How is it that NH Dem voters find Hillary less favorable, less electable than Obama

[skipos]

(not by a massive margins mind you) but voted to make her our nominee? Most Dem voters think she is running the dirties campaign too.
I am too young to remember most elections, but is this how we ended up with so many electoral defeats?
***My candidate dropped out in IA, but I am not trying to piss on the parade here.***

CNN's NH Dem Primary Exit Poll
Who Has The Best Chance of Winning in November?
Of the 35% who said Clinton, 87% voted for her
Of the 44% who said Obama, 70% voted for him
Of the 14% who said Edwards, 75% voted for him

22% of the people voting for Clinton don't think she is the most electable,
18% of the people voting for Obama don't think she is the most electable,
16% of the people voting for Edwards don't think she is the most electable,

25% of NH Dem primary voters find Clinton unfavorable, 19% find Edwards unfavorable, 15% find Obama unfavorable.

22% think Clinton is running the most unfair campaign, 11% say that about Edwards, 11% say that about Obama

I'd understand these results a little better if she was by far the most progressive of the bunch, but she isn't.
What is the logic here? What am I missing?
:shrug:

[Uben]

1. Obviously

...their polls were a bit off!

[skipos]

3. These are the same exit polls that predicted Hillary's 2% win.

These aren't pre-election polls.

[ccpup]

2. Experience

most of those who voted for her believed she had more experience to handle the job of President from Day One.

[skipos]

4. So you vote for "experience" even if you don't like the candidate, even if you think they

might not win, even if you think they are running the dirtiest campaign? Given the lack of relationship between experience and being a good president, I certainly wouldn't. Then again, we do tend to nominate some of the least viable candidates.

Why not Richardson then?

[ccpup]

7. I understand your disappointment that

your candidate didn't win or, perhaps, that the candidate you like the least didn't get her ass handed to her on a platter so you could gloat and do a little Snoopy Celebratory Dance.

But the Voters of NH are not stupid people, took what was important to them into consideration and voted the way they did. Take heart, though. The race is far from over, so I'm sure you'll have plenty of opportunity to slam Hillary as the weeks go by.

[skipos]

8. Easy there, big guy.

Just talking here. My candidate was spanked in Iowa and I am over it. Please try to find any "gloating" post of mine after Hillary was thumped in Iowa. While she ain't my fave, but such posts don't exist.

I have a bit of a fascination with how many elections Democrats lose because of what I consider to be undeniably weak nominees. There is no way to know if someone else could have beaten Reagan, Bush I or Bush II by bigger margins, so it is all just speculation.

[suston96]

5. "....but is this how we ended up with so many electoral defeats?"

No, it isn't. We wuz robbed in 2000 by the USSC and in 2004 by the thieving Ohio Secretary of State.

And what you are missing is that you are not looking at the numbers you posted. Read them again after a cup of coffee.

[annie1]

6. maybe those who found him unfavorable also find him most electable...

but won't on electabiltiy. last night they read that out of those that find him unfavorable, 84% of them voted for her.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

9. Worst of both worlds-- least progressive *and* least electable

"but is this how we ended up with so many electoral defeats?"

Probably explains a lot of it, sadly enough. Much as I respect and cherish my fellow Democrats and embrace our principles, we somehow wind up getting the worst of both worlds in election after election-- a candidate who is both the least progressive, and the least electable, like Hillary and her DLC entourage in this case. Whereas either Edwards or Obama would be both more progressive and more electable. Makes one wonder if something is seriously awry in the way we go about selecting our candidates in the first place.

[sandnsea]

10. Most Dems see her as progressive

Welfare reform is good. Bill saved federal land. Children got health care. The budget was balanced. Trade is helping the poor around the world to have jobs and opportunity. We just need to let them finish their work.

That's what a lot of people think.

Other than that, I've got no clue why people would vote for someone they didn't think had a chance to win. Unless women just decide to hell with it, I'm taking a chance on a woman the way minorities are being asked to take a chance.

:shrug:

[RummyTheDummy]

11. Because she's so divisive

She's been in the public eye for 15 years. I know people who aren't political at all, but as soon as her name comes up, there's a scoff, an eye roll or some other assorted venom.

She won in NH because she did a great job of outlining her position on issues. A great job. Kudos to her. But those feelings from folks in flyover country and in swing states aren't going to go away because a quirky little state decided she should be the nominee.

[Anouka]

14. Was the state quirky, or was it normal?

I'm banking on normal; it just wasn't a good normal, given what it took to make the 'surge' disappear. She got exactly the support she was polled to have gotten pre-Iowa. But she had to manipulate in order to do it.

Were people -- were women -- looking for an excuse, any excuse, to go back to pre-Iowa?

[RummyTheDummy]

15. I do think it's quirky, but I don't think that's a bad thing

When you have a state that has 40 percent indy registration, that's a lot different from most states. A lot different. Perhaps you can come up with another word other than quirky, but I do think New Hampshire is very unique politically. Very similar to Vermont, another unusual, but very interesting, state.

Then again, I'm not sure what qualifies as "normal" these days.

[ursi]

12. I view the Clinton machines' bid to move back in to the White House as self-serving

And tears don't work with me. Acting doesn't either. Lying fails to impress me.

[RummyTheDummy]

13. That's because it is self serving

I think we can all agree that there is a certain amount of ego required to run for president. But when I saw her cry, I was moved for about 2 seconds, and then I realized it was pure manipulation. Fake.

When she said "I just don't want to see us fall back" I felt like what she meant was, I don't want us to fall back....as long as you vote for me.

How people can look at 24 years of Clinton/Bush rule and think it's a great thing for our future is beyond me.