My theory on the Obama loss

As I have read the various news sources and analysis of the aftermath, I have formed a theory. I think Obama did not have a particularly good operation in New Hampshire and Clinton did... Iowa was different because Obama picked up the guy who won Iowa for Kerry (Steve Hildebrand)

My theory is based on this from Wactivist. Matt Rodriguez ran Jim Pederson campaign for US Senate from Arizona for a while. His time working for Pederson was an unmitigated disaster. While he was at the helm, it was one of the best funded and worst run operations I have ever seen. He was also running New Hampshire for Obama.

The other piece of the theory comes from Andrew Sullivan. The exit polling suggests that Clinton had things wrapped up for a while. Some of the events leading up to the election might have added a few people and/or it may have hardened the resolve of her people.

To me this adds up to a badly run operation against a well run operation with solid support. I can tell you from first hand experience that a well run field operation in a low turnout election (this was high turnout for a primary, but low-turnout overall) can turn results on their head. I have run field programs where polls showed my candidate losing by 15 points only to win by double digits.

The final piece is speculation on my part, but I also think that many Independents decided to vote for McCain over Obama because they though he had it wrapped up. You don't have to have big numbers for it to make a huge difference. A bad operation can cost you a percentage point or two, late breaking events cost a point or two and you lose a couple percentage points among Independents because their sense of urgency wanes, that could easily explain the loss. The converse of this along with second choice voting could easily explain the surprise win in Iowa.