Longman Thinks Obama Has More Upside

-

Booman Tribune’s Martin Longman compares yesterday’s New Hampshire primary results, including the turnout levels, to the 2004 race.
But in his kicker he writes:

Clinton won because of higher female turnout and higher registered Democrat turnout. Independents voted for Obama at a 41%-31% clip. Looking forward to the general election, it does look like Obama has more cross-over appeal, and thus a higher upside.
The key question? What explains this unprecedented turnout?

The full essay is useful — and here’s a link looking at winners in Iowa and New Hampshire in the past and how they then fared in winning the party nomination and general election.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

19 comments on “Longman Thinks Obama Has More Upside

  1. Carrie says:

    Aside from the fraud allegations…
    How seriously was Carole Mosley Braun’s candidacy taken in 2004? I think she would be a perfect example of the kind of woman with actually more experience than Obama has. She served a full 6 year term in the US Senate. As well as time in the state legislature and as a US Attorney.

    Reply

  2. bob h says:

    “The key question? What explains this unprecedented turnout?”
    The sheer, unbelievable, unAmerican awfulness of Bush and Cheney is the cause of the turnout. More Americans are appalled and want to make a statement about their anger.

    Reply

  3. Carroll says:

    Well, I see the MSM is having it’s usual slutty effect. Tonight they introduced the latest hot topic, that Obama lost votes in NH because he was black.
    And 90% of the public is talking about personalities.
    Racism, sexism, one person we know too much about, the other we know next to nothing about.
    All we need is for Gore to show up in a brown suit to really give everyone something to talk about.

    Reply

  4. Carroll says:

    This is off topic but not really since all the candidates have a similar version of Stir the Pot foreign policy.
    I don’t do Arab diplomacy but this looks like Arabic for F*** Off to me.
    Saudi defends Iran links ahead of Bush visit
    Wed Jan 9, 2008 12:35pm EST
    By Andrew Hammond
    RIYADH (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia said on Wednesday it was determined to maintain good relations with Iran despite U.S. President George W. Bush’s efforts to rally Gulf Arab allies to contain the Islamic Republic.
    Bush arrived in Israel on Wednesday at the start of a regional tour that will bring him to Gulf Arab countries including Saudi Arabia next week.
    Bush who hopes to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, has said he would try to enlist Arab support for containing Iran, a goal underscored by a confrontation between American and Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz in the weekend.
    “We’ll listen to everything the president says. He can raise any issue he likes. We’re a neighbor to Iran in the Gulf, which is a small area, so we’re keen for harmony and peace among countries in the area,” Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told a news conference.
    “We have relations with Iran and we talk with them, and if we felt any danger we have relations that allow us to talk about it. So we welcome any issue the president (Bush) raises and we will discuss them from our point of view.”
    Although Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states share U.S. concerns about Iranian political and military power, they are increasingly relying on their own diplomacy to talk directly with Tehran.”
    This has become downright comical. Saudi sees the US of little use in protecting their Thronedom any longer. While we need the Arab cooperation more than ever all we have left in the region is Israel which is about as beneficial as having cancer.

    Reply

  5. dan says:

    Obama is an empty suit w/ no experience. People elevate him now b/c of their hatred for the Clintons. Americans are hooked on the American Idol syndrome.

    Reply

  6. Beth says:

    Thanks for this post. I realized how much I’m rooting for Obama when the results came in last night. Damn the pollsters for getting my hopes up so!

    Reply

  7. Don Bacon says:

    What will happen to “more upside” in the general election when there will be independents in the race, one or more of them with an authentic progressive program?
    The verbage of the leading Dems now has three components: a noun, and verb and “change”. Their corporate sponsors just snicker, they know it’s only rhetoric. A little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down.

    Reply

  8. Diagnosis says:

    Howard Dean, M.D.

    Reply

  9. Nobcentral says:

    Actually that graph just shows something we all know anyway: There haven’t been a lot of Democratic Presidents of late. Nor have there been many good Democratic candidates for president. Fortunately, this year, we’ve got 3.
    Commonsense – Bitter much?

    Reply

  10. easy e says:

    RESUMPTION OF FEAR
    -Iran audio: “I am coming at you….you will explode…”
    The distraction of the Primaries should give pause to enable MSM to further manipulate public opinion on latest Iran “threat” and “provocative acts”.
    * Bush calls Iran ‘threat to world peace’
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/09/us.iran/index.html
    Imagine the “threat” on the three U.S. Warships by these mighty Iranian speedboats….
    ***Pentagon Video on Iran-US Confrontation a Clumsy Fake
    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8610190697
    *** U.S. Video Fabricated
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7178878.stm
    Wonder how Clinton/Obama/Edwards respond and follow the scripts of the string-pullers?

    Reply

  11. Juca says:

    One of the changes at the top of my list: no Bushes or Clintons, please.
    I noticed in the detailed exit poll results that if Bill Clinton were on the Ballot, 56% of Hillary’s voters would vote for him instead.
    Interesting, I think. Are many of her voters actually voting for Bill?

