On Demand
Are You the One? New Hampshire Results
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, associate professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, and WNYC's political director Andrea Bernstein review the New Hampshire primary results.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
So Hillary says that these results proved that this wasn't a "game", and yet now the media is saying "She won! She's up! She's ahead!" after these results. So when she loses, it's a game. When she wins, it's a serious matter.
Consider this a moment, would she have won by such a slim margin a couple months ago? I don't think so. If one pays attention the results besides just who was on top, it's an indicator that he's caught up somewhere where his chance of victory was slim. And if it hadn't been for her little public display, she probably would've lost (very convenient emotional outburst, no?).
I feel extremely conflicted about the choice between Hillary and Obama. From a purely strategic point of view, I see Hillary as having the advantage in the general election in that she seems more able to withstand the Republican dirty tricks and slime machine. On the other hand, I see Obama as being able to draw more independents into his orbit and by extension able to govern with more consensus. I just worry that he won't have the toughness to survive the general election. What to do?
I think that the Republicans will make it their mission to destroy Hillary. I mean, in any election, both sides will do what they have to to win, but I think that if it were Hillary, conservatives would see this as a desperate situation in which they must prevail. That will mean they will fight tooth and nail in a way they didn't even in 2004. I don't think ANYBODY could survive that onslaught let alone someone with as little charisma as Hillary.
so if I voted for the candidate who shared my "religious beliefs", I'd be voting a liebral, progressive line (for me, as a Unitarian Universalis). Perhaps "religious beliefs" is code for "evagenical or conservative Christian"... and that is comment enough on the sorry state of religion in this country.
I wanted Edwards to win, but I am for Obama now, and I want to see Edwards as Attorney General - that is where he will make a great change for this country.
Thanks Brian!
I'm an Obama supporter, but I was infuriated by CNN's treatment of Ron Paul. They didn't put a label next to his 9% slice of their pie chart, but they did label Rudy's 9% slice. They did it all night long and I didn't even hear them mention his name. It's just inexcusable to ignore one person who clearly has support and pay attention to another with the same level of support.
There's something that strikes us as very odd about the media coverage of last nights' primary results. In watching the pundits and reading the newspapaer this morning, after Hillary Clinton was announced the winner in NH, why is that no one mentioned the historic framework of this event... THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A WOMAN HAS WON A PRIMARY ELECTION! How could this be overlooked entirely. We would love to hear what your guest has to say about this.
Geri Kreitzer and Gregg Gundersen, NYC
I found an observation on Fox (gasp!) last evening to be quite interesting. They talked about Independents -- who the Pollsters lumped with Obama days before -- deciding yesterday that McCain might need their help a little more. So the votes that the Pollsters assumed would push Obama over the top simply voted Republican.
I was intrigued by that idea as an explanation for the drastic 13 point swing that seemed to have shocked everyone. I have a hard time believing it was simply because of a comment from Bill or some tears (real or otherwise) from Hillary.
I believe that many people indeed were saying that they were going to vote for Obama when in fact they were voting for Clinton. I do not see this as racism but rather a way to strike back at the elite limousine liberals whites that have so much disdain for the working class of this country.
I wish we could take television out of the election equation.
Hillary can withstand the pressure alright... that's why she was crying at the first serious contemplation that things weren't going her way.
As a Northern New Englander living in New York, and one who has been on the fence between Obama and Clinton, as the NH primary neared I began to grow irritated by the media's forgone-conclusion reporting that Obama would prevail. So much so that--call it New England cussedness--I determined that I'd vote for Clinton if I could, if only to honor my state's (and my own) reputation for independence.
I get so furious with commentators, constantly trying to box voters into groups. Everyone I know doesn't believe that Clinton's policies are so different from Obamas's. All we want is to choose someone who will defeat a Republican candidate. I voted for Kerry as a candidate last time, even though I thought he was an extremely lame candidate. I want a candidate who enthralls the country, and who will move the country in a different direction.
geri, that's an interesting point. I hadn't thought about it, but you're right. It's definitely an important hurdle that's been overcome. Unfortunately, advertising that fact is an important step to being useful to women in the future.
