Zogby reported this afternoon that Barack Obama is surging in New Hampshire after his Iowa win, but no such luck for Mike Huckabee:
Democrat Barack Obama’s dramatic post-Iowa momentum has come to full bloom in the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby New Hampshire daily tracking poll, rocketing to a 10-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton and a 20-point over Edwards. In New Hampshire’s Republican primary race, the survey shows Arizona’s John McCain had a very good day at the same time that Massachusetts’s Mitt Romney lost ground, resulting in a five-point lead for McCain.
Iowa’s GOP caucus winner Mike Huckabee has fallen into a distant third at 10%, barely ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who enjoyed a slight uptick and rests at 9%.
I guess that sort of follows the conventional wisdom line — New Hampshire is all about independent voters, who tend to favor Obama and McCain. Bad news for Hillary Clinton. But with fewer evangelicals, there’s no bump for Huck — It’s still McCain in the lead, with Romney firmly in second.
Could be that Mrs. Clinton has missed her chance.
Anyway, click here for poll details.
Related Posts
Brad,
I would replace “Could be that Mrs. Clinton has missed her chance” with a more emphatic, “Hillary is toast.”
But then, it’s not my blog.
Well, this is ironic. I’m catching up on e-mail from over the weekend, and I get to this one from the Clinton campaign on Saturday:
###
The answer to that rhetorical question, "Where is the bounce?" is right here.
There’s an answer that’s gotta hurt.
Brad,
Huck didn’t get a bounce because the independents are driving Miss Daisy in NH and McCain is their Jessica Tandy.
I know this is off-topic, but I have been wanting to ask this question. On the subject of Huckabee being the “evangelists’ choice,” so to speak, what is the definition of “evangelist”? I have been listening to the talking heads for awhile looking for good context clues, but it’s been so hard to get a fix on what they mean. Is it just what we used to call “born again Christians”?
DATELINE: JANUARY, 08 2008
Obama flies,
Hillary cries,
McCain squeaks by,
Huckabee, Thompson bid N.H. goodbye.
What appears to be playing out in the process is a return to the classic GOP/Dem way of selecting their presidential candidates. The GOP has traditionally chosen the man whose “turn” it is to be the nominee. This year that would be John McCain. He paid his dues in 2000 the same way Reagan did in 1976, Bush, Sr. in 1980 and Bush Jr. did by virtue of his name in 1996. If the same pattern holds McCain’s turn is now and he will eventually weather the storm and win the nomination.
In contrast to this predictable pattern the Dems tend to pick a surprise newcomer. Hence we had George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The exceptions to this rule were both sitting VPs – Walter Mondale and Al Gore.
Give Brad a little credit on this one. He hung in there with McCain. Without all the polling and pundentry McCain was the logical choice all along.
I just wonder why the polls didn’t reflect the history of the process until now.
Why is everyone surprised that Huckabee didn’t receive much of a bounce in New Hampshire? Huckabee is primarly seen as a social/Christian conservative candidate, and social conservatism just doesn’t play well in the Northeast. Remember, New Hampshire Republicans are more along the lines of Lincoln Chafee, Christopher Shays, and Susan Collins, NOT Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, or Richard Shelby.
Kudos for Huckabee to even decide to campaign there. He could spin a third or fourth place showing as a victory, especially if he places higher than Giuliani, who is from nearby New York.
I also believe there’s an authenticity gap that makes Huckabee appealing. Like Obama, he has tapped into the frustrations of a lot of voters, regardless of party, who simply want government to get something done other than name-calling and blaming “tax cuts for the wealthy” Republicans and “surrender to the terrorist in Iraq” Democrats. So even though a lot of New Hampshire voters might not agree with Huckabee’s actual politics, I do believe he will be rewarded by voters who like his *approach* to politics. So I expect him to do better than expected.
A third place showing is not out of the question, although a lot of this depends on how much Obama runs up the score among independent voters. Put another way, a lopsided performance by Obama among independents spells bad news for John McCain and Ron Paul and good news for Mitt Romney.
Here are my predictions.
Democrats:
Obama 38%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 23%, Richardson 4%
Republicans:
If Obama finishes with less than 40% of the vote: McCain 31%, Romney 28%, Paul 15%, Huckabee 12%, Giuliani 10%, Thompson 2%
If Obama finishes with more than 40% of the vote: Romney 34%, McCain 29%, Huckabee 16%, Paul 11%, Giuliani 7%, Thompson 1%
I wrote more about this on my own blog, but these are my predictions.
While making a decision early ain’t all it’s cracked up to be (remember John Kerry in 2004), and while the big states have yet to be heard from, it’s entirely possible that by “Super Tuesday”, there could be one confirmed winner among Dems (Obama), while the Republicans divide the prizes among Huckabee (Iowa), McCain (NH), Romney (Michigan), and Thompson (SC). Who’d have thunk it?
If, ” mama loves Obama and daddy loves Obama ” how does McCain win ? Democrats and Independents love Obama and Republicans are lukewarm on McCain so how does McMain win?
I am just a political Neophyte. I don’t have any of the intellectual prowess of the erudite wizards on this site. However, I do still possess a modicum of common sense which tells me you can’t win if you don’t get the votes. If someone tells me how McCain can beat Obama I may vote for him.