"I think it's possible that, much as the surveys suggested, Hillary was simply somewhat less popular in Iowa than in New Hampshire."

In short:

Iowa was won by a candidate from a neighboring state.

New Hampshire was won by a candidate from a neighboring state.

The title of this post makes you sound a bit like a sore loser, Ezra. Don't be. Unhitch your wagon from the personality cult of the moment and try focusing on broader issues instead. Your head will clear and your writing will improve.

"Additionally, my hunch is that Clinton is better suited for late deciders. Supporting Obama is a gut decision: It's about inspiration, and belief, and even a sort of faith in a relatively untested politicians unique talents. My hunch is that process, if it happens, happens earlier on. Clinton, by contrast, is steady leadership in troubled times."

Bill Clinton said before Obama announced his candidacy that a fresh face would garner the attention but that in the end people would "settle on" Hillary.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but I split my time between Brooklyn and Hanover, and the 6 hr+ drive between the two kind of makes me skeptical of the "neighboring state" advantage.

"I'm no fan of Hillary, but I split my time between Brooklyn and Hanover, and the 6 hr+ drive between the two kind of makes me skeptical of the "neighboring state" advantage."

It's a six hour drive from Chicago to Des Moines, as well.

In a country the size of America, six hour drives are pretty damn short.

You realize the Caucuses happened last week, right? So if my post title were a display of favoritism, it would be in HRC's direction?

Sheesh.

boo hoo

Poor Ezra. Another Obama win and you could have positively orgasmed. Now you're left with whining about those horrid women who didn't fall for Obama's vague, vapid bs and plumped for someone who actually would make a decent president.

Don't feed the trolls, Ezra.

There's no anomaly either way, except for the week of frantic polling in NH.

Sen Clinton had Jeanne Shaheen's people in NH, the polls before Iowa had her ahead, and things turned out according to the pre-Iowa trends. (Having Shaheen on board is more important than 'nearby state', given that NH is firmly over the line that separates Yankees from Sox fans.)

The fallacy is to see one national narrative instead of a couple of state ones.

Or it basically came down to race. We've seen this before, when the booth is closed and no one is around whites are less likely to vote for a Black Candidate. The difference in Iowa was getting up in front of your neighbors and talking about it face to face. That explains the difference in the polls. When the pundits say it isn't about race, it usually is. As a black man, I am done with the Clintons after the Martin Luther King remarks.

As a black man, I am done with the Clintons after the Martin Luther King remarks.

Ha! You'll vote for her, along with everyone else on every goddamned liberal blog, if she's nominated. All talk.

Isn't it time we started toning down this rhetoric? We will have to choose one of these three to be our standard-bearer pretty damn soon--well, that or say goodbye to Western Civilization--and it would be nice if we'd all long stopped insinuating that our non-preferred candidates were racist, sexist, warmongering poopyheads. Makes the transition a bit easier.

I'm with jenga. Bradley Effect, Wilder Effect, whatever you want to call it. Yes, the pile-on by the male pundits on Clinton probably swayed a number of women voters to go her way (I'[m not crazy about her but even I started feeling sorry for her), but until we see an election result for a candidate of color actually match the polls, you can't discount race as a factor.

And Mike, no one is calling any of the candidates racist.

Those looking for a Wilder effect might want to provide some actual evidence to support this claim. Obama's 37% of the vote was exactly the same as his RCP poll average. He didn't underperform, she over performed. Americans are ready to vote for a black man. They are also ready to vote for a woman. Last night they voted for who will make the best President. That it was almost 80% for a black man and a woman is amazing! Let's enjoy it.

"Those looking for a Wilder effect might want to provide some actual evidence to support this claim. Obama's 37% of the vote was exactly the same as his RCP poll average. He didn't underperform, she over performed."

Yup. Clinton took votes from Edwards, not Obama.

It would be nice if we'd all long stopped insinuating that our non-preferred candidates were racist, sexist, warmongering poopyheads. Makes the transition a bit easier.

Good point.

I wonder if Hillary did better in NH not because women are 'afraid' to split with their husbands, but because more women could vote overall-- you have to have time, energy, and childcare to caucus. Voting in NH is far easier.

