Where Clinton won
The NYTimes has a great graphic looking at the exit polling and voting tendencies. (Seriously, take a look.)
The BBC offers a nice compact look at where/how Clinton won.
That helps explain it a bit. The next question is why the polling was so inaccurate across the board. Were the pollsters influenced by Obama's Iowa to change their modeling?
The BBC offers a nice compact look at where/how Clinton won.
(Women) backed her by 46%, compared to 34% who supported Barack Obama, according to a CNN exit poll.
Mr Obama ran more strongly among men, winning 40% of their vote, compared to 29% to Mrs Clinton.
But Mrs Clinton got out her vote, with women making up 57% of Democratic voters, the poll suggested.....
Her lead among self-identified Democrats was by 45% to 34%, while Mr Obama was ahead with independents by 41% to 34%.
Mrs Clinton was also ahead among voters who had a union member in the family, by 40% to 31%.
And she ran strongly among voters in households earning under $50,000 (£25,000), by 47% to 32%, and voters without a college degree, by 43% to 35%. ....
And among those whose cited the economy as the key issue, Mrs Clinton led by 44% to 35% to Mr Obama.
That helps explain it a bit. The next question is why the polling was so inaccurate across the board. Were the pollsters influenced by Obama's Iowa to change their modeling?
6 Comments:
New Hampshire Democrats are establishment Democrats. Clinton is the establishment candidate. Ergo...
Not a bad thing. Just an observations.
A little tid-bit on the gender thing. A local public radio commentator/observer (Robin Young, WBUR) commented that she perceived a chauvinistic delight in Clinton's IA defeat and her chocking-up moment. She says she detected a real resentment to this among woman-on-the-street. She postulates that this chauvinistic (misogynistic?) current helped to rally women around Hillary.
By -epm, at 9:05 AM
So the tears worked?
By Anonymous, at 10:36 AM
EPM, that's interesting.
Anon, I think so. See EPM's observation. I think that perceptive difference is key.
By mikevotes, at 10:56 AM
I'd say the bombastic ridicule of Clinton's sincere emotion, to use your word, "worked." But, I think there was a broader, underground, personal reaction to the increasingly unvarnished misogyny expressed toward Clinton, particularly in the post IA "dialog" (and I use the term loosely).
However, I don't know if this really affected the NH results. NH has traditionally gone for the establishment candidate: Dukakis (Mass. Gov), Sen. Paul Tsongas (Mass. Sen.), Al Gore (VP) and John Kerry (Mass Sen.). There's nothing in NH historic Democratic results that should buoy the hopes of maverick, new wave, candidates.
By -epm, at 11:02 AM
Again, I think you're right, and logically, I would think it did have some effect. That's one of those things they don't/can't measure.
(And I loved Tsongas.)
By mikevotes, at 11:24 AM
Yeah. He was a class act. But, as with Dodd, just didn't have that snap. And the Tsongas/Clinton match up? Like Elmer Fudd meets Foghorn Leghorn. (lol)
His widow, Niki, is now a US Rep., having recently won a special election for Marty Meehan's vacant seat.
By -epm, at 11:37 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home