VideoNEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2008
Why Clinton Won
Women, Labor Households And Low-Income Voters Bring N.Y. Senator N.H. Victory
-
Photo
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., poses with supporters at a rally in Nashua, N.H., Sunday, Jan. 6, 2008. (AP)
-
Photo Essay
Agony And Ecstasy
Clinton, McCain celebrate victory; the others taste defeat
-
In-Depth
2008 Presidential Hopefuls
Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
Hillary Clinton defied all expectations on Tuesday, winning the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. Despite predictions that Barack Obama was coasting to a strong victory in the state, Clinton held her own among late deciders, beating back the Obama surge and winning courtesy of a significant Granite State gender gap and support from other traditional wings of the Democratic Party.
The Coalitions
New Hampshire women went big for Clinton, supporting her 46 percent to 34 percent for Obama. And as 57 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, women were enough to make the difference. Among men, Obama turned the tables, beating Clinton 40 percent to 29 percent. In third place, John Edwards received 19 percent of the male vote and 15 percent of women's votes.
Clinton pulled together a traditional coalition of Democratic voters for this victory - labor households, voters with relatively low incomes and education, and, of course, women.
Union households, which make up one-fifth of the New Hampshire Democratic primary electorate, voted for Clinton 40 percent to 31 percent for Obama. Among voters with household incomes less than $50,000 a year, Clinton beat Obama by 15 points, and by 18 points among those with no more than a high school diploma.
Similarly, Clinton won the votes of self-described Democrats in this open party primary state. Among those who typically consider themselves Democrats she won 45 percent of the vote to 34 percent for Obama.
For Obama, the generation of new and young voters that propelled him to victory in the Iowa caucuses last week was not there in New Hampshire. While Obama won nearly half of voters who had never voted in a primary election before, these voters made up only 19 percent of the primary electorate.
And while Obama beat Clinton by 60 percent to 22 percent among the youngest voters - those 18 to 24 years old - his advantage among other voters under 40 was much slimmer than seen in Iowa.
Obama did win the independent vote in New Hampshire. He beat Clinton among those considering themselves independents by 10 points - 41 to 31 percent. The rest of Obama's support base in New Hampshire came from the more elite elements of the Democratic electorate. He won the vote of those in households making more than $100,000 a year 41 percent to 36 percent for Clinton. And he won voters with advanced educational degrees by 12 points.
Clinton stemmed the Obama tide in the last three days of the campaign in New Hampshire. While Clinton trailed by 15 points among voters who decided their vote sometime last week, she split the late-breaking vote with Obama- 36 percent and 37 percent respectively.
The Issues
Voters in the primary election were looking for a candidate with whom they agreed on the issues, rather than a candidate whose personal qualities appealed to them. This was likely a key to the Clinton victory.
Economic worry was high among Democratic voters. The top issue for primary voters was the economy, and among the 38 percent who chose it as the most important issue, Clinton beat Obama 44 to 35 percent. Fifty-eight percent said they were "very worried" about the direction of the economy in the next few years. And among the third of voters who said the economy is currently in "poor" shape, Clinton won by 13 points.
Voters most concerned with the war in Iraq - the second most important issue at 31 percent - preferred Obama by 9 points: 44 percent to 35 percent for Clinton. The candidates split voters most concerned with health care, who made up 27 percent of voters.
The Candidates
Voters in New Hampshire believed that Clinton was the candidate most qualified to be commander-in-chief, and that she would be the strongest leader. Voters were more likely to see Clinton as the strongest leader over Obama by 38 percent to 35 percent. And 38 percent said Clinton was the most qualified to be commander-in-chief, compared to only 26 percent who felt that way about Obama.
At the same time, Obama was the candidate primary voters believe was most likely to take them to the White House in November. Forty-four percent of primary voters said Obama would be most likely to beat the Republican nominee in November, compared to 35 percent who said Clinton would. They also felt he was the candidate most likely to unite the country if elected.
