Instant Analysis: Reasons Why Clinton Won


MSNBC has just called New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton. Thinking out loud on why the polls were so, so wrong. Ideas welcome in the comments.

(1) Independents, who could vote in either the Democratic or Republican race, assumed that Obama had it wrapped up and turned to McCain in order to push him over the top.

(2) The voters in New Hampshire resented the picture the media was painting: Obama is king and New Hampshire is declaring the Clinton hegemony over American politics finished. Wait just a second, said the voters. Let’s keep this debate going.

(3) Clinton cried. Edwards slammed her for it. The media questioned if she showed too much weakness, intimating that a woman couldn’t cry and be taken seriously for high office. Women, who turned out hugely for Clinton in this race, turned to Clinton in the last few days. I actually think Obama got the same percentage of women as he did in Iowa, meaning a large number of women voters who went for Edwards in Iowa turned to Clinton.

(4) Edwards and Obama teamed up on her in the Democratic debate Saturday night. Voters, particularly those women who I just mentioned, didn’t like that. Motivations in (3) and (4) are tied together, obviously.

(4) The strategy of answering questions showed voters the depth of her knowledge.

(5) There is a well-known effect that hits black politicians. They tend to do better in polling than they do when voters actually head into private polling booths. You can guess why. This effect doesn’t occur in a caucus, because participating in a caucus requires voters to stand up for who they want in a public setting. There is social pressure. (I can’t for the life of me remember the name of this effect. Anyone want to remind me in the comments?)

(6) All of the above.

I’m going with (6). And by the way, all this was incredibly premature.

A big victory for Clinton tonight. Nevada is up next. The political powerhouse in Nevada, UNITE-HERE Culinary Workers Union Local 226, was set to endorse Obama tomorrow, which many believed would basically hand him the state’s primary on January 19th. Now we’ll have to wait to see what happens.

Update: Thanks to our readers who IDed (6) as the Wilder/Bradley effect. Here’s evidence that was not in play.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.