NH-Primary: What's Changed Since New Year's?

well (0.00 / 0)

nothing has changed- I am still totally undecided. So far I have only seen Hillary (though I saw Richardson last fall and Edwards 3 years ago)- Seeing Hillary didn't do anything one way or the other.

I hear Obama's name often mentioned by active dems with interest and a strong curiosity factor, but really, all everyone is responding to is all the media reports- that's it.  Being a NH votes, I have to see and feel these people close up.

That said, at this point four years ago, I was in agreement with Dean's positions, but waited until June to offically support- I needed to feel he was electable (though at the time I was worried about the VT civil union stuff playing nationally).

So here in Keene, all we have seen so far is Kucinich and Hillary- it is very early, and so much will change in the coming months.  My opinions of all the candidates have neither risen nor fallen- it is still wait and see for me.

---

by: Kathleen O'Donnell @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 22:40:53 PM CST

And Gravel (0.00 / 0)

;)

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 02:59:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton - Obama (0.00 / 0)

I think it looks like a Clinton - Obama race at this point based on the NH polls that have come out so far. Edwards is having the same problem he had in 2004 when he could not get past Clark and ended up in 4th place.
I think the dark horse will be Richardson. If he gets momentum he could make a run for 3rd place against Edwards the same way Clark did in 2004.

I think in the tier below that you could see some surprises. I think if Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel can attract a lot of the anti-war and progressive vote you could see one of them finish ahead of Biden and Dodd. Granny D is supporting Gravel and she got 222,000 votes in her Senate race.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

---

by: rob @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 01:18:42 AM CST

Richardson and New Hamshire (0.00 / 0)

Richardson will not focus on Edwards: he will actually pull from the Hillary-Obama deck. He's hard to pin down, but domestically he's closest to Hillary.

Richardson is also hands down the candidate most likely to win over Republican votes, and for that reason the New Hampshire primary is THE contest for him. By focusing on the independents that were considering casting Repub ballots he can significantly expand his base in NH in a way he can't in a caucus. That's why he's spending the bulk of his money here I think, and that's why he's still retooling his "I'm not one of those Democrats" talk.

It's New Hampshire, not Nevada, that provides Richardson's biggest opportunity. As the Republican candidates continue to implode, a strong independent-fueled Richardson win becomes more a possibility, and Richardson knows that.

You heard it here first folks.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 04:05:24 AM CST

Or put another way (0.00 / 0)

Richardson has a chance to pick up many of the McCain 2000 voters.

Now if that doesn't spur a discussion...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 04:36:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

hmmm... (0.00 / 0)

Won't they bee too busy voting for McCain in 2008?

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:40:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

IMHO (4.00 / 1)

McCain will get a fraction of the indies he once did.  Especially once da Mayor and Romney start running his unbelievable flip-flop statements.

How many of them voted for him as an early version of ABB?

And hasn't voter registration swung more to the Dems since then, taking a bite out of the indie bloc?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 13:02:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think you're right (4.00 / 1)

I think that's the strategy, but so far I think he's going about it poorly. He needs to drop the "I'm not one of those Democrats" line ... I just don't think it plays all that well. McCain captured folks because of his "maverick" personality of that time, and Richardson just doesn't have that. Saying you are not one of "those Democrats" doesn't make you a maverick automatically. I think it sort of makes him sound captive to the older rhetoric and framing.

Plus, I don't think the type of independents that swing in primaries are going to house parties in February the year before the primary. My feeling has always been that they are more personality-driven ... ironically, Obama (far more liberal than Richardson) may have a better shot of pulling in the independents than Richardson.

But, Richardson's got a long way to go and quite a bit of time to get there, so there's plenty of time for him to improve. I think the elements are there in his stances and records to appeal to Indies in NH, but his messaging needs a lot of work ...

---

by: BriVT @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:30:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've got a note about that below (0.00 / 0)

He seems out of place in this state rhetorically, and his rhetoric is not fit for the house party phase. 

But he's got a record that shows he DOES care about the poor, and that while he's a tax cutter, he's been pretty diligent about targeting those to growth. It's not ideal, but it's odd to me that he wouldn't choose to accentuate his prog-cred instead of distancing himself from it.

He keeps joking he had a consultant, but he fired him. Maybe he should hire one? Seriously...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 13:36:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Edwards (0.00 / 0)

I'd say Edwards is still very much in, and still likely to pick up some serious support. But I think there has been an awful lot of pressure on his campaign -- as the only alternative to the Hillary-Obama juggernaut, it was always a bit of a shotgun marriage.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 04:06:06 AM CST

Obama, Hillary (0.00 / 0)

I think if other candidates can remain viable (Richardson is the best example) this pressure comes off a bit.