On honesty and trustworthiness, voters were divided. Thirty percent said Obama was the most honest and trustworthy, while 27 percent said Clinton was. On this measure, Edwards turned in his strongest performance - 21 percent of primary voters felt he was the most honest.
A majority - 54 percent - said they were looking for a candidate who could bring needed change to the country, and these voters went 55 percent for Obama. But in a race where issues rather than leadership dominated the voters' choices, this characteristic clearly was not enough.
The Shadow
While Clinton may have beaten the other current Democratic candidates, the exit poll shows she would not have beaten her own husband. When asked to choose between their candidate and Bill Clinton - were he allowed to run for a third term - 56 percent of Hillary's supporters chose Bill.
Poll results are based on a National Election Pool exit poll conducted by Edison Media Research. Interviews were conducted with 1,955 Republican primary voters as they entered polling stations around the state. The margin of error for the poll is + 2 percentage points.
Monika L. McDermott is assistant professor of political science at the University of Connecticut, where she teaches and conducts research on voting behavior and public opinion. Before joining the University of Connecticut, McDermott worked in election polling for CBS News and the Los Angeles Times. She holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
What Was Palin Thinking?
-
Photos
Robert McNamara: 1916-2009
-
Video
Palin's Future in Question
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 198 CommentsWe''re doomed.
I hope she doesn''t get the nomination, we don''t need another 4 years of Bush CLinton, plus she is unelectable in the general election.
Isn''t that the bread and butter of New Hampshire? Word from their local papers is that they just voted for Hillary because they want to make sure Obama can go the distance and the best way to make sure is by unleashing the Wildebeast that is Hillary onto him. If she tears him to shreds then worst-case scenario, we stick with her. But Barack''s the ppl''s choice.
Women did NOT fall for the tears - I don''t care what level of education or income bracket you come from - women don''t vote based on sympathy. We just don''t!
"Conservative with a budget, liberal with a meal - Just your average ideal" as sung in Pippin.
We are in for a treat!
Posted by puturomeo
You what''s the saddest part about Clinton is that she makes the CLAIM that she''s more realistic about issues and ppl buy it - Obama''s got a very detailed economic plan laid out on his webpage and Hillary doesn''t have one laid out at all.
Like she''s playing on the fact that the majority of ppl will buy into the idea that somebody who''s older, more famous, more well-connected, and more confident must naturally have more to offer - AND that the VAST majority aren''t going to actually study the details at length and analyze them for viability, inconsistency, and likely consequences.
I don''t care whether somebody''s young or old, rich or poor, black or white, a man or a woman, but I really don''t like ppl who lie and stretch the truth.
All the candidates lie and stretch the truth. They all will do and say whatever they need to, to win.
Posted by erasmus6
That''s like equating a jay-walker to a child molester because they''re both lawbreakers . . . you might see lying in terms of black and white, but I think most people tend to judge in terms of degree.
Obama 08
Obama 08"
Posted by Buddhabman
That whole ''Comeback Kid'' charm that Clinton I guess showed sounds like it was kind of an underdog romance. Hillary in this day and age comes across more like the black goo in Spiderman 3 that coated the city which was powerful but ultimately toxic and sinister and therefore had to be banished.
NH gave Hillary a gift to make sure Barack would be able to withstand the football game to come against the Republicans, but I actually think ppl are going to cheer when Hillary starts pounding on Barack and he prevails.
Women are cautious but we saw through the tears - we''re rooting for you Barack!
Hillary''s silent on all of these points - as of now. Of course, if ppl start to respond she''ll likely steal these ideas and try to pass them as her own like she did with the ''Change'' slogan. The only idea of hers that even comes close to Barack''s is this one:
"Protecting children against violence and sexual content in the media and studying the impact of electronic media on children''s cognitive, social, and physical development."
She''s very top-down with her management, so I''m not sure doing yet another study which has already been done is really going to keep inner city kids from joining gangs, but I don''t know...
