All you need to know: Morning of 9th January 2008

Money quote from a Clinton aide:
"We stopped the freight train."

A win for Hillary Clinton in the Democrat race:

• Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 37%, John Edwards 17%, Bill Richardson 5%.

And for John McCain in the GOP race:

• John McCain 37%, Mitt Romney 32%, Mike Huckabee 11%, Rudy Giuliani 9%, Ron Paul 8%, Fred Thompson 1%

And a big defeat for the punditocracy:

The FT blog notes how the markets got the result so incredibly wrong.

The early editions of the UK newspapers were also caught out.  The Times led on the "Obama magic".

Stephan Shakespeare of YouGov reflects on the opinion polls that predicted a big Obama victory:

"My view therefore is that the media – indeed, the wider public buzz - has a stronger influence on polls than it has on actual behaviour. You will tend to see a ‘mean reversion’ (that is, a return to norms) as the froth settles down, and potentially a strong anti-reaction when reality hits, itself creating new froth..."

OUR CANDIDATE-BY-CANDIDATE GUIDE TO WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT...

FIRST THE DEMOCRATS...

Hillary Clinton: She probably won because of (a) the Clinton get-out-the-vote machine, (b) that tearful, humanising moment 36 hours ago and (c) a New Hampshire voter reaction to the "inevitability" of an Obama victory.

Watch Senator Clinton's victory speech.

John Edwards: Time to step down?  It's looking more and more like a two horse race.

Barack Obama: His campaign team told the media that they'd win New Hampshire.  Team Clinton will use that failure to underline their general critique that Team Obama is not ready for prime time and will be destroyed by the Republican machine in the General Election.  Leading Obama cheerleader Andrew Sullivan sees growth opportunities in all of this:

"Part of me is happy to see two candidates forced to battle it out in a long slog. We find out more that way. They grow more. More people get a say. That's a good thing. And I should say that although I remain a passionate Obama supporter among the Democrats, I also feel little compunction in recognizing that Clinton did have something of a personal breakthrough in the last few days. The brittle exterior cracked. What was beneath is more human and less calculated. She was forced to explain from the heart why she really wants to win.  People responded. As they would."

The New York Times Caucus blog asks if race was a factor: "Tim Russert on MSNBC is reporting that the Clinton internal polls showed Mr. Obama winning by 14 points and Mr. Obama’s had him winning by 11 percent.  This may lead to speculation that in a secret ballot, white voters will not vote for an African American."  James Forsyth thinks that's too easy an explanation for those who got their predictions so wrong.

Best headline summary: "Dated Obama, married Hillary" - The Economist

AND THE REPUBLICANS...

Mike Huckabee: Richard Lowry asks the key question for Iowa's victor: "It will be interesting to see how a Huckabee-McCain fight will play out in South Carolina. Will Huckabee—despite being so outraged by attacks on McCain recently—go after him hard? Or will we begin to see the outlines of a McCain-Huckabee deal to put Huck on the ticket as VP? There are worse things than being in the second slot on a ticket where the top guy is 71-years old."

John McCain.  Now favourite to win the GOP nomination.  Watch his victory speech.

Ron Paul: Still no sign that the electronic enthusiasm is converting into electoral support.  The Paulites had hoped to do better in "live free or die" New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney: Widely disliked (noted Fred Barnes), Governor Romney's last chance is in Michigan - the state which his father used to represent.  That's the father who attended the Martin Luther King rally - or perhaps not.

And, in conclusion, Mark Steyn thinks that everyone lost: "Romney lost, because he came second, which is starting to look like a pattern; McCain lost, because his margin over Romney is, as noted below, underwhelming enough to get his comeback written off as little more than a local phenomenon; Huckabee lost, because a distant third with no evidence of an Iowa bounce makes his caucus victory seem ancient history; Giuliani lost, because he barely beat Ron Paul; Paul lost, because he couldn't even beat Giuliani; Thompson lost, because he's a big-time Hollywood guy with a hot primetime TV show and, even if he were totally incompetent, that ought to be worth more than one per cent."

Yesterday's All You Need To Know.

Comments

[Edward]

No mention of Rudy Giuliani, ed? He is still competitive coming into the later states when everyone said Iowa, NH losses would wipe him out. Let's see if Florida can't at least bounce him up toward McCain...

[Tony Makara]

Good to see the Barack Obama roadshow hit the buffers. I don't like the idea of someone as naive as Obama being president. John McCain has certainly done well, however if the Republicans put him up for the presidency they will lose. McCain's foreign policy is too hawkish. This race, in both camps, gets more facinating with each week.

