Posted: January 9, 2008 12:12 AM
Obama Takes Second Place in N.H., Defying Pollsters
 Email This
In a stunning turn of events that defied poll predictions, Sen. Barack Obama, finished a close second to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in New Hampshire Tuesday night.
In a speech to supporters after most news media outlets called the race in favor of Clinton, Obama had a message of perseverance and did not concede defeat.
“A few weeks ago, no one imagined that we’d have accomplished what we did here tonight in New Hampshire,” Obama said. “We always knew our climb would be steep … with your voices and your votes you made it clear that is this moment and this election there is something happening in America.”
But the song Obama walked out to spoke volumes about what the campaign had hoped for — Stevie Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered.” Tuesday’s primary turned out to be none of the above. Going into Tuesday’s vote, Obama had little to complain about. He had momentum from Iowa behind him, the support of large enthusiastic crowds all across New Hampshire, and polls that put him with a solid lead over Sen. Clinton.
As Obama took the stage to make his speech Tuesday night, his supporters chanted his name
“We are ready to take this country in a fundamentally different direction … change is what’s happening in America,” Obama said, and the crowd responded with thundering chant of “we want change!”
The enthusiasm seen throughout New Hampshire fed the sense that momentum was with Obama Tuesday. And while the results were not expected, some, including Atlantic Monthly’s Andrew Sullivan, had warned that the euphoria of his campaign could not last.
“His job is to stay calm, cool and determined. And all of it is good training for the fall. What we’re seeing is if Obama can survive brutal attacks,” Sullivan wrote.
The importance of a what a New Hampshire win would have meant was summed up by Congressional Quarterly saying that “in competitive races over the past three and a half decades, every candidate who won both … went on to win this party’s nomination.”
Looking forward to upcoming primaries, the massive Culinary Workers Union in Las Vegas is set to endorse Obama Wednesday, reported the New York Times today. The union is a coveted supporter for the Nevada primaries and has 60,000 members.
That news is sure to be a hard hit for Clinton, but not nearly as crushing as it could have been had she lost New Hampshire. She has had a solid lead in the Western state.
-- By , NewsHour with Jim Lehrer | Comments | Link
|
Vote 2008 Subscriptions 
Just, whatever you do, please don't anybody declare a presumtive nominee for either party before "Super Tuesday" in February. It would be grossly unfair to the (vast majority of) voters who haven't had the chance to weigh in yet.
After watching The News Hour tonight, my husband and I, both New Hampshire undeclared voters, really felt that the discussion about misused polling data missed at least one key factor. New Hampshire voters, in my experience, make decisions for a variety of reasons, some of which have little to do with demographic profiling. I can say that in my case, I voted for John McCain because I felt that there was more to lose in the Republican race if a candidate that I couldnot feel confident in was given the state's endorsement. Personally, I feel that Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are strong and capable candidates who will respect their relationships with voters- respect their obligation to represent our multifarious masses, as does McCain- but I felt far more concerned about the possibilty that on the republican side, where there are strong candidates as well, someone that I really felt represented the antithesis of what out country needs now might succeed. Mitt Romney's performance in my state had more influence over my vote than any other candidate in the end. In my eyes his behavior on the debate stage and in the manner that he wished to market himself through ads, galvanized my decision. Romney has made it obvious that he is for sale; that he will speak with money rather than words, and will vascilate on issues out of politcal convenience. To my mind, our current geopolitical and domestic reponsibilities require leadership that will be able to think independently while listening and thinking carefully about their constituents. Romney's jingoistic and disingeuous tactics offer little to our current climate. The stakes are very high now. I do not want to take any chances and I do not think that I am the only voter here who made similar considerations in casting their votes.
In tonight's News Hour broadcast, the reporters and experts all gave their guesses as to why 9 opinion poles were all wrong in New Hampshire. Why did the predicted winner, Barack Obama, lose to Hillary Clinton? The fact that polling stopped two days before the primary election is probably a big part of the reason, but I was surprised that not one of those expert analysts mentioned another probable reason: race. Perhaps New Hampshire gives us the first hint of the disadvantage a black candidate will face when white voters mark their ballots in private. Most people don't like to be perceived as bigots, so they give respectable responses to questions from pollsters and reporters, but that doesn't mean they will be so open minded in a voting booth. This dark side of the secret ballot could not have showed up in Iowa, because Democrats in the caucuses voted openly by voice. Democrats need to carefully weigh this reality, because the general election is also a secret ballot.
On tonight�s broadcast you questioned �Why did nine polls get it completely wrong?� Now is the time to ask the larger question �Why do reporters pretend that polls results are truth?� You and other news organizations report polls as if they were concrete tabulations---that simply is not true. They take a sample of the population (sometimes as few as 100 people) and you interpret the results as indicative of the will of the entire population. What poppycock! With over 150,000 voters in last night�s primary, how could anyone guess how they would vote based on asking 100 people?
And when a pollster calls, he talks to a real person, who could be taking a shower. Or maybe they are fixing dinner, or maybe eating dinner. There is no verification of the person�s answer at all. And that person will change his or her mind over time--that�s what we do as people!! So poll results reported 5 days ago have zero correlation to the true election results. Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. Its all just artificial hype.
What I really want to ask you is: Why do you take time and energy to report these non-facts instead of reporting on the real issues of this campaign? Why aren�t you talking about the differences between Obama and Clinton�s positions on getting out of Iraq? Or their different economic recovery plans? Or the differences in their health plans? Why aren�t you doing any real reporting of the things that are important to this campaign?
Another reason why 9 opinion polls could have been wrong. Contrary to all the spin about the fact that Hillary did poorly in the ABC debates, I feel that many voters realized that she speaks truth and reality (not "status quo nor pie-in-the-sky hope)and she has the brains, fortitude, know-how and ability to deliver the change everyone seeks.