indies obviously don't overwhelmingly support Obama. There goes another slick pundit assertion.
A we've learned, Dems and women provided the most votes in the Dem primary. They supported Clinton. She also won the less educated and the poor voters who feel she identifies with them and their problems more than Obama who won the affluent vote. An odd occurrence if we are to believe the standard mantra that the more affluent tend conservative.
Another interesting contradiction:
As for the qualities that Democratic voters were looking for in their candidate, 56 percent said that "change" — Barack Obama's signature issue — was most important to them. Only 18 said that "experience" — Clinton's potential trump card — was most important.
Well, well, punditry. Maybe someone's got the definitions screwy. The Clinton "experience" label trumped the Obama "change" label, probably because women feel a woman president is a hell of a bigger change than another man president.
To repeat -- Dems and women prefer Clinton. Dems and women are the bulk of voters in Dem primaries. In states with closed primaries -- no Indies and other party voters allowed -- Dems and women will decide the nominee.
One last thing, pundits, regarding the "realness" vs. the "politicalness" of the candidates. Clinton
also beat Obama 2 to 1 among voters who said they were looking for a candidate "who cares about people like me."
That's what I learned from analyzing the NH vote.
But I wouldn't call the state either a win for Clinton of a loss for Obama since both candidates walked away with 9 pledged delegates. A look at the vote indicates it was a tie. A look at the super delegate totals may tell a different story. One that favors Clinton who, for example, currently has 7 gubernatorial endorsements to Obama's 4.
A governor's endorsement is coveted since a state's top executive can provide ground troops and political donors needed to win the presidency.
--snip--
"As soon as things start to shake out...you'll see more people jumping on board," [Larry] Harris [Mason-Dixon public opinion expert] said.
It appears that those who described Obama as having triggered a political "earthquake" in Iowa, didn't anticipate that the aftershock would be Hillary Clinton.