I'm with Persia, I don't know any women who vote based on their husbands anymore, and that includes women I would describe as old-school and in some cases archaic. Let us all get our panties out of bunch here, the woman won by three points. Furthermore I don't see how disliking Hillary makes a person anti-woman. I am a woman, and I don't want to have to vote for Hillary in the general election, of course I will if it comes to that (yet another election where I vote just so the Republicans don't win). I don't think she gets picked on because she is a woman, I think she gets picked on because she is running for President and that is part of game. And that crying bit was an embarrassment to women everywhere who don't resort to "feminine crying" when things don't go their way, the newscasters had every right to rip her apart for that, it didn't even compare to what I was saying about her when I saw that clip.

I'm a bit sick of hearing Hillary''s supporters scream about how evil men are.

If Hillary had been male, she'd be out of the campaign right now because she cried. Those same female voters that sympathize with her because she's a woman would have looked at her as a pathetic cry-baby if she were a man.

Hillary cried to get what she wanted. If Hillary was a man, those same women who sympathize with her now would look at her like a pathetic cry baby.

Seriously, This just seems like an attempt by Hillary supporters to ignore the elephant in the room.

IF people voted differently in NH they Iowa because of the public nature of Iowa, it's not gender that changed the results. Everyone here, everyone in punditry, and everyone in the blogosphere knows it too.

"The final 24 hours, of course, were dominated by her choking up over the state of the country..."

Um, no.

Sorry. Anonymous at 2:34 was me, and the snarky reply should have read "Um, no. Her choking up was caused by the realization that her right to the presidency, to which she feels so entitled, might possibly be denied."

On a personal level, she really is the one of the most unappealing (Democratic) candidates I've ever had to deal with.

Sorry, I’ve got to take issue with this Clintonian argument that somehow she unperformed in Iowa because Iowan women are too oppressed or in thrall to their husbands’ patriarchal authority. The campaign floated this before the caucus (“caucusing is hard for women”) and it has been re-emerging in the blogosphere as an explanation for the different results in Iowa and New Hampshire. And, I’ve got to say – it stinks as an argument. There’s no systematic evidence for it (pace your correspondent who “sat through” a caucus? As an observer, I’m assuming…) and it’s horrendously condescending. But, because it comports with coastal stereotypes about backwards Iowans, it seems to be going unchallenged.

One thing I quickly discovered calling and canvassing in my precinct was that there were a surprising number of households in which spouses were actively supporting different candidates. In fact, it was so widespread that I began to wonder if it was a form of “Iowa nice”: you can agree with more of your friends if you split the family vote.

But, you might responds, maybe that’s just an artifact of my precinct, which is in a middle-sized town and is split student/working-class/retirees. What about more “traditional” agricultural families? I haven’t canvassed in those districts, but it doesn’t fit with my experience. My guess is that you’re unlikely to see many shrinking, cowed violets in farm families. In the farm families I know, the women handle the accounts, deal with the money, and often have a “town” job on the side. They’re generally the opinionated ones in the family.

At the caucuses themselves, I have to say that there was one group of women who appeared to be confused and uncertain what they were doing there. They were the elderly women that the Clinton people brought in en masse. I was at my caucus site early to help set up so I was around when many of these women were bussed in. Quite frankly, there were a number who didn’t even seem to know they were voting, let alone who they were supporting. If anyone was manipulating women at the caucuses, it was the Clinton campaign.

Enough with the sisterhood sob stories.

Ezra klein is still the foxiest thing ever.

"If Hillary was a man, those same women who sympathize with her now would look at her like a pathetic cry baby."

If that's true, why haven't there been more people ganging up on Romney? He's cried three times since October, and when he did it there were actually tears. Unlike with Hillary where her voice just got shaky and her eyes watered? George H. W. Bush cried while he was talking about people piling on his son, and people didn't beat him up for it.

I wonder if people just don't realize how often male politicians do get teary or emotional because when they do, it doesn't receive wall-to-wall coverage. I definitely disagree that the reaction over Hillary's emotional moment wasn't born out of some kind of bias, be it sexist or just personal

Best use of fake tears since Boehner teared up over his war. She is gonna have to do a lot more of that to steal the whole show.

That makes sense, but Hillary Clinton was trailing in the pre-Iowa polls, too, and those are conducted individually, over the phone.

It seems reasonable to you that women who vote their husbands rather than their conscience don't know ahead of time who they're going to be told to vote for?

Re the claim that Hillary took votews away from Edwards not Obama: Weren't Edwards' numbers in NH pretty consistenetly around 17% for at least a week anyway? Isn't the predicted spread between Hillary and Obama that one that didn't come to pass?

My god, I should check my spelling before clicking Post.