After Obama won the Iowa Hampshire, many individuals thought he would face a similar victory in New Hampshire. In fact, the night before the New Hampshire primary, Obama had a 9 point lead over Clinton in New Hampshire. However, after the conclusion of the New Hampshire primary, Obama placed in 2nd place, 2% behind Hillary Clinton. One reason for this unexpected loss is that Clinton appealed to a greater number of voters in New Hampshire, especially women. Many of these women abandoned their support of Obama soon before the campaign in New Hampshire ended. Why did they do so? In addition, Obama gave another reason for his loss in New Hampshire, telling NPR, “well, you know, polls are notoriously unreliable, especially when you're seeing big turnouts like this.” This statement could be in response to claims of potential racism (individuals saying they would vote for him in the polls and actually did not) that could have caused Obama to loose in New Hampshire.
After Obama’s 2nd place finish in New Hampshire, Obama continues to campaign strongly and gain monetary support, as well as support from voters, for the upcoming primaries. In his concession speech after New Hampshire, Obama maintained an optimistic view; he kept reiterating the phrase: “Yes we can!”. As for the upcoming primaries, Obama flew off to New Jersey (with a February 5th primary) on Wednesday, a state that borders the claimed Hillary “territory” of New York. Obama asserted to an enthusiastic audience, "There's something in the wind all across America, “You first saw it in Iowa last Thursday and you saw it yesterday in New Hampshire, even though we just came up a little bit short." In addition to Obama’s constant call for change, Obama actually talked about the issues, highlighting why he wants to become president. Obama claimed he would deal with such issues as global warming, higher education costs, and foreign trade agreements. However, did he say specific ways he proposes to do this? In addition, he affirmed he would “end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home by the end of 2009.” In addition, with the January 19th Nevada primary approaching, the Culinary Workers Union of Nevada has endorsed Obama, which will greatly help him in Nevada. This organization, comprised of 60,000 workers in the Las Vegas casinos, “is a tremendously powerful force in state and local politics”. In addition, Obama’s campaign is running a new television ad “Moment” in Nevada, which contains excerpts from his greatly praised Jefferson-Jackson speech in Iowa. However, according to a recent poll, Clinton is leading in Nevada (8% above Obama). In addition, on January 26th, the South Carolina Primary will take place. Obama and Clinton are fiercely fighting for the African-American vote here, which is crucial for them to win the Democratic primary.
Moreover, John Kerry has endorsed Obama. This is a sharp stab at Edwards, who Kerry ran with for President. The implications of this endorsement will be very interesting to find out. However, because Kerry just recently endorsed Obama, we are not yet able to do so. In addition, one must wonder why Kerry has chosen to endorse Obama, and thus abandon Edwards. Did Obama’s win in Iowa and Obama’s great strength in continuing his campaign, even after a surprising loss in New Hampshire impress Kerry?
4 comments:
while he placed 2nd in new hampshire he only lost by a small margin while a few weeks earlier obama had been expected to lose by much more considerable numbers so in this case even a small loss is somewhat a victory. after these first two primaries it should be interesting to see who has swayed the others voters in terms of clinton and obama, if obama got some of the black and mid aged women vote and if clinton has taken any of the younger vote
Like Justin said, Obama's result in New Hampshire may not actually seem like such a loss in context. Indeed, the momentum used from his suprise win in Iowa is reminscient of McCarthy's result in the New Hampshire primary of 1968, which wasn't a win but "felt like a win at the time." Obama came in a close second, but more importantly, has shown to doubtful voters that he does in fact have the "electability" factor that it would take to defeat the Republican nominee.
Historically, it seems that Iowa has NOT a consistent impact on the winner of New Hampshire; therefore, it is not utterly surprising that Obama did not win. Although, for example, in 1976 and 1980 Jimmy Carter won in Iowa which helped him gain progress and win in New hampshire, contrary to that, George W. Bush won Iowa in 2000 against McCain, but McCain won in New Hampshire. Even though New Hampshire has been a decent predictor of the presidential candidate (12 out of 22), it will be interesting to see how that rolls out this year.
It seems that ever since Clinton broke the trend of New Hampshire determinining the president, each election shows less of a correlation between New Hampshire and the presidency. Because of this, Obama does not need to dwell on his loss in New Hampshire. While he still needs to be wary of Hillary and her campaign, just because he didn't win the New Hampshire primary, does not mean that he will lose the nomination. However, Obama cannot afford to fully disregard his loss in New Hampshire. If he keeps pulling in independent votes, then he has a chance at winning the nomination.
Also, like during the election of Bush Sr and Bush Jr, it is not clear that New Hampshire even listens to the Iowa Caucus. Because each state caters to very different kinds of voters, it is not apparent that the winning of both New Hampshire and Iowa help the candidates. It certainly didn't stop the Bush family. For this reason, either Obama or Clinton could win the nomination at this point.
Post a Comment