pageok
pageok
pageok
NH Exit Polls:

CNN has fascinating exit polls from New Hampshire.

One example: who would have thought when the election season began that Ron Paul would most appeal to [male, no surprise for a libertarian candidate] liberal independent under-30s who aren't religious, don't go to church, favor civil unions, think abortion should be legal [Paul favored the "Defense of Marriage Act," and has introduced various anti-abortion bills into Congress, including one stating that life begins at conception], and think the economy, not Iraq, is the most important issue (and who, oddly enough, want the next president to be "more conservative")? And that despite New Hampshire's reputation as a haven for crusty old Yankee libertarians, Paul would be eight times more popular among 18-24s than among over-65s?

Among the Democrats, it's amazing how evenly match Clinton and Obama are along just about every margin--in particular, liberals, moderates, and conservatives all basically split their votes--except that (1) women overwhelmingly favored Clinton, men Obama; and (2) Obama crushed Clinton among 18-24s.

Mark Bahner (www):

[Paul favors constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and abortion]


What is your source for that?
1.8.2008 10:11pm
John Thacker (mail):
I guess I would think that for the abortion and gay marriage bits, they might disagree with him, but figure that the impossibility of getting the super-majority to get actual amendments combined with Paul opposing most federal legislation on the subject without such amendments means that they don't have to worry about what they don't like about him getting passed. That's not an irrational position-- favor the person whose parts you like have a good chance of affecting policy, and whose parts you don't are unlikely to. Alternatively, of course, they might have no idea that that's part of his platform.

Liberals who want the next president to be more conservative is interesting, though.
1.8.2008 10:13pm
John Thacker (mail):
Actually, my understanding of his position is that he wants an amendment explicitly stating that the states are free to ban abortion if they wish, not an amendment banning abortion.
1.8.2008 10:14pm
John Thacker (mail):
He also wants a amendment that would be the equivalent of the Defense of Marriage Act, stating that states may ban (or not) civil unions and gay marriage if they wish.

In both cases, it appears that he feels that the 10th Amendment should already work that way, but that since, in his view, the Courts have misinterpreted the Constitution, explicit Amendments are necessary.
1.8.2008 10:18pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Fixed.
1.8.2008 10:20pm
Mark Bahner (www):
From Ron Paul's website:

First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.


"Ideally, allow states to again ban or regulate abortion"
1.8.2008 10:22pm
iReachable (mail) (www):
you can help your 08 choice score here:

http://www.ireachable.com/vote

Though NH, IOWA primaries are over - voters from these states as well as voters from all states can continue to show and manage their 08 choice as candidates drop out of race or you as voter change mind and want move your support.
1.8.2008 10:58pm
Anonn:
What I find interesting is that, had Bill Clinton been an option, the exit polls suggest the people voting today would have ended up giving us this result:

Bill: 38%
Obama: 28.2%
Hillary: 16.2%
1.8.2008 11:10pm
alias:
And that despite New Hampshire's reputation as a haven for crusty old Yankee libertarians, Paul would be eight times more popular among 18-24s than among over-65s?

Once these 18-24s realize that they didn't vote for this guy, they're going to be quite upset.
1.8.2008 11:42pm
Thoughtful (mail):
DB: And that despite New Hampshire's reputation as a haven for crusty old Yankee libertarians, Paul would be eight times more popular among 18-24s than among over-65s?

You were aware, were you not, that among 18-29 year old Republican voters in Iowa last week, Paul came in #1?
1.8.2008 11:53pm
Martin Vennard (mail) (www):
Hi, I work for an international discussion programme called World Have Your Say on BBC World Service radio and today (Wednesday 9th) between 1pm and 2pm Eastern Time in the States we are discussing why the media and pollsters got it so wrong when it came to predicting the results in New Hampshire and whether the media is in love with the idea of an Obama presidential victory. If you are interested in taking part in our discussion, please send me a brief explanation of your point of view and your contact numbers to martin.vennard@bbc.co.uk or call me +442075570635 and I will call you straight back.

Many thanks

Martin Vennard
1.9.2008 7:44am
Hoosier:
Does anyone have any insight on why Iowa women went for Obama, but NH women for Hillary? Are female Iowans signficantly younger, on average? Did something happen over the weekend that was more important than I thought?
1.9.2008 11:26am
bittern (mail):

I don't find the Paul pro-choicers that strange. They are libertarian, and Paul is the most libertarian, in spite of his pro-life stance.

Voters on the Republican side who strongly disapprove the war in Iraq preferred McCain. Voters on the Democrat side who want to withdraw as soon as possible preferred Clinton. Both results seem contrary on the face. But they are probably explicable by general tendencies of some sort.
1.9.2008 12:11pm
Anderson (mail):
Does anyone have any insight on why Iowa women went for Obama, but NH women for Hillary?

NH, you got a broader cross-section of women, for one thing. Night-shift women, single moms with kids, etc., have a harder time caucusing.

Also, tho I dunno about this, it's suggested that the consensus-building quality of caucusing affected the female vote more. When the guys are going "Obama!" the women are supposedly less likely to stick to their guns &go "Hillary!" if it makes them look like sticks-in-the-mud. Like I said, I dunno about this -- it sounds like stereotyping, but not all stereotypes are false.
1.9.2008 12:15pm
Anderson (mail):
Voters on the Republican side who strongly disapprove the war in Iraq preferred McCain.

Very, very mysterious. This advantage of McCain's should dissolve as his actual, war-toutin' views become better known.
1.9.2008 12:16pm
annon6:
Perhaps the explanation is that voters lied to the exit pollsters?

I wonder how many likely voters also lied to pollsters about their support for Obama earlier this week? Haven't we seen other elections where the black candidates actual support is much weaker than shown in polls?
1.9.2008 12:29pm
Anderson (mail):
I wonder how many likely voters also lied to pollsters about their support for Obama earlier this week?

No dice. The polls accurately predicted Obama's votes. They just underpredicted Hillary's.
1.9.2008 12:41pm
Gramarye:
Anderson wrote:
Very, very mysterious. This advantage of McCain's should dissolve as his actual, war-toutin' views become better known.
Maybe. But people said that about Giuliani's candidacy, and while that's down a bit now, I don't think that's anything to do with his views so much as his underestimation of how important those two hyperhyped early contests are.

I think a more likely explanation is that there is a solid block of people who "strongly disapprove of the war" because they think we're fighting it badly, not because we're fighting it at all. Depending on the competence (or machinations) of the pollster, the two different groups can both register as "disapproving" of the war. The latter, however, would never vote for McCain; the former just might, if they're convinced of McCain's competence and readiness to be commander-in-chief.
1.9.2008 2:27pm
Anderson (mail):
Good point, Gramarye.
1.9.2008 2:38pm