[Matthew]

Amazing how youthful and fresh McCain looks at 71 in comparison to the younger Ming Campbell. Romney is surely still favourite, he's done well in both states without winning.

[James Maskell]

Clinton's attempts at emotion dont work with me. It looks forced. She knew she was going to be asked about the rpessure and ashe had prepared that the night before. The BBC said it was the stress getting to her. If thats true, then shes simply not a strong enough person mentally for the Presidency. If she thinks losing one primary out of 50 is a moment for public tear-jerking, then what is she going to do once Iran and Russia start testing her new regime, should she be elected?

The press did indeed completely jump the gun with Obama (BBC News 24 yesterday was all about how Obama was going to pretty much cake walk New Hampshire).

Giuliani wont make it to the nomination. Hes only playing for the big states and the only reason hes running at all is because of the immediate reaction to 9-11.

[Steevo]

"Republicans put him up for the presidency they will lose. McCain's foreign policy is too hawkish."

Presumptive, wishful thinking from a Brit with no clue (not that it matters). I say its his foreign policy that will give him the most solid chance with our conservative vote which will be absolutely critical in the presidential vote. But yeah, we're not conservatives like you are a conservative. And we're not British just as you're not American.

[Editor]

Hi Edward, Giuliani (just more than McCain) remains my choice for the GOP nomination. Leaving him out didn't reflect any particular bias.

[Steevo]

He is? Well you're a smart guy after all :)

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Well yet again the "youth vote" was terribly elusive. Why does anyone depend on them in their numbers?

The only bummer is that it looks like South Carolina might re-envigorate Huckaloon's campaign.

[Tony Makara]

Giuliani is definitely the best bet. He can eat into the non-committed democratic vote and can play the patriotic card too. My brother is a regular visitor to NYC and he has always rated Giuliani very highly, especially after seeing the effects of zero-tolerance played out over time. Got to admire McCains drive though, 71 years old and still carrying his own bags, as they say use it or lose it.

[Steevo]

Rudy is a good guy Tony. He's genuine.

Andrew I fear that messiah-Obama smile because I fear my country. Its not over yet. The "get out the vote" kiddies and adults for "change" have power. This is a win for Hillary that made me happy.

[Umbrella man]

"And a big defeat for the punditocracy"

Yeah. A really bad night for all pundits.

[Edward]

Thanks, Tim. Good to know! Especially good to know we agree!

[Jonathan Powell]

I don't think McCain will get the nomination. He might win Michigan but Huckabee will win South Carolina, which means Guiliani is back in the game. I like McCain, but this result flatters him because Independents can vote, which I don't think is generally the case.

Bad news for Obama, but I think he can make a comeback if Black voters keep the faith. It would help if Edwards dropped out and backed Obama. I hope Hilary doesn't win the nomination but at least if she does that gives the GOP a chance (assuming they nominate Guiliani).

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Just returned from the US and the delight of watching endless TV coverage of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Most striking is the calibre (and experience) of the leading Republican candidates compared with what is on offer here.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Sorry that Obama lost.Happy that McCain won.Even though he didn't campaign Guliani must be starting to worry about these awful numbers.
If Edwards calls it a day will he back Obama?

[S_baker]

I didn't like Romney at first, I do now, and McCain is a no go with me. McCain lost me when I lived in Arizona and he supported illegal alien amnesty!

[Tony Makara]

Malcolm Dunn, John Edwards does carry a lot of blue collar union support with him and I think that might put him more in line with Obama. While I think Edwards is the most level-headed on foreign policy I notice that he does attack big business a lot. Not something I like to see.

[Comstock]

Would Edwards be interested in the vice-presidency I wonder? As a southern white male,he has real 'balancing' potential for either Clinton or Obama.

[Ami]

I don't think I would worry about Obama losing in NH. Hillary is going to choose him as her running mate, and they will run as representing change with experience. Right now they are doing what is expected of them to placate their respective supporters, while raising as much money as they each can for the general election.

The two will do very well in the election. With them winning the White House social spending will become even more out of control than it is now. The military budget will be slashed to pay for even more social spending. Universal Healthcare will be shoved down our throats, and any other Socialist policy that pops into their heads will be embraced by the people who think they are getting services at no cost to them.

The US is on the verge of bankruptcy, we should be spending less and cutting more, not looking to see where else we can spend what we have. Our politicians have buried their heads in the sand and sadly most of our citizens have too. What ever happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?"

But on the plus side Britain and Europe will have a president that they can love and respect again. And, oh boy, maybe you will even stop calling Americans "stupid." Somehow I doubt it.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Stop whining Ami, it's boring.I can see nobody calling American 'stupid'.

