Hillary still leading

With 20 percent of the precincts reporting, it's still Clinton 40%, Obama 36%. At what point does the media start trusting the real numbers over the exit polls, and begin considering the possibility that Hillary won't just finish a closer-than-expected second, but may in fact win?

Maybe they know something I don't know about which precincts have reported, but I'm beginning to wonder.

UPDATE, 8:54 PM: With 24% reporting, now it's 40% to 34% Hillary!!

It's looking more and more like my prediction that Hillary "will not win a single primary. Obama's momentum is already unstoppable, at least by her" may join "Ohio State will win tonight" and my premature Giuliani gloating in the pantheon of embarrassingly wrong Brendan Loy predictions. But hey, at least I was right about Katrina! ;)

UPDATE, 9:02 PM: Tightening a bit now. Clinton 39%, Obama 36% with 26 percent in.

UPDATE, 9:03 PM: 40-36 with 29% in.

UPDATE, 9:21 PM: 39-36 with 38% in. Is Obama going to rally at some point?? Andrew Sullivan points out that the college towns of Durham (University of New Hampshire) and Hanover (Dartmouth College) haven't reported any results yet.

Meanwhile, I guess I was spoiled by Obama's victory speech in Iowa, but it strikes me that McCain's speech sucks. He keeps stumbling over his words and stuff. He seems tired.

UPDATE, 9:26 PM: Now 39-37 with 42% in. That's the closest it's been. Specifically, 40,090 to 37,766. Hillary by 2,324.

UPDATE, 9:30 PM: Hillary's margin down to 2,156 now. And about those college towns: CNN reports that a total of 6,000 people voted in Hanover -- 2,000 more than Hillary's campaign expected -- so the Clintonistas are worried about that. Another important college town is Salem (Southern New Hampshire University).

Aaaand now the margin is back up to 2,800. Still just 43% in.

UPDATE, 9:35 PM: Hillary's margin up to 3,024. 44% in.

UPDATE, 9:38 PM: Now 40-36 again, and a margin of 4,336, with 46% reporting.

The Boston Globe has the town-by-town results. Very useful for watching to see what happens in Durham, Hanover and Salem.

UPDATE, 9:58 PM: Salem is in, and Clinton won it, 2,867 to 1,508. But I think Salem's more than just a college town, and I may have misunderstood what the expectations were for it. Durham and Hanover are the ones CNN has been focusing on, and there are no results from them yet. Also Rindge, though it's much smaller.

Anyway, with 56% reporting, it's 39% (57,458) to 37% (53,935). Clinton by 3,523.

UPDATE, 10:03 PM: About McCain's speech, I wrote that it "sucks" before he got to the excellent war-on-terror language. Still, I'd say that his delivery sucked, even though parts of the speech itself were actually quite good.

UPDATE, 10:28 PM: Rindge is in. Again, Hillary won, 381-348.

I don't think Obama can win this. He's now trailing by almost 5,000 votes with 61% reporting, and from what CNN was saying about the number of registered voters in those college towns, I don't see how he can make it up unless he's got some other major pockets of support also outstanding (and Hillary doesn't).

Comments

[David K.]

I think we'll start referring to it as the Brendan Loy Kiss of Death. You were right about things we'd all rather you were wrong about, and wrong about things we'd rather you were right about!

[yea]

this is catastrophic to obama. im really bummed out. i dont think ill vote if hillary gets the dem nom unless bloomberg runs.

[Marty West]

Bloomberg?!?!

Hahahahaha.

[Marty West]

Obama was at Dartmouth today and they still haven't reported...the tide could still turn.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

I couldn't disagree more about McCain's speech -- in my view, he hit all the right notes and his tone drew the contrast to Obama and Huckabee that he needs to draw to win on the two fronts he's fighting on. The dream of McCain-Lieberman '08 lives tonight!

[Marty West]

McCain is old. That's all you need to say. Plus a robot ate his meds.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

Marty: He may be old, but watching his mom campaign with him makes him look young!

[Brendan Loy]

On second thought, the speech didn't suck, but his delivery did, IMHO.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

I'll have to watch it again -- people are telling me that where I thought he was getting choked up, he was stumbling over the words.

[Marty West]

John is a 54 year old male. John was born with AIDS, a cleft palate, no eyes, and no electoral votes. John needs your help America.

[Marty West]

MSNBC called Clinton!

[Alec]

AP has just called it for Clinton

[Joe Mama]

The MSNBC talking heads had great fun with McCain reading his speech . . . and nary a word about Edwards spouting exactly the same anecdotes about cleft palate guy, murderedbyinsurancecompany girl, and the veteran under the bridge that he used in his Iowa speech. I know NH is a different state, but still, these are nationally televised speeches.

[Condor]

Tonight one lucky crow will live just a little longer.

[Brian Foster]

CNN called it too.

I've never been more glad to be wrong.

[Anonymous Hoosier]

In turn, I think Obama's speech is bad... I guess he had only a victory speech prepared. And "We Want Change" is a really lame chant.

[Brian Foster]

But "Yes we can" is brilliant. Devoid of any real substance, as usual. But brilliant demagoguery, as appears to be Obama's only real strength.

[Condor]

While we're on the topic of being devoid of substance, how about an analysis of a political candidate based on their three word slogan? I, for one, would sure like to hear a three word political slogan that has both "real substance" and lacks demagoguery. Of course there must be one, or else your comment about Obama wouldn't make any sense, because your charge would apply to everyone.

