Did an Obama Voter in a New Hampshire Coffee Shop Accidentally Help Make Hillary the Democratic Nominee and McCain the Next President?

To paraphrase a Buddhist proverb, "a butterfly flaps its wings in a New Hampshire coffee shop and a tsunami hits Washington, D.C."

If one moment can be credited with saving Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign after her devastating loss to Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa, many believe it's the 10 seconds in which she teared up in a New Hampshire coffee shop (before expertly pivoting to attack Obama's readiness for the White House), which apparently helped convince thousands of women to rally to Hillary to defeat Obama in New Hampshire by 7,500 votes.

The woman who asked the question "How do you do it?", which set off the tears, was Marianne Pernold-Young, a 64 year old breast cancer survivor, Democratic party activist and freelance photographer (she was a campaign photographer for Jimmy Carter's campaign and hosted a fundraiser for Bill Clinton in 1992) who says she actually voted for Barack Obama. According to reports, Pernold-Young almost didn't ask the question, thinking it was "too girlie", but when the microphone came her way after an hour of wonkish answers from Hillary, it was all she could think to ask.

In our upside down political system where personality counts for more than substance, it seems as though that moment may have changed the outcome of the New Hampshire Primary, strongly contributing Hillary's to surprise victory, rescuing her campaign from near death, and again making her the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

A USA/Today Gallup poll taken January 4-6 between the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary showed that among Democrats nationally, Clinton and Obama were tied at 33% each with Edwards at 20%. A CNN poll taken January 9-10, after the New Hampshire Primary, shows Clinton leading with 49% to 39% for Obama and 12% to Edwards. In polls taken January 9-12, CBS News shows Clinton ahead with 42% to Obama's 27% to Edward's 11%, and American Research Group has Clinton leading with 47% to 27% for Obama and 13% for Edwards.

In short, Clinton's New Hampshire victory, propelled in part by the incident in the New Hampshire coffee shop, may have saved Hillary Clinton's candidacy as the 2008 Democratic nominee.

Unfortunately, history may also come to show that it helped make John McCain the next President of the United States.

McCain's own New Hampshire victory restored his stature as the front-runner and likely Republican nominee. According to most polls, McCain would soundly beat Hillary Clinton in the general election and become the next President.

Ominously for Democrats, a Rasmussen polls released January 13 shows McCain defeating Clinton by 11 points, 49%-38%, up from Rasmussen's December polls which showed McCain beating Clinton by 6 points. January's Rasmussen polls shows McCain beating Obama by only 3 points, 46%-43% which is within the margin of error. In other words, according to Rasmussen, Obama has an 8 point advantage over Clinton in a race against McCain. A December 12-14 Zogby Poll has McCain defeating Clinton 49%-42% but Obama beating McCain 47%-43%, a 10 point advantage for Obama over Clinton.

Beyond the polls, there are many other reasons to fear that if the Democrats nominate Clinton and the Republicans nominate McCain, McCain would be the next President. Over the past two years, Hillary's "unfavorable" ratings have ranged from 40%-55% and are currently running about 45%, the highest "unfavorable" of any presidential candidate in presidential history at this stage of the campaign. With nearly half the voters already having decided not to vote for Clinton, she has almost no margin for error.

It's hard to think of a state that Bush won in 2000 or 2004 that would be won by Clinton over McCain in 2008. In contrast, it's not hard to conceive of McCain beating Clinton is such traditionally Democratic states as New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In fact, Rasmussen's most recent poll has McCain beating Clinton by 8% in Pennsylvania. Missouri Democratic Whip Connie Johnson recently warned, "If Hillary comes to the state of Missouri, we can write it off". That's one of the main reasons why Missouri's Democratic Senator, Clair McCaskill just endorsed Obama.

Morever, turnout is key in a Presidential campaign and, since McCain is not popular with much of the Republican base, many might stay home in a race against Obama or Edwards. In contracs, the Republican base rightly or wrongly despises Hillary, which could easily increase Republican turnout motivated just by defeating her, even if many Republicans are less than thrilled with McCain.

There are very few Democrats who would vote for Clinton in the primaries who would not also vote for Obama or Edwards in the general election. However, there are many independents and even disaffected Republicans who would not vote for Clinton in the general election but might well vote for Edwards or Obama, who, unlike Clinton, have shown the ability to reach beyond the traditional Democratic base. This is clearly shown by Obama trouncing Clinton among independents in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In contrast, the recent Rasmussen poll shows McCain beating Clinton by 21 points among independents.

Both Obama and Edwards show the potential of moving beyond the 50/50 blue/red divide of recent elections and significantly expanding the number of voters for the Democratic candidate, with a good chance of winning border states won by Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 like Virginia, Missouri, West Virginia and Tennessee and mountain states like New Mexico, Arizona, Montana and Colorado where Hillary Clinton would have a very hard time.

In addition, while many Congressional Democrats in red and purple distracts would have to run away from Clinton, Obama and Edwards are more likely to bring larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Whether in theory you think that progressive change would more likely come from demanding it, negotiating for it, or working hard for it, in practice progressive change will come most easily if a Democratic President is elected by a significant margin and Democrats add 5-7 Senate seats, creating a mandate that would discourage Republican filibusters of major reform legislation on issues like health care, taxes on the wealthy, and global warming. As a Democratic Senate candidate in a battleground state recently said, "I can tell you who would hurt me the most--Hillary Clinton."

