Official NH Prediction

The polls and what we can tell of turnout all point toward an Obama win. But thanks to the nature of the "expectations game" I don't expect winning to do him much further good. Note once again that the main impact of the primary system is not so much to empower the voters of New Hampshire as it is to empower the political press. Bill Clinton was dubbed the "comeback kid" based on a number two finish in New Hampshire, and the press could easily spin a Clinton loss by as much as 4-6 percentage points as a comeback moral victory that sets the stage for a Clinton rebound.

Don't expect that to happen since the press doesn't like Clinton that much, and Team Clinton wasn't complaining about this dynamic in 1992 when it worked in their favor.

That said, the press will be bored of Obamamania before February 5, and I bet the reporters tasked to cover Clinton wake up tomorrow morning realizing that it's no good for their careers if the Democratic primary ends this week, so the fight will continue.

Comments

"That said, the press will be bored of Obamamania before February 5"

If Obama ends up not winning the nomination, he should sue the Democrats of Michigan who forced IA and NH to move so early in the month.

February 5th was designed to happen before the initial burst of momentum from IA and NH wore off. But because of the Michigan Dems, the bloom will come off the rose a bit before 2/5.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 6:35 PM

But what if Obama CRUSHES Hillary by 12-14 points in NH?

It's very possible...

Posted by TheCarpetmuncher | January 8, 2008 6:36 PM

The Republican race promises to really drag out this time. Maybe that will keep the press sufficiently entertained.

Posted by lampwick | January 8, 2008 6:39 PM

I don't think it will be good for the Democratic Party if the Dem. primary ends this week. This is a good story wholly within the party. When it is over the Republicans start their attacks just like they did when Kerry wrapped it up early. Better to shorten that time as much as possible.

Posted by bajsa | January 8, 2008 6:40 PM

That said, the press will be bored of Obamamania before February 5, and I bet the reporters tasked to cover Clinton wake up tomorrow morning realizing that it's no good for their careers if the Democratic primary ends this week, so the fight will continue.

Didn't stop them from quickly declaring the Kerry-Edwards-Dean race over in '04.

Posted by right | January 8, 2008 6:40 PM

I'll certainly take the contrary view of that prognostication. "Obamamania," for all the hype, is still being underestimated as a political movement. Look around you, look at the signs. Look at the turnout in NH for cripes sake. My money says this is a once in a generation phenomenon we're witnessing; you might be "bored with it" by February, but if he beats Hillary by, say, 8+ percentage points in New Hampshire -- and he will -- then super Tues. is an Obama blowout.

Posted by Bill | January 8, 2008 6:41 PM

I don't think it will be good for the Democratic Party if the Dem. primary ends this week. This is a good story wholly within the party. When it is over the Republicans start their attacks just like they did when Kerry wrapped it up early. Better to shorten that time as much as possible.

Man, this just seems to totally miss the boat. Yes, let's choose our nominee based on how the Republicans are gonna treat us. Fuck. That.

Posted by Bill | January 8, 2008 6:43 PM

I am an Obama supporter but the results tonight look like they are going to be much closer than that - unfortunately. A win still, probably, but much closer than the two digits we were hoping for.

Posted by Benjamin | January 8, 2008 6:44 PM

Let's not forget she loses Nevada and S.C. too. Writing's on the wall, she's dead meat.

Posted by Bill | January 8, 2008 6:45 PM

If Obama ends up not winning the nomination, he should sue the Democrats of Michigan who forced IA and NH to move so early in the month.

Eh? Nobody forced IA and NH to do anything. They moved their dates up because they insist that they be first in line. Why they get to act like petulant children while the rest of the country is supposed to behave is something you need to explain.

Posted by Jinchi | January 8, 2008 6:50 PM

The turnout in New Hampshire thanks to the excitement for Obama will be at a minimum 375% of the eligible voters. Voting precincts will be able to raise billions of dollars by auctioning off the first opportunity to vote for him. The number of members of Congress will double before anyone is aware of it.

Posted by El Cid | January 8, 2008 6:52 PM

. . .you might be "bored with it" by February . . .

Bill, you missed the point of Matt's post. He's saying the political press will be bored with Obamamania, not himself. And he's probably on to something.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 8, 2008 6:52 PM

"Why they get to act like petulant children while the rest of the country is supposed to behave is something you need to explain."

Sure.

I'm a Democrat. The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean came up with a primary schedule that allowed only 4 states to have primaries before 2/5.

Michigan was not one of those 4 states.

At the DNC deliberations in 2007, Michigan made their case to be one of the early states, votes were taken in the DNC representing all national Dems, and Michigan lost their case.

For me, it's simple. The DNC made rules using a fair process. IA and NH played by those rules. The Michigan Dems didn't.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 6:56 PM

The TV news is full of interviews with people who made up their mind at the last moment, often in the polling booth. This suggests that a lot of this turnout is politically unsophisticated, to say the least. They want to register a protest, to make a statement, and select "Obama" thinking this is the way to do it.

I think that a lot of Obama's support is shallow, and I hope there is no early decision on the Democratic side.

Posted by bob h | January 8, 2008 6:56 PM

He's saying the political press will be bored...

Of which Matt is a part. We are getting our rss feed from thealtlantic.com, are we not?