Posted by nola2008
The problem is that Billary antagonizes the right. A vote for Hillary in 2008 (assuming she''d even win) all but guarantees us Jeb Bush by 2012. Because Hillary''s expecting lightning to strike twice with another internet boom, which isn''t likely to happen.
That''s her only plan for the economy. Obama is planning on offering mentorships to at-risk youth in the area of green construction, and is committed to making reform a greater possibility of ex-offenders. He also wants to inject funds into after-school programs, and increase child-care tax credits, and take on the problem of rising youth violence.
Those without healthcare in the lowest income brackets will get coverage under his plan. And unlike Hillary, he hasn''t taken money from financial institutions (not 100% sure about that) which has freed him to take on the predatory credit card industry and those pay-day loan type institutions). He''s also going to raise the minimum wage, and give futher tax credits so ppl can earn a living wage.
"Increasing access to high-quality early education and helping to create Early Head Start."
Those were some great accomplishments and any Democrat who makes it back to the White House will reinstitute the economic policies that resulted in those balanced budgets and listen to the Generals who so successfully conducted that war.
There were notable failures also. The only thing he gave Hillary to do (which was a naive mistake to give her to do) was to deliver on his signature campaign promise of healthcare reform. She failed miserably. She now calls that experience.
The pilfering of FBI files of political opponents was an egregious violation of personal freedoms and a trampling on the Constitution which forshadowed what we''ve seen from the Bush Administration.
Clinton''s own staff admits the first 2 years were a failure which resulted in the Republican takeover of Congress. That lead to 12 years of relative Congressional inaction. There''s no Newt Gingrich to shut down the government and be their foil this time.
Independents and dissaffected Republicans will never vote for her which will give someone like McCain the only realistic shot the Republicans have. She and her husband represent the politics of division and her current campaign tactics of attacking and dividing shows that the leopard hasn''t changed its spots.
Look at the head-to-head polls; even Huckabee beats her in a direct matchup.
The fix is in.
Posted by metroduck75
That''s what the pundits on MSNBC are speculating was the reason huge turnout amongst women - that a lot of them saw all the headlines talking about Hillary being in a tailspin and in death-throws, the crying, ppl being ''mean'' to her on blogs, and the men ''ganging up on her'' at the debates, etc and galvanized around her to ''protect'' her.
When you look at who turned out - women over 65, women who don''t have jobs - her base does seem to be mostly women who feel ''victimized'' and disrespected by men and feel like seeing a woman become President would be ''empowering''.
I don''t think it was racial because more men voted for Obama and Edwards than Hillary. If there was a problem with racism wouldn''t you expect men to have voted more for Edwards?
It really troubles me how Hillary''s polarizing the votes into women and men . . .
Posted by adiant
Actually they were talking more about the race factor on MSNBC, and I didn''t realize there was like this big history of polls only being off when it comes to African American and KKK candidates with African Americans doing double-digits better in polls than in reality and KKK candidates doing worse in polls than they do in reality.
Maybe the effect isn''t as bad as in the past and only accounts for part of the reason for the loss, but gosh that''s just really sad to hear. Obama''s a solid candidate, so I do believe that ultimately he will be able to prevail over Hillary. There is an age difference there so I guess he''ll just have to put up with Hillary''s vicious pit-bull machine and earn his chops. Some victim - heh . . .
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=REPUBLICANS
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
You can see clearly by looking at the column in red how much the electronic voting machines gave or took away from a candidate. Ron Paul lost 2%+, whereas Giuliani got a 0.5% boost, stealing 4th from Ron Paul. You can also see that Mitt Romney really didn''t have 31%, but something closer to 25%, a throw of 6% in his favor.
If you''re skeptical that these numbers are indeed meaningful, just look at the Democratic field using the link. No statistical difference except for 2 candidates: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton got a 5-point boost from the machines, whereas Obama got a 2-point drop.
These are serious deviations and when considered alongside the polls taken prior to the primary and then the exit polls afterwards, there is obviously something suspicious going on.
Report on this as you see fit, but please just report on it.
Thank you,
Salvador Campos
The fix is in.
