Daniel Finkelstein offers a definitive explanation of why the pollsters blew it in New Hampshire. And for those who have been intoxicated by his campaign, Andrew Stephen cuts through the hype about Obama in this week's New Statesman. Although there is a bit too much of the standard NS-sneering at someone on the liberal-left they probably thought would be a winner by the time the piece appeared, it is a far more credible piece than that by James Forsyth in the Spectator, who assured us just days ago that Obama was the most likely Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the polls still put Obama ahead in South Carolina - although his lead is slipping - and Hillary ahead in Nevada despite some prominent union endorsements for Obama. But once the next few states are out of the way, it is hard to see how Hillary will not be the candidate. She already has significantly more delegates than Obama, when the non-state delegates are included. And she has huge leads in the big states. What New Hampshire has given her is the edge and voice she needed to see her through these contests. And for that she can probably thank the voters of Iowa.
No comments:
Post a Comment