Amen.

We knew that 2008 would be a fight for every vote, every day. We need to win this nationally just like we won the Senate in Virginia last year, with dedication, passion and persistence.

Hope to see everyone at the JJ Dinner on Feb 9!

I couldn't agree with you more--and I think there are a lot of people out there who feel exactly the same way.

And to the press--you know the ones I'm talking about--four words: STFU! Let the people VOTE!  

... the media.

The same from Howard Kurtz.

Hillary's surprise was just that because all the polls stated she'd lose by anwhere between 5 to 13 points.  Whether we like it or not, the polls are usually pretty good indicators, and when they predict the large margins of victory that they did in this instance, rarel, if ever, are they as wrong as they were last nite.  Some of our distinguished commentators on RK predicted as high as a 19 point win for Obama--that, to me, was a high school level prediction (if you can call it that), a silly off the cuff guess based on absolute zero.

As for the rest of your diary, who can argue?

I'm glad Hillary ain't dead yet and that the race is on.  Now, if I could only find a staple gun that would shoot staples a foot and a half wide to shut Chris Matthews mouth, I'd be most appreciative.  As he cackles away with his inanities, please, let John Hinckley at him!  

I do not disbelieve the  pre-election polls.  In fact, neither did the voters, I suspect, and what may have happened was that all those independents who, 10 hours before the polls opened, were telling pollsters they liked Obama, saw how far up Obama was and decided it was safe to step over to the Republican primary in order to help McCain, rather than voting Democratic.  And it's also possible that many young voters decided their vote was not needed, they had other things to do. So, despite the heavy turnout, many independents went Republican at the last minute---- I'd like to see an analysis, if possible, to find out if this is what actually happened.

In any case, this development suggests certain things to me for future use: 1) do not depend on the young voter or the independent voter, they are fickle unless their hands are held right up to the polling booth, although their enthusiasm is useful if it can only be surely harnessed; 2) it's a long time to November, and the race will go not necessarily to the swift or to the sprinter, but to the organised and persistent; and, as always, 3) do not peak too soon, which is to say that Timing is Everything (in love, war, real estate, and politics).

1) do not depend on the young voter or the independent voter, they are fickle unless their hands are held right up to the polling booth, although their enthusiasm is useful if it can only be surely harnessed...

Pretty please stop blaming "non-voting youth" for outcomes in elections. This is a false bit of conventional wisdom.

The idea that "young people don't vote" is patently ridiculous.  In 2004, 49% of all voters 18-29 went to the polls.  That's millions of voters.  In fact, a report by the Harvard Institute of Politics stated that more voters 18-29 went to the polls (20.7 million) than did voters over 65, the so-called reliable seniors (19.4 million). - MyDD, with cites from Harvard

It is more likely that older women came out in unexpected numbers for Sen. Clinton and more independents voted on the Republican side than was expected than "the kids didn't do their job."

Just how I see it.

but I have since read some more information about just how the voters voted in New Hampshire; to my surprise, some areas used handcounted paper ballots, and some used those dreadful optional scanners which have been repeatedly proven to be easily hacked.

I am soooo tired of conspiracy theories (although I do happen to think things were pretty darned fishy in Ohio when Kerry ran), but after reading http://www.bradblog.com/?p=553... I think there were some good questions raised as to how the polls could be so accurate on absolutely everyone else, but not on Clinton-Obama. A comparison of polls vs hand-counted paper ballorts and polls vs optical scanners will be very interesting (if it can be done)... something we definitely should know about in advance of the general election.  

I don't know whether the young voters came out last night...I haven't followed up on the stats yet either.  But I can tell you about my experience with college Dems and their "help" in my area of Virginia.  When needed to help on campaigns, they only participated if they were paid and that was only at the end when Kaine needed more help.  I asked and asked and asked (even offered to pick them up from the Univ and drive them to campaign headquarters)...and only a very, very small handful of young folks helped.  

It's part of being young.  I've been there too!  It's best not to count on them.  They are having fun, studying, working.  Youth comes once and I'll let them have it while they can enjoy it!!!

needs to go in a big way. He is an embarrassment to MSNBC- only Keith was good to watch. Russert and Williams sucked. I cannot believe we have to suffer through a whole year of Matthews.

I'm glad it's a horse race now. The pundits, the anchors and the pollster just need to STFU. They obviously don't know what the hell they're doing.

know what they're doing. I think they should all shut up, go quietly off into the night starting now.

From NYTimes.com:

MATTHEWS: We're going to have to go back and figure out the methodology, I think, on some of these.

BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to go back and do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: What do we do then in the days before balloting-

BROKAW: What a novel idea-

MATTHEWS: -We must stay home then I guess.

BROKAW: No, no, we don't stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they're saying. We know from how the people voted today what moved them to vote. We can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that had not been fully explored in all this.

