Via Matt, Chris Bowers points to the figures that seem to indicate that Obama lost to Clinton in New Hampshire because she won the Democrats who are most fed up with Bush: "[A]mong the 62% of participants in the Democratic primary who described themselves as 'angry' with the Bush administration, Clinton won 39%-34%. And thus, we have Clinton's 2.6% margin of victory almost precisely."
Matt says his lack of anger "it is a bit out of step with how a lot of us really feel about the state of things." Well, yes, but voters like Matt and me aren't really the ones Obama's been after. Obama's campaign would be a much different one were he out to rile up the "angry" wing of the Democrats, in that it wouldn't be much of a campaign at all. He'd be pegged as the angry black candidate from the margins, rather being than the most viable, mainstream African American candidate in United States history, with a real chance of winning in both the primary and the general. His message of "hope" and "change" is pointed at a bigger pool of voters, notably the ones who are unhappy with the way things are in the country but who might not necessarily vote Democratic; the angry Dems are a guaranteed bloc. It's worth noting that he won among the voters who merely described themselves as "dissatisfied" with Bush, and as John Judis pointed out yesterday, is also performing the best among young voters and independents. This isn't the bloc of voters who'd describe themselves as "angry," and they'll be the key to winning next fall.
--Kate Sheppard