The McCain theory

I said that new theories on the Clinton victory would continue to pop up. So here's a seventh - the McCain theory.

With all the fuss about Barack Obama it was easy to forget the other bandwagon rolling in New Hampshire - that of John McCain.

I observed the other day that Obama's Iowa victory might be bad news for McCain because Obama would attract the independents who have powered McCain in the past.

I didn't think to note that the obverse was also true - that McCain's emerging campaign threatened Obama.

Now, it seems as though that is a very good explanation of what happened. Here's what Ben Smith's Democrat watching blog suggests:

Preliminary exit poll results indicate that just over four in 10 voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary are independents, compared with 48 percent in 2004 and a record 50 percent in 1992.

In the Republican primary, preliminary results indicate again that about four in 10 are independents, similar to the previous high of 42 percent in 2000.

The McCain bandwagon can be ignored no longer.

Comments

[James Schneider]

Whilst this is very much correct, it doesn't answer the question of why the polls got it so wrong. How many registered independents could have possibly thought about voting Obama on monday and then went and voted McCain tuesday?

[Kurt]

According to this theory, Obama was reported in late polling as having New Hampshire sewn up, and so lots of Independents made a last-minute decision to vote in the Republican race.

[The Director]

Well done Senator McCain go , now go and win Michigan.
There is no other candidate that has the same gravitas or experience.

America will vote for the best candidate and that represents all America and that person is John McCain.

[michael leadbeater]

In a world of political spin McCain stands out as a man of integrity. He says what he believes and believes what he says and he stands by what he says despite the vagaries of popular and shallow media driven politics.

[Linda]

If McCain is a person of such integrity, why did he vote against habeas corpus in 2006? Do we really want another president who takes away constitutional rights by fiat in the name of national security?
Not for this independent, thank you.