[Steevo]

"Whining"? You, claiming a high ground with this? How about going out of YOUR way, like so many times before, like even now, to imply or cast direct insult without the slightest conscience to blatant hypocracy. Making it a point to interject insult totally irrelevant to discussion. Looking for the cheapest angles to try and discredit when you fall short of the same. Being responsible here for this forum undergoing censorship by the editor. And you think to yourself even now you can pull a sheet over others' eyes. We don't know who you are and what you've been about? You're only fooling yourself here.

Now, you don't think Ami has a point or something? If so explain why. Be an adult Malcolm. Reasons, facts - explain why you don't like what she has said.

Can't you ever say anything good, from the heart, about any American here?

[Ami]

Ever hear of sarcasm, Malcolm? You have never heard the British call Americans stupid? Well, my mistake then, it must never have happened because Malcolm says so. Perhaps you are not watching or listening closely enough? Or, perhaps, you are so use to it that it now passes unnoticed? Whatever the case, the occasion of on-line newspapers, oodles of articles written over there on the subject that are now available here, and blogs outlining Britain's/Europe's hate of America are spreading the message loudly and clearly. Just not fast enough.

Some Americans are resistant to the message and still have this completely misplaced fondness for a people who offer nothing but disdain and contempt in return. No, I certainly don't understand Americans who still consider Britain a friend and ally, but I do know that not very long ago Americans considered France and Germany "friends" too, and look where that stands today. Warms my heart.

I come to blogs such as this one to gather examples to pass on to those who question the so-called "special relationship," and guess what? I always find a "malcolm" type, full of insults, criticism, and just a general nasty piece of work who does my job for me. LOL! I appreciate you more than you know, Malcolm.

I am one of the few but ever increasing number of Americans who intensely dislike Europe/Britain. We are the few who read your newspapers, read your blogs and watch your TV news. There is nothing there for us but hate. I find the American relationship with Europe/Britain to be no more than a very bad habit, and like every bad habit this one needs to be broken very soon.

Steevo, you seem like a really nice guy, but I think you are engaged in a lost cause here. I appreciate your words, though, thank you. :-)

[Jonathan Powell]

Ami,

Rather than trying to whip up xenophobia and alienating everyone who doesn't agree with you 100%, why don't you try to argue your case and try to win people over.

The fact is that countries don't have opinions or feelings, only people do. Malcolm doesn't speak for the UK any more than you speak on behalf of the USA. The reality is that on aggregate Britain and America share a lot of common ground and have a strong alliance, but within that there is a wide range of views on both sides. That doesn't mean the alliance isn't worth having, any more than the fact people within the USA might bitterly disagree with one another (e.g. Ann Coulter and Michael Moore) means that the USA should break up into separate countries. The things which bind us go deeper than individual disagreements on particular issues.

[Steevo]

Jonathan, xenophobia is quite a word. There is no fear of foreigners in her statement. She is justifying her conclusions by pointing out her experience, prejudice. And prejudice sucks. I also have experienced it, many Americans have. I have trouble believing you would deny its pervasiveness. I try here at least with some Brits to reach some kind of worthy understanding and I even find on occasion solid mutual agreement, with, some. And its wonderful. I think these are honest folks with sound values and honorable intention. People who know who they are, without the need to look down on the more powerful country. But if you come here on a regular basis you will find many Brits who are motivated, by and large, to point the finger of fault. Its a much stronger motivation than anything positive and with some everything is negative, even gut-ugly sleaze. Don't you know how your fellow Brits would feel if enough Americans went over to Conservativehome with the same negativity and know-it-all arrogance?

BTW take a look at a history of BBC articles about America and make a comparison of the positive and negative. And when polling says a majority of people in the UK don't want closer relations with us, but the contrary, that does make for a potent bottom line. Its not that way here but it is like Ami says, growing. I hope it doesn't amount to a serious percentage but I can't argue with people who's conclusions are based on a load of experience that I also know first hand.

It has been my impression in this past half year or so anti-Americanism has peaked and gradually on the decline.

[Ami]

Jonathan,

You are missing my point. I have already taken your advice, and argue my position whenever the situation presents itself. I don't believe the future of my country lies with Europe or Britain. Obviously you don't agree, and your position is to save this useless alliance. That's fine, but I maintain the right to work for my position as you work for yours.

This has nothing to do with you not agreeing with me, but everything to do with the quality and quantity of differences between our nations and our people. I am going to assume that you are a Brit, as you seem to be very generous telling me what I should be doing. Perhaps you should share your advice with other Brits and Europeans because that is the source of my dislike for you.