POLLS
It is a little silly to make a big deal out of the polls that came out after Iowa. For a year, Hillary had a solid lead in NH and Obama was always within striking distance. Then, over a few short days, seemingly dozens of polling organizations are putting out numbers every 20 minutes showing a significant shift towards Obama. From a scientific view of polling, it is plain that there could be much more unreliability to these snapshot polls in a fast moving race on a frenetic winter weekend than one would normally expect. These were not polls conducted in regular circumstances.
WINNING
If one out of 50 people changed their vote from Hillary to Obama, the result would be different. Hillary deserves full credit, but let us not exaggerate what "New Hampshire" said.
While exit polling is clearly different than pre-vote polling, I'm very skeptical that exit data gives an accurate picture of what is going on. How confident should we be about the validity of this information? Do the pollsters have a fix on the number of voters who don't answer exit polling questions accurately?
~
But whomever is elected MUST know how to govern and that is not easy.
David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, ran Gov. Deval Patrick's 2006 campaign for Mass. governor. They used the same warm and gooey message, "Together We Can". Patrick won.
He has NO idea how to govern or pass legislation (build constituencies, etc). The first year of his term has been a disaster.
In business, we never put someone with zero experience in a senior mgmt position. Why? The odds that things will go badly are high.
~
I like Obama but people like Prof. Lacewell are a good reason for not voting for him. She implies that Bill Clinton is a racist because he offers legitimate criticism of Obama. Is this what all the rest of us non-blacks can expect if Obama wins?
I don't think Andrea Bernstein fully understood the idea of race-and-gender discourse, and I would respectfully recommend that she give some of that literature another try. Much of it is jargony, but there are deep truths in cultural studies nonetheless.
We rely on media experts to help the public unpack and understand image in the media. Hillary and other candidates are masters at manipulating and mobilizing such images and they are layered and complicated.
It's about acknowledging complexity and even contradiction (Hillary as woman needs to portray both strong and emotional; Barack as African-American needs to portray both confident and nondangerous). Hillary shed Madeleine Albright behind her in NH. She had young people behind her at the election night rally . What does that mean? How do we read that?
Post #17:
I wouldn't say Obama has zero experience. Nor would I say that experience is a defining factor in whether a President would be successful or not.
Question: Would you elect a one-term U.S. Representative who had spent the last few years as a corporate lawyer and just lost a bid for U.S. Senate? Probably not. Well, that's exactly what Abe Lincoln was.
Of coursing, citing one example of an inexperienced candidate who showed themselves up to the task of the office is not proof that Obama would be successful. But I can also cite plenty of examples of experienced politicians who failed miserably because they didn't have those inherent qualities to succeed in high office like the Presidency.
I trust Obama to pick good secretaries and advisors, and I think that will be the defining factor in a good Obama administration in the same way that the choosing of bad advisors and secretaries was the downfall of the Bush administration.
Louise in comment 18 goes directly to the point. In a way the support for Obama can be seen as "affirmative Action", and a way for white elites to "wash" their racism of condescension". The fact is that Obama has no preparation at all to be president, except for the support of well off whites. As I stated yesterday, Powell would have been the better choice. He is experienced, sober and has transcended race divions.
Post #18:
People who play the race card at the drop of a hat have always existed and will continue to exist. I doubt very much that those in the mainstream media would do it just to silence all criticism of an Obama administration. I don't think they could get away with it quite frankly.
you can not use Lincoln as an example. Different times, different circumstances. Lincoln would not be elected today in a world ruled by the media. Perhaps those were the better times. This is reletivistic history comparisons
In my opinion, the best case scenario would be Obama as president, and Edwards as vice-president. Edwards lacks charisma of Obama, and his left-of-center leaning on the political spectrum might make him not the best candidate to win the presidency.
