And perhaps with Edwards soon out of the realistic picture, Clinton will more full-throatedly appeal to her natural base of working class Democrats.

Her natural base of working class Democrats. Um, okay.

Anyway, do you see Edwards' support suddenly going to her now that he's "out of the realistic picture" (whatever that means)?

Um, okay.

Maybe it's just me, but I would think that people swayed by Edwards economic populism would be more likely to move toward Obama than someone tied to Clintonite free-trade economic policies.

But, perhaps you are implying that working class people would prefer a white woman to a black man. Is that it?

No, Rock, that is certainly not what I meant. Rather, polls show that Clinton enjoys strong support from working class and lower middle class Democrats, who love Bill, are nostalgic for the 90s, and have bought into her experience argument.

One of the TNR guys, I think it was Judis, has a great explanation of this phenomenon, and I will look for the link to post here. In the meantime, I need to catch some sleep.

And just to clarify, many of those same voters aren't white. And they are women.

Great. Working class voters are supporting a candidate that will sell out their interests in a heartbeat. Hopefully that it's just a NH phenomenon.

Dana,

Thanks for posting the link to Judis' analysis. It's interesting because I don't see Clinton's economic policies as being particularly more populist than Obama's, if at all. Perhaps Obama's "centrist" rhetoric on social security and other issues has hurt him here. That would be too bad, because his record as a state senator was distinctly progressive -- enough so that I think his recent rhetoric was designed for campaigning rather than governing (which is fine by me; that worked for Bush).

In any case, I hope you didn't take offense to my question about race in voter preference. It was meant honestly. Attitudes toward race and sex can obviously influence election outcomes. I'm sure we'll be seeing more about the "Bradley effect" in the media given the result of this primary.

Eh, who needs sleep :-)

No offense taken, Rock. I think the key thing to realize here is that voters don't vote on issues -- or certainly not issues as specific as Obama and Clinton's differences on Social Security or health care mandates. Interviewing voters, canvassing in primary state neighborhoods -- that will completely burst the myth that voters are informed about policy. What they will tell you is that Hillary is great b/c she and Bill did great work together in the 90s. Or that Obama is charismatic. Or that Edwards has a nice wife.

Depressing, but that's what you hear out there.

I just hope this makes sure the public starts focusing more on the substance. This election has got to be about answers.

My candidate (Edwards) is out so I don't have it in for either, but we need to have the strongest candidate possible. I personally think if Obama can make some adjustments he can be that candidate, but Hillary could prove to be strong too if she dumps that bastard Penn, starts being more of herself, and force people to get past Obama's rhetoric and see his voting record. I still think Obama is the favorite.

I'm pretty sure the mention of children in crumbling schools referred specifically to South Carolina children. He also referred to SC textile workers, who're almost certainly UNITE-HERE members. It's another example of how he used much more specific rhetoric in this speech.

I am an upper middle class white guy who has serious suspicions about how the polls could have been so wrong. If I am harboring conspiracy theories, how is this going to play in Harlem, on the South Side of Chicago, in much of South Carolina, an in every "ethnic" neighborhood throughout the country?

Hate to say it but I'm with JGH. Bradley, Wilder, Gant....Obama? A very depressing thought to consider, particularly in a Democratic primary. But if true, it does prove we haven't come nearly as far as we kid ourselves into thinking we have.

An uneasy night in LaborLawyer's abode.

Without men and indies, we lose in the fall. Thanks, NH women. Enjoy the moment. Bush Part III coming up, in the form of St. McCain. God help us all.

JGH what happened to 'going to the bargershop' or 'reading the African-American weeklies?' It is nice to see you hitting all the blogs with the same conspiracy theory but you need to be consistent.

It appears Obama's support in the pre-election polls, the actual vote, and the exit polls are all remarkably similar.
There was no Bradley effect.
Obama didn't lose NH because of a racist conspiracy he lost because Clinton cleaned up with women, Democrats, and people over 40.

Yeah, people over 40 get riled when some whippersnapper goes after Social Security and the nice old lady whose husband gave working people their biggest tax cut ever in the form of the Earned Income Credit.

Clinton has found her narrative alright, it's "I'm a woman and I feel you feel you feel you, because I cried and you bought it, even though I was actually tearing up for myself. And you rallied when the mean guy said I wasn't for change, and then he was mean again after I cried, or almost cried."

Or, "my heart is full", "I found my voice" and something about "invisible" people [that last one is a rerun from the olden days].

According to Matt Yglesias' data the difference in the polls can be mostly attributed to the undecideds; Obama's was only a sliver less than predicted, and Edwards a little bigger pinch than that. Impulse shoppers.

Um, just to clarify, I make over $50,000, but I can guarantee you that I am not a "wine rack" type.

I didn't here Obama supporters complaining about late deciders/"impulse shoppers" when they voted for their candidate in Iowa.

What they will tell you is that Hillary is great b/c she and Bill did great work together in the 90s. Or that Obama is charismatic. Or that Edwards has a nice wife.

That's WHAT THEY TELL YOU.

Regarding substance and preferences of voters: while doing some research on something else, I ran into the following article, " What Voters Want From Political Campaign Communication" in the journal Political Communication . I unfortunately haven't had time to read the whole thing, but here is the abstract, which I think buttresses some of the comments made above:

"Conventional wisdom holds that the public dislikes campaigns for their negativity and superficiality, preferring a cleaner, substantive, and more deliberative process. By contrast, the implication of Hibbing and Theiss-Morse’s (2002) Stealth Democracy is that, while citizens will indeed dislike campaigns, they do not necessarily desire more deliberation, debate, and discussion of issues. Instead they want simple cues that allow them to size up candidates with minimal effort. In this article, we test these theories with survey and focus group data collected during the 2002 California gubernatorial race. Ultimately, the ideal campaign envisioned by the public falls somewhere between the substantive and participatory campaign envisioned by reformers and what we call an “undemanding campaign.” We also find that attitudes toward campaigns vary substantially based on political involvement and demographic attributes. Most important, politically involved citizens desire the more substantive campaigns envisioned by reformers, but less involved citizens want less demanding campaigns. This finding suggests not only that any generalizations about what the public wants from campaigns must be cautious, but also that reformers may need to tailor their proposals to the tastes of different groups of citizens if these proposals are to be effective. "

As long as Edwards keep cruising in about 15%, I don't see him going anywhere.

Especially if Clinton and Obama keep trading off leads -- that chunk of delegates Edwards is accumulating for each finish about 15% might be very critical near the end.

If you take him at face value, he's running very heavily on specific issues -- that's quite a bargaining chip to make sure the nominee pays more than lip service to those issues.

Or more cynically -- for a position, whether cabinent member, VP, or whatnot. If not for him, then someone he wants.