Elections 2008: Can It Get Any More Unpredictable?

Editor's note. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Write to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

I think I knew something was up last night as soon as two consecutive meetings at church were cancelled and my wife called to say she was taking our daughters to the movies. That meant I was free to go home to watch the results from the New Hampshire' primary in "real time."

By now you've probably memorized the results. Sen. John McCain defeated former governors Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, 37% to 31.5% and 11.2%, respectively.  And, in a result that no one saw coming, including me, pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton stunned pro-abortion Sen. Barack Obama 39% to 36.4%.

The next major battles will be Tuesday in Michigan and the following Saturday in South Carolina. It only promises to get more interesting and prediction-defying.

Let me offer some impressions that I think might help put the evening in perspective.

Sen. McCain was expected to prevail narrowly--at least that's what the prior polls suggested. But CNN projected McCain's victory so early it caught even the McCain camp off-guard.

Going into last night, Sen. Obama's lead was uniformly hefty across all polls, including the candidates'. It didn't hurt that most of the chatting class was in the tank for the pro-abortion charismatic young senator, constantly conjuring up comparisons to President John F. Kennedy.

However, right out of the box, the early exits polls suggested a relatively small lead of five points for Obama, less than half (or even a third) of what some polls had been indicating. Later, the fuller, more detailed results of the exit polls would accurately foreshadow a Clinton victory.

There are, of course, oodles of theories supposedly explaining Sen. Clinton's unexpected victory. Those include her own--her performance in the Saturday debate--while others suggest it was a rush of sympathy for her when she choked up, or resentment among women over several alleged slights to Sen. Clinton.

What we do know is this. Although Obama easily prevailed among male voters (40% to 29%), Sen. Clinton's margin among women was just as impressive--46% to 34%. The kicker was that only 43% of the Democratic voters were men, as opposed to 57% who were female.

One other statistic jumped out at me (all of these come from exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool consortium). While the percentage who decided yesterday, or over the past three days, was identical for Clinton and Obama, Clinton held a whopping 48% to 31% margin among the one-third who said they had decided prior to this last month.

What Senator Clinton's campaign did masterfully was to get its supporters to the polls. In a brilliant analysis Jay Cost pointed out this morning that, at least in New Hampshire, Clinton "put together the voting coalition that has held Democratic frontrunners in good stead for 75 years."

Another thought: When you're in a free-fall, as Clinton was over the weekend, you need to change what you are doing in a serious way.

The Clintons are so formidable partially because they not only realize this truism, they act on it. In the Saturday debate, Sen. Clinton was aggressive, demanding that people ask themselves, in effect, what has Sen. Obama done? In other words, she was feisty.

But then a dufus reporter went on and on, ending with this: "What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight, who see a resume and like it but are hesitating on the likeability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more?"

Clinton's answer was pitch-perfect: "Well, that hurts my feelings." Everybody laughed, and then she said, "But I'll try to go on." More laughter.

"He's very likable. I agree with that," she added, followed by the clincher conveyed in a small voice: "I don't think I'm that bad."

My guess is that few people appreciated how cleverly she had answered. Sen. Clinton had first gently mocked the notion that somehow she would fall apart if told the electorate "liked" Obama more, then subtly asked the audience to feel empathy for her. I'm not easily impressed but that was a dazzling display of political and rhetorical skill.

By contrast, Sen. Obama, who gives a great stump speech but is not particularly agile in verbal give and take, chimed in woodenly, "You're likable enough, Hillary." Not gracious, not gallant, and especially not smart.

In addition, pundits pounded Clinton unmercifully for holding an event just two days before the primary where she fielded questions from the audience for two whole hours. Not like that smart Obama, they snickered, who used that same time to race from one gathering to another.

But consider this: Clinton held her event at the same high school gym Obama had spoke in the day before.

What did this intense back-and-voter with voters accomplish? Something critical to her compare-and contrast line of attack.

She was saying that, unlike that guy who is all speed and no altitude, I can take any of your questions as long as you ask them and give substantive answers.

Never underestimate the Clinton machine or its adroitness.

As I say it's on to Michigan, with a brief pit-stop in Nevada for its caucus.

If you have any comments or questions, please send them to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.