    Reply

  12. CN says:

    The chart linked to in the post shows that Iowa is very good at picking which Democrat will fail in the general election. Look at those seven elections (I exclude 1996 b/c Clinton was unopposed in his second run):
    Four times, the Democrat who won Iowa went on to win the nomination. Each time, that candidate lost the general.
    Three times, national Dems rejected the wisdom of Iowa voters and nominated someone who lost in Iowa. Two of those three times, the Iowa loser won the general.
    New Hampshire isn’t much better. Five times that state’s choice has gone on to win the nomination, and four times that person has lost in the general. When the national party rejects NH’s first choice, the nominees are 1-for-1.
    And why exactly do Democrats pay so much attention to these two states?

    Reply

  13. Linda says:

    The “change” is to stop the the polarization and fighting leads to deadlock, total lack of civility and ability to get anything done in Congress, etc. Both parties at the Far Left and Far Right ends have process and details. Every candidate including Obama has details on every issue of importance. Indeed George Bush ran on his ability to bring people of both parties together as he did in TX–He didn’t keep his promise. The Clintons are polarizing, no matter how much Democratic partisans like them. I didn’t like them in his first term because they didn’t keep their promise to me about health care reform. And a lot of people don’t like them because from early in 1998 until August, 1998, they both were telling us that the Lewinsky affair was a “right-wing conspiracy.” The Clintons are polarizing, and the change people want is peace,working together, respect for opposing views and civility.

    Reply

  14. easy e says:

    RIGGED USA ELECTIONS EXPOSED
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs
    The string-puller Corporatists and power elites are still deciding on who will best serve their interests as the next puppet occupier of the White House. Primaries are just a silly game aimed at appeasing, entertaining, distracting and further confusing the sheeple.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    First I want all the voters chanting “change”,”change” to explain just what change they want to see or think they will get between Obama and Hillary.
    I would be surprised if many of them could articulate anything detailed..there isn’t a lot of difference between Hilary and Obama except their presentations, race and sex. Obama is all lyrics and Hillary is all process. So far Hillary is heavier on details than Obama.
    I have a friend who is for Obama and asked her why and she said because “he’s just different”. I would have asked her different from what but decided it might not go over her head so better not to chance insulting a friend. But this probably explains a lot of Obama’s support.
    So what is the “change” you are yearning for?

    Reply

  16. commonsense says:

    Shocking what happens when you can’t pack the vote with a bunch of out of state/non-resident, on holiday break college students…
    Shocking what happens when you only get to vote once and don’t get a second chance if you’re first choice does not make the cut
    Shocking what happens when people have the full day to come out and participate
    Shocking what happens when people can make the choice in private and not under the intimidating gaze of the husbands, wives and neighbors
    Once again, history will be proven true…
    …Iowans pick corn, not Presidents

    Reply

  17. Linda says:

    The reason for the turnout is clear, i.e., people want a change, and Democrats want to win the Presidency and both houses big. And so much is going in the wrong direction in the country that it gets people out to vote. (BTW, for all our claims of how wonderful our country is, the turnout at elections always has been dismal.) The one area where all the pundits and spin are correct is that this is exciting to see after so many years of people feeling without power.
    I really don’t want Hillary to be the nominee, but I will vote for her if she is because I want a Democrat to win. But I think she has big negatives in November election.
    I could not disagree more with karenk though. Voting for someone just because of their race, gender, or religion is as stupid and prejudiced (it means to prejudge) as voting against someone for any of those reasons. Your grandmother voted blindly as you are. This is not the People’s Choice awards. Your responsibility as a citizen, all of ours, is to take time to study the candidates and issues, be informed and vote for the person you think will be best for the country and your own interests.
    I’ve seen lots of women in the White House; so you’ve already had a chance to see that. I don’t mean to attack you, but I want to urge you and everyone to think and take this process more seriously. POA’s probably going to “attack” me as a silly optimist who sees the glass as half full. Actually I agree with George Carlin who said, “Some people thnk the glass is half full; others think the glass is half empty. I think the glass is too big.”
    I can only see three options if one isn’t happy with the state of the union: 1.) Move to a different country 2.) Exercise 2nd amendment rights and overthrow the government, or 3.) Exercise your voting rights to make change peacefully. None of the options will get perfect results. It’s not a perfect world.

    Reply

  18. ... says:

    i thought the media said obama did so well in iowa because the women voted for him.. didn’t happen in new hampshire… what does obama stand for? i tend to see him like poa did from way back… he came out of nowhere.. who are the rich corporate type folks backing him? i don’t think you can get as far as he has without having some serious silent partners..

    Reply

  19. karenk says:

    and oh, I plan to vote for Hillary just because I want to see a woman in the White House. It’s as good a reason as any…my grandmother voted for Kennedy cause he was Catholic!!

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *