It was a night where Obama should have had a "crushing" victory, but in the end Clinton won by a comfortable yet still close 3 points. The media is now playing it's fickle game and the weakest of the journalistic tendencies this side of the pond is showing through with vast exaggerations over the life of the Obama campaign. One woman last night reported quite heavily on the "feeling" that Obama is now just fighting a lost cause, the night before she would have no doubt have been talking about the feeling of Obama being in the White House this time next year. The polls were read all wrong, too many people jumped on the large lead Obama had on Clinton without really ever letting the public know that almost a third of the voters were as yet undecided. The hype machine had built up and, as invariably happens, mistakes in interpretation were made that potentially damaged a candidates campaign through building him up too high.

But what can we learn from a little more of a factual stage of the process? There are now two polls based on the people that actually voted in each of the two states that have held Democratic events, and the rest of this post is going to go someway in to seeing if we can see if there are any emerging trends in the voting mindset of the public of America, what area's each of the main two need to make more of an impact on in South Carolina and Nevada, and what is hurting them most.

Initial difference between states

The make up of the electorate in the two states that turned out offers us a little insight in to why the scorecard was so different in New Hampshire than in Iowa. Firstly there is the time to make the decision. Three quarters of Iowa had made their choice a month before the caucuses, while only half of New Hampshire voters had done the same. Secondly there are the incomes. In New Hampshire 10% less were on an income of less than $50,000, with half the percentage of Iowa voters earning less than $15,000. It's been said that Clinton tends to have more of a sway with these less well off, and certainly with almost half the vote of those voting earning under that paltry amount it is clear that works in New Hampshire but seemed to be completely opposite in Iowa.

With all of this said there are some very common similarities too, the importance on which quality the future president will hold had similar percentages and order, the turn out of genders was exactly the same in ratio, the ratio of political ideologies was remarkably similar and the importance of the various top issues were comparable. It is very clear that through any of the differences the type of people voting in Iowa were not too disimilar than those in New Hampshire by anything more than how readily they made up their mind, a slightly higher percentage of low income workers in New Hampshire, and the difference in densities of truly urban areas people come from to vote. Oh, and of course the process.

The process

It makes me wonder with so many similarities and few differences between the type of people, even the differences such as income are relatively small differences, whether or not the true reason that Obama lost out in New Hampshire is the process. Caucuses are a much more involved process than primaries in that discussions take place after initial "votes" to try and get the votes of those that have turned up and voted for a candidate along with less than 15% of the turnout. Without a candidate getting this 15% they are not eligible to get votes at the caucus and so in a way get to be the most representative people as they then get to transfer their vote. Here it is crucial that everyone understands the policies of everyone involved, and indeed this seemed (when reported) to be happening even before the events took place all around the state. Could it possibly be that Obama's policies are more popular when discussed and talked about with the aim of winning key swing voters, and is this a sign that if he ultimately wins that he will be favourable amongst those same swing type voters on a national level? With more caucuses to come it will be intriguing to see how Obama fares in such events.

Same people, different views?

Socio-economically it is clear these people are the same, same genders, same incomes on a rough level, same amount of unionisation, etc. yet moving halfway across and down the country clearly muddles things slightly. Females turn out the same higher percentage in both states, in one they vote more for Obama, in the other for Clinton. Incomes are roughly the same, yet one states lower earners vote for Obama while the others go for Clinton. Both states think the economy is the biggest challenge ahead, again both vote for different people. Why has this happened, who is the real strongest candidate?

The Edwards factor

The pitfalls of a multi-horse race, both candidates have suffered by having more than just each other to contend with. More specifically, Hillary Clinton loses out by having opposition. In the New Hampshire primaries Obama manages to gain almost exactly the same amount of female votes as he did in Iowa. Clinton on the other hand upped her votes by 50%, and all of those extra percentage points (16 in total) came from candidates being knocked out and a large drop in the female vote for Edwards by 8%. Many are saying Clinton retook the female vote from Obama but in reality she hasn't taken anything from him, just convinced those that were going to vote Edwards not to while picking up strays that were interested in Bidden or the sinking ship of Richardson.

On income it's a similar story. In Iowa Obama only did 2% better than he did in New Hampshire when winning the vote of those earning under $50,000. What changed was Clinton picking up 8% from non-runners and Richardson, and scrapping the rest from her main two rivals. On the top issue of Economy Obama was only 1% less popular in New Hampshire than Iowa, yet was cost the win on this issue again by picking up most of her 18 point jump from Edwards. This is a trend repeated through the issues.

One poll question in New Hampshire helps spread a little light on this. Of the 15% of people that find Obama unfavourable Edwards manages to win about 16% of the votes from Clinton and so it's clear that generally Clinton supporters have a problem with Obama. On the opposite direction though the 25% that find Clinton unfavourable are split down to 26% of them voting for Edwards. What this means is that for New Hampshire Obama certainly suffered somewhat from Edwards being a contender for Clinton's hater's votes. In Iowa it was clearly the other way around. Could it be as simple as a north eastern territories distrust of a very southern sounding white guy going for president again, or is it something else? With Edwards simply getting more of the vote across the board in Iowa it wouldn't suggest it has a basis in socio-economic makeup. Either way, the one to watch in this Democratic race is clearly Edwards, a strong Edwards performance will almost certainly give Obama a true edge while Edwards stumbling at a hurdle in the next couple of states could mean big rewards for Clinton.

Conclusion

What is clear is that those supporting Clinton in New Hampshire are doing so because they really believe in her, and they don't understand that anyone else can be as great as she will be. Obama supporters, on the other hand, seem to be more philosophical and open to discussion about the best person for the job. 97% of Clinton voters think she is the best for uniting the country compared to just 66% of Obama supporters thinking he will do the same. It is this kind of unwavering faith that follows Clinton that is truly threatening to Obama as more candidates get knocked out of the race, and if John Edwards at any point falters and loses the chance in the American publics eye of being able to win then beating Clinton is going to be a nigh on impossible job if this data is able to be translated nationwide.

Don't believe the reports that the young didn't seem to turn out so much, don't believe that women moved away from voting for Obama, and certainly don't believe that the poor were any less devoted to Obama in New Hampshire than Iowa. The change here was solely down to the strength of Edwards' influence on the electorate and Clinton's ability to capitalise on it.

Sources:
New Hampshire exit poll
Iowa entrance poll