After in total listening for some two hours of newscaster’s analysis of Ms. Clinton’s surprising upset victory in New Hampshire, I turned off my television, fearing that my remaining grey cells would vanish if exposed to any more meaningless abstractions. That is, my reasoning faculties have been assaulted by “the learned discourse from so-called political experts” explanations for some thirteen percent differential between the poll numbers and the actual results.
First of all, we need to recognize that eight major polling groups erred by an amount greater than in 1948 when everybody predicted Tom Dewey’s victory over Harry Truman. With today’s more sophisticated polling techniques, it does seem unbelievable that eight different polls could miss the mark so badly. At the end of this essay, I ask not claim whether Ms. Clinton’s Lazarus comeback in New Hampshire was aided and abetted by “FRAUD.” However, my mean-spirited guess needs to be confined to the end of the essay given that the Clinton’s have never earned a dishonest dollar, never lied to the American public, never used their political muscle to browbeat their opposition, and never shirked from admission of Bill’s transgressions. Moreover, while Illinois, Florida, Massachusetts, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, California, West Virginia, and New Jersey have been noted for election fraud, the Granite State of New Hampshire must be lily clean.
Also, I want to remind the readers that Ms. Clinton’s victory defied the anti-Clinton leanings of the New Hampshire media which Bill Clinton exposed after the results of the Iowa Caucus. In essence, the people of New Hampshire defied their newspapers, radio and television stations at the last moment. We must all be grateful to the internet for delivering an honest picture of the Clintons. The media of New Hampshire must bear the responsibility for their prejudicial favoring of Obama and Edwards over Ms. Clinton. The pundits have never explained to me how Obama and Edwards gained the favoritism of the media, but we must take at face value William Jefferson Clinton’s unbiased appraisal.
Let us examine some of the inane reasons given for the polling error.
Just like the White colonial settlers, white politicians possess mysterious power in elections. That is, millions of Native Americans died from diseases brought by the White Man such as small pox, chicken pox, measles, and even the common cold because Native Americans did not possess resistance to these alien diseases. In today’s world, white politicians somehow are able to mysteriously create supporters. That is, while polling numbers seem very accurate for black candidates, white politicians running against Black do significantly better than the polls.
Needless to say, this new type of mathematics has been developed since my college years. That is, I thought one started out with 100% and therefore, each candidate shared some portion of the total. Thus, if Blacks do exactly the same in the polls as in the real elections, I remain mystified how the remaining number changes, particularly since the other candidates presumably are whites. In essence, I am asking do white politicians pick up votes from Martians?
I did hear a Black professor from Georgetown argue that while he did not accuse New Hampshire voters of racism, we must recognize that racism is a part of our electoral culture. Thus, New Hampshire voters are not racist, but the results are racist! The fact that Ms. Clinton benefited in New Hampshire from white women’s racism is particularly offensive. That is, while the Clinton’s have done historically well with Black voters, and until the Obama candidacy got the support of many Black politicians, the honorable Georgetown professor must be right to be indignant that a vote for Hilary represents the venal outburst of white women racism.
White women not men after seeing Hilary come close to tears several days before the primary became suddenly energized and rushed to the polls to support their fellow sex candidate. Interestingly enough, these white women (New Hampshire has few Blacks) immediately got amnesia after the vote, because it the post election polling Obama still showed a seven percent lead over Clinton. In a nutshell, White women in a moment of remorse voted for Clinton, but then told the pollsters that they voted for Obama or Edwards. It is well known that white women in New Hampshire have very sketchy memories.
White men, cold hearted male chauvinist pigs, remained loyal to Obama irrespective of Ms. Clinton’s tears. Just to point out the mathematics, let us assume that 50% of the voters were men and 50% of the voters were women. In essence to have a 13% or even 7% swing, which means that 26% to 14% of all women changed their vote, given that men stayed the course. Truly an amazing statistic.