But we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed and trying to stampede and affect the process.

Look, I'm not picking just on us. It's part of the culture in which we live these days.

But I think the people out there are going to begin to make some judgments about us, if they haven't already, if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding, in many cases as we learned in New Hampshire, as they went into the polling place today or in the past three days. They were making decisions very late.

Two things not pointed out by anyone I saw or heard was that on the election day news was the 235 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a point I'm sure that savvy N.H. people noted with trepidation, knowing their demographics.  I'm sure Maalox sales have been up in N.H. in recent weeks.  The second bit of news was the Iranian harassment of our ships.  True, our destroyer there could have blasted the tiny boats out of the water quickly, but the provocation made a major news story and focused attention on the question of the need for a fast, experienced reaction by a President.

Both news items may well have provided voters with a reality check, that Hillary, despite her "cackles," had a 70 point lead over Obama in experience, according  to polls.  That's a lot!  And both the news events would, on their own, give me pause if I were an Obama-ite.

The polls may have been wrong on the outcome--maybe a last minute poll might have seen change--but the question of experience seems to have been answered honestly, especially when viewing the final numbers.

Between Sunday and Tuesday, 3 days during which Hillary was given up for dead by those nattering nabobs of negativity, all we heard was her demise was assured.  But on the third day she arose from the dead and is among us once more, full of viss and pinegar.

Go, Girl!  

I like soccerdem's explanation (above) of why Hillary won.  And I think he's pretty close to the answer.  There are lots of high tech companies in NH with a lot to lose (ie, in the stock market, which tanked yesterday) and they may have just opted for experience.  

Secondly, I'm glad, as someone else has said, that the other 48 states get to participate in democracy and not just a minute number of voters in Iowa, of all places, and the media declaring Obama the next Democratic presidential nominee.  

And finally, as Lowell has expressed in several of his diaries (and which I totally agree with), primaries are good for the candidates and good for the voters.  The candidates become better candidates and the voters have a better idea of who they will be voting for.

Bottom line, Hillary will be challenged by Obama's ability to connect to the voters and Obama will be challenged by Hillary's experience.   Now we have a race!

Green Miles is on target with a fine analysis.  Some of us did allow the polls to generate over-exuberance.  I plead guilty.

Seriously, however, NH voters did Not consider whatever the Dow Jones did on election day.  That is utterly implausible.  The body politic does not absorb developments that quickly.

I am fine with there being a race.  May the campaign be contested on the issues and what the candidates offer the American people.  May the best candidate win.

A couple of interesting data points from today's Post:

-Almost 40% of the Democratic voters were undecided until the final three days.  17% said that they decided Tuesday.
-Almost 40% of the Republican voters were Independents.

It appears that many of Obama's Independents might have crossed over because the polls showed him comfortably ahead.  If that is the case, then we do have a problem with the media and their polls--they might actually be skewing elections.

It also appears that the hype over the "horse race" post-Iowa might have mobilized those voters who were lukewarm in their support of Clinton.  I'm wondering if many of the undecided Democrats suddenly decided not to let Obama run away with the whole thing.  Again, if that is the case, then we do have a problem with the media and their polls.

In either event, TheGreenMiles and others here are right on the mark:  primaries are great fun, but not when the sport begins to skew the nomination process for POTUS.  For everyone who has been dismayed by the Bush administration, I would recommend that you go back and re-visit how Gore and Kerry were nominated.  At the risk of over-simplying, Gore was the "inevitable" nominee and Kerry was the "anyone but Dean" nominee.  No one stopped to consider who had the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in the general election.  Democrats should not make that mistake this year.  The Republicans certainly won't.

The answer Dear Pundits:  Shit happens!  

Reading tea leaves is a dangerous business.  Sorry, Obama followers, the game wasn't so easy.  Something about experience...

Poor TheGreenMiles is an Obama follower, and is just so upset.  Tough.

"Barack Obama is one of America's best orators with a fantastic personal story and no major missteps on his resume."  Oh, please.  He is spinning air fairies, and only those who know nothing about the hellish halls of power in Washington buys into his wave the magic wand and fix the world, and make lions and lambs sleep together, and find pots of gold at the end of the rainbow....naah, naah, naah, naah, naah, naah, hey, hey, good-bye.  

Yes, experience. It's very important for a candidate to have years of experience at being married to someone important. Why, proximity to power equals the right to power! It's the American way!

Personally, I'll vote for the candidate who has held elected office since 1996 and who got there under his own steam (Barack Obama), rather than on the strength of a last name and someone else's accomplishments (Bush & Clinton).

Look, don't try to take all the fun out of this thing. Studying polls and making predictions is half the fun of following elections.

I stand by the punditocracy's decision to eat a bit of crow and then get right back into making predictions.