Posted by cmholm | January 8, 2008 7:03 PM

You're way wrong, Matt. Clinton's campaign is as empty as Kerry's was. It's all about that Clinton wants to be and feels she deserves to be President. End of story. The other candidates offer much more. People see that and are turning out to the polls and voting accordingly in record numbers. Obama will crush her tonight and in the rest of the primaries this month then put an end to her pointless campaign on Feb. 5. The press may get bored of the Obama wave but for once they aren't in control and won't matter.

Posted by Ron | January 8, 2008 7:04 PM

What Rob Mac said.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 8, 2008 7:14 PM

IA and NH played by those rules.

Don't act dumb. IA and NH threatened to revolt if the DNC came up with anything else. They played by those rules because the rules were designed explicitly for them.

And the rest of the states are getting tired of it.

Posted by Jinchi | January 8, 2008 7:35 PM

"You're way wrong, Matt. Clinton's campaign is as empty as Kerry's was.

Kerry's campaign won.

Don't act dumb. IA and NH threatened to revolt if the DNC came up with anything else. They played by those rules because the rules were designed explicitly for them.

The DNC could've let them revolt. They're such meaningless states, honestly, it surprises me how willing and downright eager everyone is to genuflect to them. Michigan and Florida (two other states ranging from swing to swingesque with far more electoral clout) actually did revolt, and the DNC didn't back down. We're all supposed to believe brave, bold Howard Dean couldn't have taken on NH and IA if he had wanted to?

Posted by jbryan | January 8, 2008 7:47 PM

"Don't act dumb."

I'm not acting dumb, I just have no sympathy for your position.

I think that blowing up the primary system is likely to produce worse outcomes rather than better. Reforms should come through the rules.

And I'm a fan of the DNC's 2007 primary reforms.

Interestingly, the DNC did move NH back. The plan was to have NH go third, after the NV caucuses. And the reason that didn't come to pass was the Michigan Democrats' selfishness and arrogance in forcing the calendar into disarray.

Posted by Petey | January 8, 2008 7:47 PM

Jesus, Matt, is everything the media's fault?

Posted by Brian | January 8, 2008 7:50 PM

The media wants Hillary to stay strong in the race. They want a horse race, and they would prefer she be the nominee because she gives them much more to talk about. So if she only barely loses NH, then that means we will hear lots of talk about her comeback and how the "real" Hillary is out now and viewers love her, and on and on and on. Anything to prop up her disastrous, entitled campaign and help it lose in a Mondale-sized landslide this November. "Where's the beef" indeed.

Posted by Carl | January 8, 2008 7:52 PM

The problem, though, is that Clinton became the front runner with the 'inevitability' meme, and has been declining in the polls and fundraising since repositioning to "experience" (she's not), and pessimism (Democrats win with optimism, look at the man from Hope Ark, JFK, and FDR). Fundraising is key. She's down to $20 million, which isn't enough to compete until Feb., and she gained most of her initial war chest because she was 'inevitable' and donors love to give $ to inevitable candidates, but are loath to do so to incompetent candidates with hemorrhaging campaigns.

If Clinton loses NH, SC, and NV, then her candidacy is over. The real question is where do all the insane hillary fanatics (they're attacking her because she's a woman!) go if she bows out. Will that happen in time to help Edwards?

Oh, and Clinton is not imploding because of the media. She is slipping because she is a TERRIBLE candidate who puts more and more voters off the more she is exposed to them. She has no real experience and appears to make very bad decisions on campaign staff and strategy. I mean, come on, who actually believed that a former first lady with a mediocre (at best) record as Senator from a safely blue state should run on "experience?"

Posted by Andrew | January 8, 2008 7:54 PM

Kerry's campaign won.

So did Bob Dole's. As much as their partisans might have wished otherwise, I don't think that it was much of a surprise that neither could win during the general.

Posted by cmholm | January 8, 2008 8:08 PM

THe media has to work with what they have. Last time, they piled onto Dean and never picked him back up to throw in the ring to keep it interesting. They totally could have and might have, but they went with the scream and milked that dry. And maybe they regret that in hindsight. But: this time I think Hillary and Bill will be like geese that keep popping out golden eggs of story, win or lose, so the media won't really have do anything at all.

Posted by Phoebe | January 8, 2008 8:11 PM

Matt,

I thought this was an insightful post.

I don't know bob:

"I think that a lot of Obama's support is shallow,- Posted by bob h | January 8, 2008

A lot of the younger folks I meet who support Obama may not know much about his policies, but they sure seem rabidly in favor of their man. In their minds, he is a saint that can do wrong.

Criticisms of Obama...forget it...you'll be shouted down...like I said earlier, it reminds me of "young Republicans for Bush"

Who knows, maybe if Obama wins he'll tone down the pro-business anti SSI bias that's brought the big donors to him.

Posted by S Brennan | January 8, 2008 8:11 PM

the main impact of the primary system is not so much to empower the voters of New Hampshire as it is to empower the political press

Well put. Terse and exactly on point. And boy am I pissed off about it!

Posted by gene | January 8, 2008 8:54 PM

JINX!

Posted by Antid Oto | January 9, 2008 1:33 AM