Posted by bobacorn at 06:26 AM : Jan 09, 2008
+ report abuse
Duh!! I don''t think they use those machines but the Democrats have never been accused of doing such things. Let''s not confuse REAL Republican''s and Democrats with Southern Fascist... sieg heil bush!
Posted by truthspeake2 at 07:20 AM : Jan 09, 2008
+ report abuse
You know this how? That certainly isn''t what the folks of NH said as they were leaving. Maybe you can enlighten us on who you have connections with here.... I sure hope it isn''t the same connection the present piece of trash President has. Sieg Heil Bush!
It should be possible to capture and model this using polls, but different kinds of questions and poll result treatment may be necessary.
May be a topic for graduate research.
You have to hand it to Hillary...whatever works.
In this race Independents had to choose between Obama and McCain. Pragmatists that they are, they wanted to keep McCain viable, both because they like his style and bi-partisan appeal, and so that the greater threat to Obama--Romney--would be weakened. Romney''s platform is a virtual carbon copy of the current administration, which has been a disaster--particulaly in the area of Constitutional protections, which is a priority issue for them. Although he tried to camouflage it because of the large Independent block of voters in New Hampshire, Romney''s appeal is to the hard core Republicans. That may win him the nomination, but it will never win him the White House, now that polls show that a large majority of voters consider themselves Independent or Democratic. New Hampshire Independents hedged their bets. They knew that a second place finish would slow Obama down, but wouldn''t eliminate him. But if McCain lost, Romney might be unstoppable. Voting for McCain would insure that there would be a candidate in one party they could vote FOR in November, rather than being stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils. They didn''t want to have to choose between Clinton and Romney.
Kudos to the Granite State Independents.
Posted by flreason at 07:53 AM : Jan 09, 2008
I agree with your post, as far as it goes, but you only adress half of the equation here.
What you fail to mention was that nearly 2/3 of the Dem women voted for Hillary.
With here and Bills "these bad men are picking on me" campaign approach, cupled with the alligator tears the day before the primary, the majority of the women voters lapped it up.
The Clintons are trying to turn the Democtrat''s race into a gender war. And they succeeded in doing so in New Hampshire.
Hillary tried and failed in Iowa appealing to logic and reason, so they''ve tried and succeeded employing emotion.
Because she is a women who fake cried.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 08:06 AM : Jan 09, 2008
JFK was reportedly the recipient of the Chicago mafia''s support, tuck.
That support was "turnout", not fraud.
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 08:00 AM : Jan 09, 2008
I think there''s some truth to your assertion, but I also think you have to factor in that Hillary spent a lot more time and effort in New Hampshire than her opponents, and that New Hampshire women Democrats also spent time with her in two other election cycles when her husband was campaigning. That, and her show of vulnerability, combined to help win them over. Not surprisingly, the men either felt her display of emotion showed that she''s not tough enough for the job, or felt it confirmed their image of her as a manipulative fake who would do whatever she had to do to win.
Posted by flreason at 08:11 AM : Jan 09, 2008
The latter is most certainly my impression.
Hillary has the support of working folks.
She defied the womens haters clubs and frustrated males who feel they have no voice.
Any one of the Democrats are looking better than anyone of the Republican candidates.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 08:13 AM : Jan 09, 2008
Is that the Imperial "we"? LOL!
Many women might feel that men shouldn''t have the right to vote or hold office because they are inherently selfish and have shown by their actions, as the overwhelming majority of those holding political office, that they are corrupt and without conscience.
I think it''s safe to say that men and women both need one another''s points of view represented to insure a balanced approach to governing.
She won because she cried and the women came out in force. Can you imagine what She would look like next to McCain. A POW vs a crying shedevil that plays the female card and has to have her hubbie come to her rescue. Have you ever herd Obama say he was black. Hillary says women this and women that. Who could ever vote for that.
Point being Obama will win, but now its just going to take a little longer.
The crying was an ACT.
It was PHONY and you all fell for it.
The Clintons are masters of deception!!!!!!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 198 Comments