I continue to believe the willingness of people to overlook Obama's lack of experience is troubling. Very troubling.

People point to JFK as an example of someone who rose with as little leadership experience as Obama. But this is demonstrably not true -- the fact is that Kennedy was partially elected on the basis of his leadership in the PT-109 incident. He was a war hero with demonstrated leadership ability. (And even with that experience, it's still unclear whether Kennedy would have bee able to deliver on his vision -- it was arm-twister extraordinare LBJ that got most of it done.

My worry with Obama is that if he doesn't get chewed up by the campaign that he will be chewed up in office. It's rolling dice with less than even odds.

(Incidentally, people say Obama is the anti-Hillary. He's not. He's the anti-Kerry, and that's the big attraction)

I'm not closing the book on Obama. We'll see. But he's going to have to demonstrate more than charm and intelligence.

Hillary I remain unexcited about, although she without a doubt is putting together the best campaign staff. Watching Edwards knocked into a tailspin by a third rate bloviator made me remember how important a top notch operation is. My feeling is that Hillary's campaign would have had a press release out in 30 minutes calling Donahue a third rate blowhard, putting down some bullet points about what his org was about, and stating that Hilary's campaign would deal with staffing issues and Donahue should stick to defending Mel Gibson's anti-semitism. End of story. No bunker mode, no heartfelt prose.

I still owe a post on why Richardson is not that bad a guy for president, and I will supply that.

I still favor Edwards above the rest. I'm not worried about the Al Gore numbers -- I think that's meaningless.

I wish Vilsack was still in the race.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 04:07:54 AM CST

Experience (4.00 / 1)

Just what experience is helpful in running for and serving as President?

• Senate or Congressional service: Legislative experience exposes someone to national issues, but it doesn't provide examples of managing a large organization.
  
• Governor service: Provides experience in managing a large public bureaucracy, but no experience whatsoever in foreign policy and national security. Plus, most governors have far less authority (and therefore responsibility) for running the state than the President has in running the nation.
  
• Running mate experience: Provides some confidence that there are no surprise scandals; provides some measure of campaign ability. But provides no experience in actually managing a government.
  
• First Lady: Provides some confidence that there are no surprise scandals; provides some measure of campaign ability. In Clinton's case also provides background in the issues involved in managing a government -- though minimal actual management experience.
  
• Mayoral service: Provides experience in managing a large public bureaucracy, but no experience whatsoever in foreign policy and national security.
  
  In terms of experience, Richardson seems to have the advantage.

  But, I haven't read either of Obama's books -- it's possible his resume at the Harvard Law Review and as community organizer may give voters confidence.

  (I wonder how old Joe Kennedy would have handled "PT Boat Veterans for Truth"?)
  

  ---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:56:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ha! (0.00 / 0)

(I wonder how old Joe Kennedy would have handled "PT Boat Veterans for Truth"?)

Much better, I believe. Although one worries some people might have been "dissappeared".

Point two is pretty important,as it varies from state to state. Some people refer to the Texas Governor as a ceremonial position. Obviously the NH post is also very weak. In states like CA and NY the position seems very strong.

I'd be interested to know where NM falls on that continuum.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 10:37:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

JFK (0.00 / 0)

JFK was in Congress and the Senate from 1947 to 1960 when he was elected president.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

---

by: rob @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:53:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True. (0.00 / 0)

I forgot about Congress.

But of course it just strengthens the point.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 13:43:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama supporters (0.00 / 0)

point more to Lincoln, whose elective experience was just as short. (Hence Obama's launch in Springfield IL).

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 13:57:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If they want to go that far back, it's still flawed IMHO (0.00 / 0)

If you look at the top presidents of all time, Lincoln is such an obvious exception. As a matter of fact, the majority of the great presidents had done great things BEFORE they got to office, and at bare minimum, most had some executive experience.

Good looking charismatic leaders on the other hand don't always fare as well.

NH's own Franklin Pierce was a great looking, charismatic one term Senator (had two House terms as well). Considered one of the worst Presidents.

Harding looked and talked like President, so much so that Gladwell's Blink talks about the "Harding effect" -- that people's lack of accomplishments can be disregarded in a sort of mass delusion if they have the look and demeanor of one who accomplishes things.

I think the Lincoln comparison is bad history and worse politics.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 15:13:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My Observations (0.00 / 0)

For the most part, I think that the political "pundits" on Blue Hampshire were right on the money.

1.  Whoever said that "it was over for Hillary before it even began" was clearly wrong. Senator Clinton was able to gain ground from where she started in the polls in NH. At this point, she leads in NH and she is tied in Iowa before her secret weapon (Bill Clinton) even steps forth on the campaign trail.

