The Crying Game

I like to flatter myself that I have a special perspective on the New Hampshire primary results. I was on the ground, you know. I mixed with the people. I felt the citizen vibe. Consequently, not only is my opinion on the results relevant, it is also indisputably accurate. I have no hard evidence, mind you - but I was there. HA!

In the months leading up to the primary, Hillary held a 10 point lead in most polls, and that lead had remained relatively stable for some time. During our visit, my feeling after seeing Hillary was that she was playing defense way too early in the contest. She was distant from the NH voters, protected by the Secret Service and the air of inevitability. The last thing she was going to do was put herself out there, appear vulnerable in any way. In New Hampshire, if they don't know you, they won't vote for you. Regardless of your political persuasion, I think you'd agree she's a hard person to get to know.

Is this why she faded in the polls? Yes, I think so. The Obama Phenomenon was palpable, and we didn't get the opportunity to see him. The people we met and discussed politics with all mentioned him. He was an American Idol in NH long before the press jumped on that bandwagon. He was real, she was not. He was new, she was recycled. He connected, she made appearances.

This doesn't explain why Hillary won, though. I'm getting to that.

The whimper? Please. I have never heard of a more sexist, degrading comment in my life than this: "Women in New Hampshire switched their vote to Hillary after seeing her cry." Is our accepted view of women in the public square so shallow that we believe that votes are won and lost based on feminine emotional empathy? I refuse to accept that explanation. First, it is demeaning to suggest. Second, the "cry" happened too close to the voting to sway votes. Third, the cry theory works from the premise that the polls were correct showing Obama's 13 point lead in the first place. Fourth, I have a higher regard for Americans than that - perhaps a misplaced regard (see "Two Terms for Bush"), but a regard nonetheless.

Racism? The idea has been floated that NH-ites were embarrassed to tell pollsters that they were against the black candidate; however, once hidden from public view in the booth, they could freely and anonymously express their latent racist tendencies. In the 21st century, such stupidity can't exist. I couldn't go on if I thought such stupidity was possible.

Here's my theory, supported by exactly zero exit polls. I call it the "Pacific Time Zone Theory". Back a few years, the news outlets used to announce presidential winners before the polls closed on the West Coast. Because the results were already determined, turnout was suppressed because people knew their votes were meaningless. This also allowed those voters to vote their conscious, or register a protest vote, knowing that it would not change the final election result. It was a safe vote to make. I believe that this happened in New Hampshire. The pollsters and pundits were so certain of Obama's impending 13 point victory that voters were equally convinced. Knowing that Obama would win, NH voters pulled the curtain behind them and thought, "Well, since Obama is going to win anyway, I'll vote for someone else to make it close." This follows from NH voters reputation for contrarian voting. They resented the election being decided in the papers before a vote was cast.

In sum, Obama was never ahead 13 points, but he was ahead in voter preference going into election day. The drumbeat of inevitability for an Obama victory worked against him. NH prefers the underdog, and the press remade Hillary as the underdog. The media convinced the voters that their vote couldn't change the outcome.

I look forward to a world without pre-election polling. It might even be a world where Joe Biden becomes President of the United States.

JS