What the NH polling showed was that Clinton's 20+ point lead in generic polling when she was the only major candidate w/ high name recognition, dropped precipitously once Obama won in Iowa. Because Rasmussen et. al poll relatively small samples, asking different questions and weighing the sample universe differently, the results are all over the board, but what they do show with some degree of accuracy, is movement, otherwise known as momentum.
Obama's surge in NH after Iowa was a measurement of the media excitement kindled by his win, his likeability, newness, and probably the fact that finally the electorate had an acceptable alternative to Clinton, who is apparently not liked by more than 60% of the Democratic voters in NH and most other states--I stress unliked because she is a totally-known quantity, unlike any other candidate. In fact, Clinton should be looked at as the incumbent, not as just another wannabe, because this is how most primary voters view her, and thus her 40% or less showings in most states should be ringing major alarm bells as far as her electability is concerned [I think Ted Kennedy and John Kerry do get it].
Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the race in '68 after winning NH by a small margin to Gene Mc Carthy, because the incumbent correctly saw that vote as a rejection of his tenure as the head of his Party. The Clintons are the LBJ of the '08 race, running solely on their incumbency from 1992-00. It just has not dawned on them, or 40% of the Party, that America simply doesn't want more of them in this new century.
Kossacks will point out that Clinton will get 50% in several states on feb 5, but that is only because the choices have been narrowed to 2, and Obama is still unknown to many. But Obama will win states today, and will do well everywhere but perhaps Oklahoma, and I submit that even in 1968, LBJ would have won Texas big in the primary or even the General.
The story in NH was that Clinton lost 20 points to Obama on election day, a remarkable defeat that was trumpeted as a victory because David Axelrod does not know how to manage the media and Mark Penn does. But had Obama played down expectations, leaking his own internal polling that would have shown a much tighter race, he could have neutralized Clinton's slim victory in NH and perhaps turned more quickly to Nevada.
Either way, I see Obama's camp making the same mistakes now in the run up to Stupid Tuesday, probably out of a desire to make up ground against Clinton by pushing the viability to her inevitability card. It is a risky strategy, to willingly give up the insurgent's cloak to an incumbent with such high negatives.
The momentum has all been on Obama's side for a month. The REAL story of Stupid Tuesday is that Obama's campaign is on the rise as Clinton struggles to hold her dwindling base of support.
But don't believe me or everything you read in the papers, and certainly don't trust the polls or your lying eyes.
Comments are closed on this story.