Cell phones have permanently altered the reliability of voting. That is, pollsters cannot reach the voting public. While polls were accurate in Iowa, were accurate in almost every race in 2006 and 2004, it is now established after New Hampshire that pollsters are “dead meat.” That is, their reliability is permanently flawed because of an overnight invention called cell phones. In essence, most of us must have not owned cell phones two years ago or four years ago.
Ms. Clinton picked up at the last-minute traditional Democrats. That is, Obama did as well as expected with the Independents, but dropped the ball with traditional Democrats. It remains somewhat confusing to me, how eight polling organizations in a Democratic primary could not gauge accurately the Democratic voters, but were pin point accurate on Independents. Also, let us remember that these same pollsters were very accurate in the Republican primary. I can only presume that Independents and Republicans still can afford conventional telephone lines, but White Democratic women only have cell phones.
After “thirty-five years of experience” (somebody needs to explain the mathematics of how a six-year Senator has thirty-five years of political experience) the voters decided that a teary-eyed Ms. Clinton won the minds and hearts of the New Hampshire voters and got them to focus in forty-eight hours on her newly found human characteristics and her ability from day one to change the country.
I am offering a scholarship to my readers who can convince me how a woman who worked full time as a partner of a law firm, raised a daughter, had a spectacular career trading commodities, and was on the board of directors of such institutions as Wal-Mart could provide such stellar service in the private sector, but also garner thirty-five years experience in the public arena simultaneously.
In essence, on the one hand Ms. Clinton given her emphasis on “experience” has been part of the establishment for thirty-five years and thus the New Hampshire voters felt that Ms. Clinton had the same epiphany as St. Paul. That is, the New Hampshire women voters found that she now is the best candidate for change—Obama’s major theme—but also is ready from “day one to take charge.” In a nutshell, she has the best of both worlds, she knows the nuts and bolts of how to wheel and deal in Washington, but also can turn on the “special interest groups” and throw the rascals out. We need to point out that her husband when he was governor of Arkansas, a state noted for its astute highly educated electorate, and was president of the United States, seemed to revel in courting “the rich and famous” and certainly after his early defeat in Arkansas politics understood fully the dangers of bucking the establishment. Again, riding to the rescue of Ms. Clinton, the white women of New Hampshire recognized that they must give her full credit for her husband’s thirty-five years of experience but and also be our best hope to be a catalyst of change. In essence, Ms. Clinton will be a political Houdini. With the lights fully on “Houdini Clinton” she will instantly change from experience to transition and back in order to better serve the American public. In essence, Ms. Clinton like former President Nixon in 1968 had a “rebirth.” Let us hope that unlike President Nixon who seemed to lapse into his “tricky, mean-spirited ways” shortly after his election, Ms. Clinton will stay the course.
I would like to add that Ms. Clinton was a partner in a large law firm in Arkansas that double-billed their blue-ribbon clients, was intimately involved in an S&L scandal, had a dubious commodity trading record where again she showed magical powers to turn $1,000 into $100,000 by trading commodities without any commodity experience and served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, a company noted for their compassionate treatment of their employees. Again, in those forty-eight hours, unlike Julius Caesar, the bad was interred in those two days, but the good will live long after.
In conclusion, one thing “God forbid” was never raised. Could it be possible that Ms. Clinton won by FRAUD. While Texas, Illinois, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida, Rhode Island and New York State have dubious reputations concerning the propriety of their elections, New Hampshire must be pristine clean. That is, the pollsters missed the boat both before and after the election (giving Obama a 7% victory). While we know that John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnston, Mayor Daley and Karl Rove stole votes, it remains inconceivable that the honest, God fearing Clintons who keep on retainer the Reverend Jesse Jackson to keep them on the straight and narrow, could have possibly tampered with the vote. We need to recall that that damn DNA evidence did in fact reveal that Mr. Clinton had transgressed with Monica Lewinski, Bill and Hillary got spiritual guidance from Reverend Jackson who at the time was “fathering an illegitimate child.” Is it possible that Reverend Jackson was in fact getting spiritual guidance from the Clintons, and not vice versa?