2.  Most of the people who saw Senator Clinton in person came away favorable impressed because the expections were so low. Her unfavorability ratings have remained the same or gone slightly down, while the poll numbers have gone up.  People have maybe decided that they don't have to like her in order to respect her ability to do the job as President and/or she has reached the ceiling of her unfavorability.

3.  Senator Clinton is running a smart campaign.  She is staying in the center which will help her in the General Election, assuming she can win the Democratic nomination. At this point, that is a big assumption. I don't think that she has a lock on the nomination.

4.  Senators Obama and Edwards, Governor Richardson and everyone else is dividing up the anti-Hillary vote.  If more candidates drop out, the race will tighten some more, although the nationwide polling of a head to head matchup with Senators Obama and Clinton show Senator Clinton way ahead.

5.  Senator Obama is still benefiting in the polls from curiousity and newness factors.  As the Primary progresses and Senators Obama and Edwards make more appearances, the numbers will even out more. This is not meant as a slight to Senator Obama. I just have more respect for the ability of Senator Edwards to regain the ground he has initially lost once the dust has settled a little more.

---

by: gradysdad @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:32:13 AM CST

Stuck In My Craw (0.00 / 0)

When Bill Richarson says the Democratic party has for too long stood for 'helping poor people', and then asks 'what about helping the middle class?' I alomst heaved. Is he saying that we've succeeded in our efforts, or is he just pandering to NH voters ? Since we've failed to create upward mobility with stagnating or declining real wages, fail to have good health care for all, no jobs other than Walmart or flipping burgers, is he saying that we should abandon the poor ? That's like saying we've done our best in New Orleans, and so no further effort is needed. Same thing on taxes...he panders to the high heavens by saying Democrats should not be known as tax and spenders. He is trying mightily to woo a mythical NH voter who no longer exist in the majority.. The '06 election shows how we are shifting demographically to become similar to our New England neighbors.This Blue Hampshire after all.
Though Lynch got elected by taking the Pledge,
we have passed the tipping point. Loeb's arm will recede into his grave as more better educated transplants  populate our state. Andy Smith's UNH Survey Center numbers show that as people with advanced college degrees move here they tend to vote Democratic. It was not just Lynch this time. In fact it can be argued that he was the beneficiary of a National wave of revulsion at the lies and insanity perpetrated by the Bush Administration...witness John Shay's Executive Council win...it was a message from the Grassroots..."We're fed up and we're not gonna take it anymore" effecting every race from dogcatcher on up.
Don't discount how that revulsion will effect Hillary, Obama and anyone else who tries to play fast and loose...Geffen was right. Politicians lie with such ease...
remember they are Politicians. Terry Shumaker can show you the letter he has from Howard Dean professing to keep New Hampshire first...

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:25:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Richardson's rhetoric sticks in everybody's craw (0.00 / 0)

But as a Governor I think the record shows him to be a lot braver and more effective implementing progressive programs than say Governor Lynch.

I don't know why Richardson thinks he's running against Walter Mondale. And I don't like the "party of the poor" line either. It feels icky.

But Richardson:

* Created state-wide full day kindergarten

* Massively increased state spending on education, targeting the poorest schools

* Is pushing state-wide pre-K

* Is limiting pay-day loan practices

* Is upping the minimum wage

* Fought to get illegal immigrants driver's licenses so they could get jobs and driver's insurance

Where's New Hampshire on these?

So there's walk and there's talk. Personally my heave reflex  is saved for listening to yet another reason why we can't get a fair and equal tax to fund schools in NH.

I hope he gets his rhetoric right, soon. But given his record, I'm willing to wait a bit.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 13:29:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What has changed since New Year take ten (0.00 / 0)

Unlike several who have posted I have begun to narrow my selections.  My current rankings are 1) Obama, 2) Richardson, and 3) Edwards.

There is still more to learn about Obama and his positions.  However, I think the experience issue is overplayed.  He has been in government and some form of public service for most of his working life.  His most competitive opponents with the exception of Richardson have scant more experience than he does. 

I would assume Hillary advocates would grant her a huge amount of experience because she was first lady-- I don't buy it.  She is in effect a one-term senator.  Edwards is a one-term senator as well.  Richardson clearly outshines them all experience wise.

Hillary is not one of my picks not just because of her Iraq vote but more because of her defense of that vote.  She has taken the Kerry doctrine of I voted for it and then voted against it to a new level.  I liken her approach to the vote as a Presidential signing statements-- I am signing (voting for) this legislations, but pay no attention what is the bill says-- I will interpret it.

I pay attention to the candidates campaign organizations and based on contacts to me so far Obama's has done well, Richardson's is improving, and Edwards is doing okay but is a little ponderous.

If Richardson's organization continues to improve and no holes (by my standards) appear in his positions he could easily move to number one-- unless Obama fulfills his "promise"-- than he would remain the favorite.  Edwards has appeal and is generally on target issue wise, but I find his presentations at times sanctimonious--not a good reason to fault him but a real one for me.

This slightly garbled presentation probably has little value as my picks usually lose.

Dan

---

by: dputrich @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:16:45 AM CST

My Thoughts (4.00 / 1)

1. Hillary Clinton:  Probably the strongest candidate so far.  I continue to be impressed by her campaign organization, and her  ability to fund raise.  She is very good at staying on message, which is supposedly a good thing, but the extent to which she does it turns me off a bit.  Her AUMF vote is going to continue to cause her problems, weather its fair or not, and she hasn't adequately addressed the problem imo.  Also working against her favor is a vague distrust that many voters seem to have for her, though I've yet to meet someone in meat space who can articulate reasons for disliking Senator Clinton as well and fairly as some Blue Hampsters.  I attribute this sentiment in many to a vague feeling by many (even if they won't admit it) that a woman shouldn't be president, and other forms of sexism.  Her not so secrete weapon, which we have yet to see the effect of, is Bill Clinton.  We don't quite know how he will effect the race, but its got to be good for Hillary.

2. Barack Obama:  Charisma.  WOW does he have charisma.  He has shown, even at this early in the season, that he has what many people want, especially youth.  I think his biggest strength will be his ability to inspire activism from those who wouldn't otherwise be inclined to participate.  His biggest weakness: vagueness.  The question I always ask people who try to tell me why they like Obama is: As President, Barack Obama would do what?  What the hell would he do?  No one really knows, and that's a problem.  Some people say he doesn't have enough experience, but I'd say he's about on par with Clinton, or Edwards (though Richardson is the real resume candidate).  Also, I don't really think he will be able to raise as much money as Sen Clinton in the primary, but i'm confident he will be able to muster enough to be competitive, and he will surely get enough for the general election (likely with many 1st time donors).

3. Bill Richardson:  I'm going to go out on a limb, and put Governor Richardson in 3rd place right now.  Most of the Democratic Activists I know either support Richardson, or put him in 2nd or 3rd.  Very few activists have anything bad to say about him, though they can easily talk about the cons of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.  His showing of support with party activists is an indicator that he will only gain in name rec and favorability in the general public, because activists are usually opinion leaders, ect.  He has the experience, he's a Governor (which really does matter to several people I know), he's got a good message that can appeal to a broad range of people, and he's perceived as an outsider (even if its not entirely true). He won't be able to raise as much money as  Clinton, Obama, or possibly Edwards, but he'll probably be able to raise enough to stay competitive.  The media seem to ignore him at this point, but we'll see what happens as he inches closer to double digits in the polls.

4. John Edwards:  I have yet to meet any strong Edwards supporters anywhere but online.  Sure people like him enough, but there is a general feeling that he's had his chance, and they want a fresh face for the party in '08.  He has neither the money and talent of the Clinton Campaign, the charisma and energy of the Obama Campaign, or the experience and outsiderness of the Richardson campaign.  He's desperately trying to position himself as the progressive, a label which fails miserably under a close inspection of his record.  Really, why do people like Edwards so much?

5. The Rest:  I really don't see anyone else winning the NH Primary at this point.  Sure that could change, but the chances are getting slimmer every day as the better 2nd tier candidates leave.  Feingold, Warner, Bayh, and possibly Vilsack could have won.  They were strong candidates, each with something unique to bring to the table, but with their exit from the race the pool of strong non Clinton, Obama, or Edwards candidates shrank to Richardson (another factor to his strength).  Sure, there's the occasional Biden Supporter (cant figure out why, is it the massive media attention he gets?), and Chris Dodd is a nice enough guy, really smart, and a good legislator.  But is there any oxygen left in the room after Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards?  Maybe... but I don't think so.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 12:08:04 PM CST

Al Gore! (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- he's not declared.  Fine.

If he hasn't declared by Thanksgiving I'll take another look.  But for the moment, for me, everybody else is chasing second place.

---

by: ThatTallGuy @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 15:05:56 PM CST

Call me Al (0.00 / 0)

There are those amongst us in New Hampshire who still want to see Al Gore vindicated for what they, and I most days, view as a stolen election in 2000; Trade Unionists and others who believe that Al Gore will jump out from behind a bush in September to run for the nomination.
Others speculate, including the new Time magazine article
which has it that he will announce tonight while accepting an Oscar. I believe Al will only jump in if it is necessary, if it looks like the Democratic chances to take back the White House will fail. He has a lucrative business career and a voice whenever he wants to give forth. The movie he did has had a far raeching effect. I hope he will continue to be on the scene spearheaing efforts to fight Global Warming. He is the man.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 15:51:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]