What we saw, ladies and gentlemen, was a catastrophic media failure. The voters of New Hampshire, notoriously -- fiercely -- independent, were not swayed by the corporate mainstream media. Of course, there will be more polls, more analysis of the raw data about who voted for whom. So far, it looks like Clinton "won back" the women's vote that Obama gained in Iowa, and also that the legions of college students who were showing up at Obama rallies never actually made it to the polls to vote. (You know it's risky to depend on 19 year-olds, who -- bless their hearts -- are not known as the most reliable of demographics. Am I right, parents?) It probably didn't help that some schools are on semester break this week.
My favorite theory so far in the discrepancy between the polls and the results is that the voters of New Hampshire messed with the pollsters. I think that's the ultimate power grab by the people. No one should know who the winner will be until each and every voter has had the opportunity to got into the voting booth and make their choice. It sounds like a lot of New Hampshire voters waited until just that moment to decide.
And lastly, I still wonder about the Implicit Association Test , which I wrote about a week or so ago. A lot of people have said that they "like" Obama, but when it came time to make the final vote, was there a subconscious divergence? I don't know. I suppose the media will be scrambling to save face, so look for more theories and predictions to come.
New Hampshire: Live Free or Die!