[Brian Foster]

My analysis of Obama is based on far more of a three-word slogan and can be found in the comment threads appended to Brendan's posts from last Thursday-Friday regarding the Iowa caucuses. Here, I simply noted the three-word slogan as the latest example of Obama's vapid-but-appealing rhetoric. Further, I was countering Anonymous Hoosier's disappointment in yet another three-word slogan. Finally, while I readily acknowledge that it was double-edged, the fact remains that I was paying Obama a compliment here.

Please try to keep up from now on.

[Condor]

I'm still waiting for your examples of three word political slogans that contain real substance and lack demagoguery. You must have these in mind, or else your criticism of Obama's slogan as such makes no sense, since the charge applies to everyone.
All three-word political slogans are like Obamas, so your criticism of him is, well, to use a phrase someone once said, "vapid-but-appealing-rhetoric."

[Brian Foster]

Condor,

I already explained how my criticism of Obama is not confined to a single three-word slogan. If it were, then you might -- might -- have a valid point. Because it is not, you don't.

In particular, I never faulted him for employing a slogan that involves demagoguery. Quite the opposite, as I took pains to point out, I complimented him on a brilliant choice of a powerful phrase. I simply noted that once again, he is emphasizing style over substance, by choosing to rely on yet another slogan (which, we agree, can almost never convey much in the way of substance) instead of trying to emulate the part of Dr. King's legacy that actually means something.

All three-word political slogans are like Obamas, so your criticism of him is, well, to use a phrase someone once said, "vapid-but-appealing-rhetoric."

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, as you fail to acknowledge that my criticism of Obama extends far beyond this single phrase. See above.

[domerlaw2006]

Brian, if that's your idea of a compliment, well -- my regards to your wife.

[Brian Foster]

Thanks domerlaw, I'll let her know!

[Condor]

Your argument goes something like this: Obama's message lacks substance because of x, y, and z. Also, the fact that his slogan lacks substance is another indication of how his message lacks substance. Now, you may well be right that Obama's message lacks substance. You may also be right that it lacks substance because of x, y, and z. But the fact that his slogan lacks substance does not in itself even contribute to the general fact that his message lacks substance. This is because other candidates have slogans that lack substance, and I take it that not all these candidates have messages that lack substance, so given these counter-examples, there doesn't exist a valid inference from lack of slogan substance to lack of message substance.

Consider a parallel argument. John is a filthy individual because he smokes, he doesn't bathe, and he picks his nose. John also is a filthy individual because every day he expels waste from his ass. Now, expelling waste from your ass every day may well be a filthy act, but it has no force for the conclusion that John is a filthy individual because everyone expels waste from their ass every day. So, it may well be the case that John is a filthy individual, and it may also very well be the case that he is a filthy individual because he smokes, he doesn't bathe, and he picks his nose. But he is not a filthy individual in virtue (even just in a contributing way) of expelling waste from his ass every day.

[Brian Foster]

Your argument goes something like this: Obama's message lacks substance because of x, y, and z. Also, the fact that his slogan lacks substance is another indication of how his message lacks substance.

No. This is not my argument. In particular, I never said anything remotely approaching "the fact that his slogan lacks substance is another indication of how his message lacks substance." I have been focusing all along on Obama's choice to rely on rhetorical slogans and demagoguery rather than on substance. It's not the content of the slogan that supports my argument that Obama lacks substance; it is the very fact that he is relying on a slogan and nothing else.

As a slogan, it is brilliant and powerful rhetoric, wonderfully delivered. But it remains just a slogan, with nothing to back it up. Whether other candidates also have substance to back up their slogans, I do not here say. But my criticism of Obama is that he in fact does not. I do not criticize him for failing to come up with a slogan that lacks substance. I criticize him for doing nothing but slogans.

Consider a parallel argument.

Again with the allegedly "parallel" alleged "arguments." Never mind the fact that while all people expel waste from their ass, not all people run for president. And not all people who run for president choose slogans. And not all people who run for president choose slogans without offering any substance to support them.

Other than that, great parallel.

[Brian Foster]

Sorry -- two edits for clarity, indicated in all caps below:

And not all people who run for president AND choose slogans DO SO without offering any substance to support them.

[Brian Foster]

Jeez -- I need to slow down. I flipped two words in another part of my post -- they are now in their correct locations, and capitalized for easy location:

"Whether other candidates also LACK substance to back up their slogans, I do not here say."

"I do not criticize him for failing to come up with a slogan that HAS substance."

[Condor]

"it is the very fact that he is relying on a slogan and nothing else."

"I criticize him for doing nothing but slogans."

"[Obama] choose[s] slogans without offering any substance to support them.

I'd actually appreciate a clarification on this. I mean, you clearly don't mean this literally, at least if by slogans you have in mind things like "Yes we can." His speeches definitely consist of more than this if only because he has to introduce himself and say goodbye. Or are those slogans too?

Maybe you could help me understand by taking one of his speeches and showing that it consists of slogans, wholly slogans, and nothing but slogans. I take it you must have done this already. After all, this is what would be required for asserting the claims that you are making, for example, "I criticize him for doing nothing but slogans." That is, this is what would be required if your criticism has substance, and if it isn't just a blanket statement, or, ahem, an empty slogan. So, it should be a pretty easy task for you. Maybe you can just cut and paste what you've already done.

[Alasdair]

Is it true that Michael Moore is thinking about putting together a Documentary about Senator Obama's Primary Season - to be called S'logan's Run ?

[Brian Foster]

I mean, you clearly don't mean this literally

Correct. And since you recognize this, it seems odd that you devoted the rest of your post to pretending otherwise.

Maybe you can just cut and paste what you've already done

Certainly. Spam-filter problems, I will have to do this in multiple posts, but here you go:

Initial comments here.

More comments here.

[Brian Foster]

And of course, the most recent comments here, as well as here, and also, let us not forget here.