So . . .
Was it backlash for the misogyny of the media or the Bradley effect?
It has been quite interesting watching everyone scramble to explain why the polls for the Democrats in New Hampshire were so far off. (Added to the above are some theories regarding Diebold voting machines.)
It is possible, of course, that the polls just happened to be wrong. One data point does not a trend make. It will be interesting to see what happens in future battles.
And ultimately, New Hampshire means that there will be future battles, (on both sides), before anything is decided. And the emerging consensus seems to be that that is good news:
The Clinton campaign has announced its plans. It's going to fight for Nevada and South Carolina, as well as the "Super Duper Tuesday" states.
For those of us who want as long a primary season as possible, so more Democratic voters will have the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the choice of a nominee, this is good news.
The highlighted portion being the significant part to me, since there is nothing more annoying than having an election decided before you've had a chance to cast a vote. And, according to Sullivan, the NH result carries a silver lining for Obama as well.
Some home truths: a tough, long primary battle will take the sting out of the powerful backlash that he is the function of a fad of euphoria, marketing hype, or gas-baggery. It will take the edge off the criticism that he is untested. It will help him prove his mettle and endurance.
Ah well, another week of watching people try and figure out the political tea leaves before the Michigan primary. I must thank the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire for making the race an interesting one.
Update:
According to Libby, it was a little of "all of the above", and I have to say I agree with her that its the most plausible explanation.
