Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Glenn Reynolds argues that Jonah Goldberg's widely-linked prediction that an Obama loss in New Hampshire would "unhinge" certain segments of "American political life," by which he presumably meant the more conspiracy-inclined lefties, has come true, at least for an Andrew Sullivan reader and his friends:
Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton -- inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30's, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90's, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her 'victory' speech. We made a pact last that we all followed through on this morning -- logging on to BarackObama.com and donating $100 each to his campaign (this is the first time ANY of us has donated money to a campaign). Oh, and did I mention we're all New Yorkers?
So, there are a bunch of 30-something New Yorkers who are so enraged at whatever undifferentiated conspiracy deprived Obama of a victory in New Hampshire that they formed a pact to part with a tiny portion of their wine budget and give money to a political campaign for the first time. And to think people say that the Clintons make people cynical about politics.
Anyway, I am not sure that a room full of wine-sodden New Yorkers almost moved to throw their glass quite fulfills the Goldberg prophecy, but it is definitely hilarious.
MORE: Karl Rove noticed the wine thing, too:
The dirty secret is it is hard to accurately poll a primary. The unpredictability of who will turn out and what the mix of voters will be makes polling a primary election like reading chicken entrails -- ugly, smelly and not very enlightening. Our media culture endows polls -- especially exit polls -- with scientific precision they simply don't have.
But more interesting than dissecting the pollsters is dissecting the election returns, precinct by precinct. Sen. Hillary Clinton won working-class neighborhoods and less-affluent rural areas. Sen. Barack Obama won the college towns and the gentrified neighborhoods of more affluent communities. Put another way, Mrs. Clinton won the beer drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd. And there are more beer drinkers than wine swillers in the Democratic Party.
That last part surprises me, but if Karl says so it must be true.
A couple of things. Flipping channels, I saw a couple of minutes of the Chris Matthews show, speaking with Pat Buchanan, Michael Eric Dyson and Dee Dee Meyers. Dyson was in full Jesse Jackson/Al Shapton mode, insisting that Obama lost in New Hampshire because of white racism, adding that some whites lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for Obama.
Just prior to seeing that, CNN's Wolf Blitzer had a piece on the New Hampshire polls, all of which had shown Obama to be "surging" and leading Hillary by about nine points. All the polls showed Hillary with 30% and Obama with 37%. The final results were Hillary 39% and Obama 37%. So the polls were completely accurate on the Obama voters. Hillary's extra votes obviously did not come from Obama. CNN concluded that racism was therefore not a factor in Obama's loss.
It was disappointing to see Obama lapse into black preacher speak in his speech after the results were in. If he starts channeling Jesse Jackson much, he's going to be in trouble.
Assistant Village Idiot noticed much the same
I've noticed that a friend who has consitently defended the Clintons agains the right wing consipiracy now is on guard against the Clinton slime machine attacking Obama. The inconsistency will never be acknowledged.
For the world's sake, I hope this is Clinton's solitary and final victory on the campaign trail. Racism, though, should not be blamed for Obama's loss. New Hampshire of all states, especially, would not tolerate racism of that magnitude. For some reason, the state of NH just really likes the worst candidate ever. (See this video, it's hilarious: http://urlbrief.com/22796d )Let's just have faith that the wine drinkers will somehow overcome the beer pounders.
People lie to pushy pollsters?
There is a gap between "registered" voters, "likely voters" and people who actually cast a vote?
Who knew? Now all my illusions are gone.
As they say in Knoxville, "Heh".
Get-out-the-vote has long been a euphemism for voter fraud, especially in the Democrat party. It's a grand tradition in Chicago and south Texas (among others).
I'm not saying that's what happened, but why would anyone just dismiss it as a nutty conspiracy theory? If you were Hil's campaign, why would you not call in a few thousand out-of-state 'volunteers' given the apparent loosy goosey rules in NH. Especially considering the alternative (O'Bomma having massive momentum with a NH win).
I don't like Hil, but I don't think she's half as dangerous as Obama. I really don't give a damn what anyone does to stop him.
The unhinged are coming out of the woodwork:
Diebold Voter Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday January 10, @12:24PM from the oh-good-this-again dept.:
"Multiple indications of vote fraud are beginning to pop up regarding the New Hampshire primary elections. ..."
Anyone think that maybe Obama Wine Guy sent in this anecdote hoping to catch Sullivan in a dazzling display of obliviousness? That would be so meta
When Obama W[h]ine Guy says he and his thirtysomething friends were "receptive to the Clintons in the 90's" what could he possibly mean? If they are in their early thirties now, how old could they have been in 1996, the last opportunity anyone had to vote for a Clinton? I'll wager my Bud Light to his Chardonnay that none of them ever voted for Bill Clinton, as they were still in Prep School, or an elite Ivy League college, back then, and never bothered to vote.
BTW: I pointed out the connection between the wine guy and Rove's piece in an e-mail to the good professor yesterday.
Make sure your tinfoil hats are on tight, because we are going to tale on the black hilicopters.
Kucinich Seeks NH Dem Vote Recount By Stephen Frothingham on Jan 10, 2007:
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted. The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.
In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."