Several notes:
The pre-election media coverage was fawning for Obama, and unremittingly negative for Hillery. And it continues. For instance today's coverage is not "Why Obama lost New Hampshire, it is how was it possible Hillery able to win." Is it possible he mis-stepped someway? What does he have to do differently to win the next series?
Had I been voting in New Hampshire I would have voted for Hillery in an effort to level the playing field. Also, we hear that older women voted for Hillery. But I heard that the "old" cutoff was 40 in New Hampshire, with the trend downward. Is 40 the new "old".
agarzon, we're comparing experience here. We're not comparing the media's perception. And considering how well Lincoln played the media prior to the election (buying and buying off several important newspapers to churn out pro-Lincoln material) you'd be surprised.
If anything, Lincoln's chances of winning are better in today's world because even his bitterest rivals liked him as a person. And if we've seen anything, people vote based on who they like. What was it people said about Bush? They'd like to have a beer with him. That was their criteria for determining who should be the most powerful man on the planet. In Lincoln's day, he had to sway powerful party bosses that he was the person to back even with so little experience under his belt, not gullible voters who would've been charmed by his easy-going nature and amusing anecdotes.
The real "racism" here is the disdain for Clinton because she is such a strong woman. A lot of american men can't stand her because it reminds them of their mother telling them what to do. The women that dislike her, do it because she frightens them by reminding them of what they could accomplish if they stood up
As a life-long Republican woman, I am supporting Hillary Clinton all the way. I am offended by every media piece I hear attaching words like cold, cackling, calculating etc...
(code words for WOMAN - any woman who is a candidate for president can't possibly be fit the job since such a woman is either too emotional or too bitchy. Since when did anyone vote for a candidate because they felt sorry for their tears? Feel good speeches about hope/change/world friendships etc are inspiring. I have witnessed Obama's charm firsthand. But in the privacy one's own room/voting booth feel good fantasy must face down the hard realities of troubled country and the world. In that intellectual showdown Hillary Clinton emerges as the one with the goods.
Clinton IS cold and calculating... but woe to the politician who isn't. You can't fault her for that without doing the same for virtually any of the other top tier candidates (or any successful politician of any age in any country). But the truth is that some people are coaches and some people are players. Clinton knows what has to be done, but when she attempts to run through the moves herself, she performs clumsily and artlessly. There are many more women who I think have the charisma and the acting skill to sway people.
While Lincoln parallels seem a bit hasty and blind to the actual realities of the current situation, I think Obama's "lack of experience" is a card that is grossly overplayed. By that rationale, we should eliminate term limits so that we might have ONLY the most qualified presidential candidates.
With regards to Obama's ability to withstand criticism and mud from Republicans in a general election, I think he would be more deft than Hilary. Firstly, Hilary is an easily vilified by a group that has always hated her and always hated her husband. Moreover, teary eyes will not cut it in a general election. As a native of IL, however, I have seen Obama field pretty severe attacks including those leveled against him by his original senate opponent, Jack Ryan.
How can we assume that Obama will adopt Edwards positions on behalf of working people? Edwards has been supported by the unions and will be influenced by their lobbyists. We know who his base is.
Look at a candidate's actions; don't listen to their rhetoric. Borough President Adolfo Carrion says he represents working people, but his actions protect developers, constrution trades and the Yankees. When community board members speak-out to represent local residents, Carrion fires them.
When it comes to changing the tax code, will Obama protect interests of young hedge-fund millionaires? We don't know. When the Christian-right pressures to push-back women's rights, what would he do? We don't know. His universal health care proposal appears naive.
Great public speaking skills, and great 'promise' as a future national leader should not be voted-in now. We need knowledge, experience and a known track record.
Alas, the democrats are matching to another election defeat. Last time around, they went for the guy who they thought was the least offensive to republicans. Now they go for two candidates, both of whom has no realistic chance of becoming president (except if the republicans happen to select a nutter).
