Hillary HAD to win New Hampshire!

Think about it if she hadn't? That would have effectively ended her candidacy. It would have been mighty hard for her to contest NV and SC and win...which in turn would have presented her as a loser for the Super Tuesday states. Plus the Clinton Legacy would have been dealt a hard blow.

The premature announcement of Hillary's demise (not just in reference to NH but of the entire campaign) did not escape the women of New Hampshire. Nor did it escape the Media. The tears, the "Iron my Shirt", and the big expectations for Obama were needed in order for Hillary to win, and even in winning by just a few points, it was made to appear that she had won big. Even a small loss for Hillary would have spelled doom for the Clinton, aka, the Status quo.

The sad part is that Obama needed that win pretty badly himself in order to come out the winner. But because he's had a really strong one in the bag already, he could survive.

So now, it will be more difficult for Obama to win, but he could still pull it off. He needs to come out swinging though. He lost the state by very few points......and so he has 1 win, and 1 close 2nd place. Its obviously going to be spinned as a bigger loss than what it really was. So the Obama camp has to emphasize that the loss was by a small margin, and that Hillary had been ahead for most of the year till after Iowa. We will have to see how the press deals with Obama and Hillary starting tomorrow.

Super Tuesday will be based on how they, the media, play up or down each candidate, and how each of the candidates perform in the next 2 primaries prior to the big Sooper Tuesday. Obama can't be ignored because he has accomplished more than the media or the Clintons ever dreamed he could. I doubt that they bring Edwards into the Fray, as they may choose to concentrate on Richardson instead. You know the media; three is company, four is unheard of.

Winning Nevada will either solidify Hillary as being the "inevitable front-runner" once again, or it might give Obama leverage for Super Tuesday. Richardson is the wild card, but he takes away from Hillary...so don't be surprised if he drops out. Right now, Hillary has a decent advantage in NV...but the Union endorsements, if they materialize for Obama will help. The fact that this is a caucus may also help. Also depends on what kind of ground game Obama has there. Hillary has the establishment (Reid's son, etc...)and could have most of the Hispanic vote, if it weren't for Richardson.

I think that Obama needs both Nevada and SC in order to be well placed for Super Tuesday. If he loses Nevada, South Carolina becomes more of a challenge for him, but not impossible. Hillary only needs Nevada. She can afford to lose SC....although she would prefer not to, but I don't see how she wins outright, especially with Edwards still in the race.....but you never know.

The media might play hardball with Obama and Hillary now, since Hillary and Bill demanded that Obama be "vetted". However, the media doesn't like to be told how to do its job, and so Hillary is about to be taken through the ringer right along with Obama. Richardson will be treated very kindly, and Edwards will continue to be ignored....but talked about enough so that he is still viable for SC.

Elementary to all of us, Super Tuesday will be based on what the media does from this point on in publicizing the candidates, and how each of the candidates perform in the 2 primaries prior to the big day.

Also, states with closed primaries will make a difference, where independents can't participate and skew the results.

The part where I state that if Obama would have won both Iowa and NH, Clinton would be done, or what?

Obama would have started winning even harder core Democrats, if he had both IA and NH in the bag. Independents would have been more of a bonus....so open/closed Super Primaries states wouldn't have necessarily counted as much. Now, sure, that becomes a factor too. But don't get carried away with thinking that Hillary has straight Dems all locked up forever.

is gonna bail before Super Tuesday, you're high. That's where the rubber starts meeting the road.

These contests are good for media hype and a point or three, but that's all. They aren't determinative. And they aren't winner take all. The difference in delegates between the first place and second place winner is what, one?

a la Kerry? Kerry won just about every primary. Remember? And the media decided that he needed only one opponent....

I believe that Hillary had to win NH. That was the point of my op.

the only serious contender. There are THREE top tier candidates in this race, still. And there would have been no matter who won.

This certainly helped her, but it wouldn't have killed her to come in second--unless it was a ten or twenty point blowout.

It ain't the same, your Kerry analogy. Kerry was a SHOCK in IA--everyone expected Dean to get those orange hat kids out there to rally the forces, even though the polls said otherwise (the cell phone excuse was trotted out--those polls LIE--they don't call the hippiekids with the cell phones!!!). And Kerry was EXPECTED to take NH--it's next door to MA, they share the same media market, and Kerry was a known quantity--the Gephardt effect, if you will.

Super Tuesday is the decision point.

He really has no more experience. Dean was beginning to implode before IA and VT is a neighboring state of MA as well.

In fact, Edwards is, in some way, this year's Dean, the angry anti-establishment candidate - even though that image didn't match their moderate/conservative record. Obama is this year's Edwards, with far better positions. HRC has far more party and media power behind her than Kerry ever did - but she doesn't have Kerry's class or strength and never will. Kerry did a far better job in his primaries after the field narrowed than Clinton did, he USED his experience, rather than stating that he had it.

He earned his top tier status by being the second banana on a national ticket. He's not 'just' a former senator, he's a former Democratic VP nominee.

VT is a neighboring state of the less populated WESTERN MA. It's a distinction AND a difference. People from Boston and the densely populated suburbs don't run up to VT regularly, but they DO make the trip to tax-free NH on a regular basis.

VT does not share the Boston media market--NH does. You can get the signal with an antennae on top of your house if you live in southern NH.

That "class" comment, is a bit childish, really. Clinton has plenty of "class." She may not speak like a Brahmin, but that's no indicator of "class." Bush Senior had that blue-blood 'class' thing working, and he was a no-class bum.

We really don't vote for Presidents based on their "class" anyway. We wouldn't have elected L'il Bush if that were the case, to say nothing of homeboys like Carter and Bill Clinton, who had plenty of class where it counted, but weren't considered "classy" guys by people who think 'class' has to do with money and position. Or is 'class and strength' a euphemism for 'male?' She'll never be a man, despite people insisting that she's too cold on the one hand, but then, how dare she use her feminine wiles? She can't win with the sexist voter, same way Obama can't win with the racist voters.

I really can't understand how you can talk about how well Kerry did in his 'primaries' compared to Clinton--there's only been ONE primary and one caucus so far.

I think we need to wait until Super Tuesday at least before we start ringing any bells for ANYONE.

It was about the extremely nasty campaigning that HRC and BC did over the last several months. It is most certainly not because he is male - I would love to vote for a woman for President.

I know there have been only two states through their primary process - HRC has lost one badly and has had a narrow win in the second after being pushed as the inevitable nominee by the party and media for over 2 years. Even if she wins the rest - objectively, she has had a harder time than Kerry did in 2004.

Edwards has some pluses from 2004, but also some negatives. He is no longer seen as the fresh exciting candidate and he really did not do all that well as VP. I expected that he would be great in the VP debate - and he wasn't. His experience in government is the same. Kerry had Dean, Clark and Edwards against him in 2004. Clinton has Obama, Edwards, and Richardson. The difference was that Kerry came in with the win from Iowa and then gained the lead in NH; HRC was ahead in NH before Iowa and managed to eke out a win.

I am not arguing that Dean, Clark and Edwards were better than Obama, Edwards and Richardson - you are arguing the opposite and I simply disagree.

"Extremely nasty campaigning" is what happened to Kerry in the last election, and to McCain in SC. The Clinton campaign hasn't gotten down in that mud, and neither has the Obama campaign, for that matter.

If you want to know what got out the vote for Clinton, it was the "Fuck her, she's a dame" crowd, along with the "She's toast!!! Ha ha ha!!" bunch. Older women got off their asses and voted, because they resented that crap. That's what put her over the top--more than a few "less likely" voters who took the crap tossed at her by pundits and the media a bit personally. And the college kids just didn't turn out for Obama.

Obama's NH ads SUCKED, too. They were HORRIBLE. They were a series of monotone speeches in that loud, 'speechifying' voice, reciting generalizations and platitudes to the roar of the crowd. They were IRRITATING. Clinton ran two great ads, both quiet, no crowds, directly communicating with the voter.

Clark didn't have a chance in hell of winning the nom. He was a character, but not really a player. There are people here who are fans of the guy, and yes, he's a fine fellow, but he wasn't a real contender. Couldn't debate to save his ass, and didn't do a good job handling the media, either.

I'm not arguing that Dean, Clark and Ewards were "better" at all. I don't know where you get that. The situation on the ground IS different in this election, though. It's a different dynamic where candidate strength was perceived as fairly evenly divided, with a slight advantage accorded to Clinton for name recognition/national profile.

FWIW, Clinton's second place finish in IA makes a difference of a delegate or two at the convention. These contests that aren't 'winner take all' are only psychological losses. NH is the same deal--it's a psychological "win" and what makes it powerful is that "conventional wisdom" and all the blabbermouths on television and radio had already dug her grave and inscribed the tombstone. It's not the percentage, it's the fact that she won at all after getting crapped on by the "experts."

Edwards is the guy who needs a miracle next. If he can't pull out a win in the next primary, he probably needs to endorse someone and go home.

I said you implied the opposite.

The surprising thing - that no one would have said 2 months ago - is that as you say, "The situation on the ground IS different in this election, though. It's a different dynamic where candidate strength was perceived as fairly evenly divided, with a slight advantage accorded to Clinton for name recognition/national profile." Given her party and media support and the fact that she has been spoken of as a possible future President since 1993, HRC should have been more dominant against 2 relatively inexperienced candidates.

I do think you have a point that the cockiness of the "HRC's out of it crowd" was uncalled for. I also think that the ferocity of Edwards' attacks likely helped HRC - especially as the reaction was that Obama and Edwards attacking. Obama, of course, did attack but definately not more than HRC attacked him. I did not see the ads used in NH.

I do understand that the differences in where they came out does not make a huge difference in delegates. The difference was in public perception and "momentum". It is also strange that the small difference in NH is being seen to make a huge difference.

I realize looking over my responses that I over reacted, because I saw your comment as belittling Kerry's achievement in 2004. In reality, it didn't - it belittled everyone else running that year. I apologize for the tone.

We didn't have three "major players" pretty much out of the gate--the former Senator who was number two on the last Dem ticket, the former First Lady-Senator; and the Senator "Rock Star." The field in 04 was different--Dean was sucking all the air out of the room until Iowa, when he imploded, and then it was pretty much Kerry all the way. This race is different--we have three heavyweights, none of whom have made a major misstep yet.

HRC has to overcome 'high negatives' that are right out of Rove Central. I am no longer surprised when I see that rightwing shit here--some people are simply parrots, and they'll even parrot the Republicans if it means trashing an opponent to their particular favorite. And then, there's the gender bias, too--that is an issue for her, and it's not just coming from men. I've spoken to two idiots in recent weeks, female idiots, who said they believed that a woman could not or should not be President because it was a MAN'S job.

It's not done yet. Edwards has an uphill climb, but if he pulls out a miracle in Carolina (and it may take one) then we'd be off to the races....again. Even if he stumbled but managed a miracle on Super Tuesday it wouldn't be over yet....

after NH. Had Edwards been a stronger candidate or Kerry a weaker one, The first multistate day with MO, SC, OK, NM, AZ, DE and ND would have been like a rerun of Clinton 1992. Winning both Iowa and NH, would have been written off as Iowa's caucus's going to someone with a good organization and NH, as his neighboring state. The media never had the gushing stories about Kerry that they had for Dean, Edwards or even (when he first entered - Clark). He did get positive coverage for winning primaries.

I agree with the op. The thing that is strange is that NH was relatively close and I think you are right - it mattered who won, if only by 2% or so. It's psychological. The NYT editorial's first point is that the election hasn't been decided yet. Another factor may be whether the nasty side of both Clintons shown this week will matter.

But I think it will ebb between now and SC and NV and those races will be close with a likely split. She's a lot like Kerry. She can show moments of humanity, but her natural posture is more of a wonk which sometimes puts voters to sleep. That's her comfort zone and she'll revert back to it. Count on it. Now, how much that helps Obama and Edwards remains to be seen.

nor did the Hillary "Tear" video run with the next frame where she talks about her opponents in that tough vindictive manner. The media did her a favor, and she knows it. New Hampshire doesn't like to be told who they are supposed to vote for and who has won, and whose campaign has just collapsed one day before the vote. Everyone should have known that! :shrug:

I agree, Clinton needs Nevada.

I could see her offering some sort of deal to Richardson to drop out--she needs those Hispanic votes--but I don't see him accepting it. He seems to be hanging in there in the hopes that one of the front runners stumble. I also think he is serious about and personally committed ending the war and none of the front runners come close to his position. He'll want to hang in at least until after Nevada where he has a natural base among Hispanics and the very independent westerners. I expect to see Bill R. in cowboy boots riding his horse and taking questions in Spanish quite often in the next couple of days as he pulls on cultural bonds with his natural consistency.

If Richardson can't finish in the top three here he won't make it anywhere--except New Mexico, of course.

Worst case scenario for Obama is that Hillary comes in first, and Richardson second...although Caucus helps Obama especially with those endorsements (if he still has them when he wakes up). That pretty bring him to SC limping.

We'll have to see if enough who have seen Obama speaking in the last few days liked his message. Nevada, which is not into retail politics, is not going to ask for specifics in terms of policy except for in the debate. Caucus goers have a good GE electable argument for Barack by the fact that it is now a tested fact that he attracts Independents and Repugs to the Dem side moreso than Hillary. Also, we have to remember that Nevada is a bit more conservative, and it is possible that this will also help Barack....since it appears that Hillary is "perceived" as more liberal to that crowd (I think).

He won't admit it, but that's what I see.

Vilsack is off the short list, having not been able to deliver IA...

We may have a situation where non-viable Richardson and Edwards precincts go to Obama. Even more so since Edwards is going after Hillary.

I don't think she can carry a caucus on name I.D. among Latino voters alone. I'd also point out that Las Vegas has become urban. Whoever wins the Nevada unions and can build a lead in Las Vegas will probably win.

Somehow came away with the most delegates, by a country mile, after a supposedly third-place finish. I believe that she could have done the same thing in NH. Her victory seems preordained.