So thank you Marianne Pernold-Young, if John McCain is our next President. I know you didn't mean it, but politics can take strange turns.

Comments

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Mogulescu,

I concur with your excellent essay/post/report.
Happy New Year to You and Yours. Agape.

[teahead]

I will still vote for Billary if she gets the nomination, only b/c I fear more young Republicans in the Supreme Court.

However, she doesn't have a snowball's chance of hell getting elected to that office.

Can't win w/o Independents and she surely doesn't have that vote.

[teahead]

Hillary is the poison pill for the Democrats' chance of a WHite House in 2009.

She will rally the reds like no other cause ever to be seen.

Blacks will stay home b/c she tarnished their best chance in 100 years for a Black man to be President.

[runswithscissors]

What's ridiculous is that the winners of the last two primaries, who were defeated soundly in the first, are suddenly the front-runners. No one really knows who the front runners are yet, esp. on the Republican side. Rudy could easily win FL, Romney could win MI, and Thompson isn't out of the question (though admittedly unlikely) in SC. Remember in 2000 for a while McCain looked like he'd defeat Bush...and unfortunately we all know how that turned out. On the Democratic side, if Obama really has that much more popularity than Clinton is should translate into victories in these next few states.

As for the national election, it's WAY too early to speculate. Hundreds of thousands of votes could be cast for the VPs on the tickets, who haven't even been decided.

[Mike5000]

Clinton does worst of all three leading Dem candidates against all of the possible Repugs in head-to-head polls. Edwards does best with Obama close behind. Clinton's worst foe? McCain. So the corporate media has blacked out Edwards and is trying to engineer a Clinton loss to McCain.

It's up to us in the blogosphere to spread the good word about Edwards to our couch potato friends. Or McCain is the next president.

And don't expect another opportunity in 2012. The telcos will be limiting bandwidth to any site deemed anti-fascist long before then.

[noblind]

a radio talk show host said that its unfortunte but many people that havn't voted in years will come out to vote against obama or clinton....it will be another republican in the white house

[Countess]

Clinton will ensure a republican victory in november as many Americans begin to realize how the vast right wing conspiracy might actually be right about her. She is well on her way to destroying her own party in order to win.

[DennyCrane]

Hillary has no crossover appeal. She's not going to win any new converts and people like me who support Obama will only vote for her because we don't want to see a Republican in the white house (although I live in a blue state so maybe I don't even need to cast my vote). But Obama not only appeals to Independents, but also some Republicans. Hillary just isn't electable. She can't win any new supporters and will only unite Republicans against her. You will see a record turnout of people voting for no other reason than to see Hillary defeated.

[LeeFromVA]

You are right, Miles, it's going to be VERY hard for us Obama supporters to turn around and vote for Hillary. I'm an independent and after seeing the way she's run her campaign I will NEVER vote for her.

[WilliePilgrim]

Why does the press feel so impelled to do this: ask a question so that it puts the press into some sort of operational/pivotal position?
So,if Hillary had lost the question would be asked whether she lost because of the crying...so no matter what the outcome, the press has somehow decided it was pivotal. In fact, following he well known broadcast adage "if it bleeds, it leads", one should add "if it cries, it flies". The outcome is unimportant but the role of the broadcast is elevated to the point wher if it didn't happen on camera it's not worth talking about and if it did, there's no point in talking about anything else...keep those eyes on the prize...the prize being increased profits as a result of decreased expenses when it comes to producing journalism and ultimately the private jet to take me and my toys to a private island where we can wait out the coming breakdown to civilization that TV is tacitly promoting.

[BirdsEatCats]

Right after it happened I said that the woman asking the question was actually being obnoxious, trying to be destructive in a typically devious female way, and inadvertantly caused a reaction that helped Clinton defeat Barack Hussein Obama in the primary.
A lot of the fools who support B. Hussein Obama don't realize that their smugness makes their attacks look mean and snide, and they may backfire.
The Self-Anointed One (Mr B Hussein Obama) could learn something about the dangers of arrogance, smugness and condescension from the failures of Al Gore and John Kerry. Showing the world how superior you think you are doesn't convince anyone it's true.
Stupid people outnumber intelligent ones, and the smug snide and snarky attitude of the Obamanites alienates the many who have been the recipients of such insults in their lives, while gaining little new support from thoughtful voters.

[fourex]

I have read reports that very few people in New Hampshire could have possibly seen this before they voted. Nice story though the forest was empty when it fell.

[Idytme]

"In our upside down political system where personality counts for more than substance..."

And from an Obama supporter, none the less. Hmmmmmm.

I'm glad people called you out for citing polling. New Hampshire should have told you something.
Since they got Obama's numbers correct it very well could be that a lot of women will turn up to vote for Hillary, but that is just a guess. The take away should be that polling is worthless right now and maybe for the whole race.

[Epenthesis]

This is just silly. How valid are general election polls taken ten months in advance when neither nominee has yet been chosen?

[lilyann]

This article is a good example of why people are fed up with the press pushing an agenda that doesn't match real life.
I was talking with a neighbor yesterday who is 80 years old, and she confided to me that she was going to vote for Hillary Clinton. I was shocked! I expected her to vote for someone in her own Republican party. Why, I asked her. She said because someone has to help people get health care they can afford, and she's the only one who really means it when she says it's her goal. So where does that figure in this article analysis? People vote their pocket book.