I write this with great frustration, as I want to see a democrat in the Oval Office and long for the day when women and minority candidates stand a chance. But let's not kid ourselves about where the country's at in the year 2008. The negative campaigning will be truly merciless if the democratic candidate is a black guy called Barack Mohammed or is a woman called Hillary Clinton. And negative campaigning does work.
Hilary Clinton's speach on monday (1/7) was full
of concrete, detailed plans about what she would
do as President, while Obama only spoke about his 'hope' for fundimenal 'change, with no plans nor substance about his plans nor any of his past accomplishment nor experience.
I can not imagine Obama winning against a tough
republican. Clinton has won two difficult U.S.
Senate elections from New York. She has the metal
to be President.
p.s. The medias'reaction to Clinton's emotions after an hour & half sit-down discussion about hard policy issues ws incorrect. It was emotional all around.
and sh did't cry.
policy issues with New Hampture voters
I missed hearing this segment on the show, so perhaps this was discussed... but why is everyone saying Clinton "won big" (I'm quoting NPR news)? Am I wrong, or don't the candidates receive convention delegates in proportion to the popular vote, so in fact Obama & Clinton tied (i.e., received the same number of delegates) in New Hampshire. It seems the media prefers the excitement of a "win" over the reality of a tie.
Not that its particularly worth noting, but my 19 year old son and his friends, changed their minds about voting for Obama when they saw/heard about his affiliation with Oprah, whom they consider to be a lame, middle class manifestation.
Ann, I'm 23, and I didn't like his affiliation with Oprah either, but if I were in his position, I'd find it nearly impossible to turn down that kind of endorsement. You might lose a few people who dislike Oprah, but you'll gain a lot more who do.
TURNING THE TAP
A good cry is good for the soul
And banishes anxiety;
It sparks direction to a goal
And can also lead to the presidency.
To my mind, too much emphasis has been placed on the Monday breakdown in galvanzing women's support of Hillary. Equally important, I think, was the debate on Saturday night, in which she was "ganged up on" by Edwards and Obama. I'm a youngish middle-aged white guy, and even I thought it was blatant and unfair. Hillary started to name it that night, but held her tongue -- again, the fine line she's got to walk; she can't appear to be whining.
Interestingly, it was Edwards who led the attack, linking himself and Obama as being similar and as contrasting to Hillary in particular. Obama was a passenger on that ride, though it's hard to know whether reluctant or not. (To my way of thinking, Obama and Hillary are closer to one another in policy position than either of them is to Edwards.)
I'm undecided at this point, FWIW, have been leaning toward Edwards but also drawn to the other 2; still, am happy to see that there will apparently be no coronations in this primary season.
#27
That's not "racism" that's sexism
#23 and #21
He was making a simple point about Lincoln, illustrating what a lark this "lack of experience" argument is...geez can't people understand simple points anymore? He wasn't saying Obama=Lincoln...good grief!
Powell????? POWELL??????? Mr.Here are the trucks with weapons?????? You have got to be kidding!!! That man didn't have the spine to stand up to Bush/Cheney....so what good would he be as president??? And I dunno...considering Obama's showing in both Iowa and NH it appears abundantly clear that he has the ability to "transcend race"
and what do you mean Powell would have been the better choice? Choice of what? I don't remember his name being mentioned as a possible "choice" this year as a candidate. So your comment has a false premise...but I see, like yesterday you are just comparing every politician of color as if they are interchangeable and there is some false choice between them. Seems YOU are the one who cannot transcend race
Regarding transcending race, I do wonder if some of the difference between IA and NH has to do with the fact the NH primary is by secret ballot. Perhaps the public caucusing made a difference for Obama in Iowa (i.e., people concerned about being perceived as racist voting for him when they might choose a different candidate in secret). I hope that's not the case, but I do wonder.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.