New Hampshire Post-Mortem
January 8th, 2008 at 11:19pm Mark Noonan
It was a shock for Hillary to win - except, it really wasn’t. Not for me - ’cause I’m the guy who freely admits he doesn’t have a clue how primary voters will go this year. It was fun to check ’round the ‘net today and watch pundits re-re-re-re-cast their political prognostications as the returns came in. Face it, folks, this is a political tsunami - its going to go where it goes, and all any of us can do is argue our case as best we can, and let the chips fall where they may. The American people do, indeed, seem in a mood for a fresh start - but this doesn’t necessarily come down in anyone’s favor at any given moment. And the further we get into this, the more people will demand details of just what sort of change a candidate proposes to bring. One comment over at NRO’s The Corner indicates that at least some late-deciding Democrats were swayed by Hillary’s more detailed (though still nebulous) message - Obama is the agent of change, but for all we know he’s proposing changing the batteries in the smoke alarm; he’s got to get down and tell voters some specifics.
With no President or designated successor on the ballot, any and all candidates can reasonably present themselves as agents of change - the winner (both in the primary and the general) will be the candidate who most successfully implants a program of change into the voters’ minds. Of course, a bit of care has to be taken - what wows a GOP or Democrat primary voter might be political poison come November. Democrats are at greater risk here, because the people who most want change are the far left, and the changes they want are by and large anethema to the general electorate. Democrats will hate to hear this, but the guy (or gal) who wins will be the first one who cobbles together something like the 1994 Contract With America - a series of promises and proposals which will be adhered to by the candidate once he (or she) takes office…and this will have to be very specific without alienating too large a segment of the general voting population.
The next big step in this process is Nevada - where Hillary is strong, Obama has a growing presence and the only GOPer I’ve seen around is Giuliani (his people were calling me months ago). Nothing like being the vortex of the election, even if only for a day - and there is no way to predict turnout for Nevada, as we’ve never done this before. This will lead to, possibly, some monumental screw ups, but from people I’ve talked to ’round town, there is a sense of excitement and anticipation that we’re going to be a part of the big show. Turnout could end up being quite large (I’ve had to explain the process several times to people - Democrats and Republicans - who want to participate, but haven’t got a clue how a caucus works).
I’ll be keeping the blogosphere posted on this Nevadan’s view of the race, but as I’ve been saying all along - buckle in for a long, wild political ride in 2008.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
9 Comments
1. Eric T | January 8th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
In a earlier thread Plainjane talked about how some of these primary states do not represent the entire country. Hillary and McCain both have experience and are well known political figures around the world. They both looked good up their and I congradulate them on there victory.
However Michigan may not be as friendly to these two. Their policies and ideas have brought hard times to many in my state.
2. tom | January 9th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I thought a clinton win tonight reaks of corruption. A month ago Clinton was easily handed NH with a 13 point lead. On 1/6/2008 the polls had her up to 11 points behind, So how in the coarse of 3 days was she able to make up 13 points to win?
I think this will go down as the most corrupt election since JFK.
Clinton are not in this for our country, they are in it for the money…
3. Huck Fillary | January 9th, 2008 at 4:32 am
What a wild ride! Everyone in the punditry, on both sides, had Ms. Clinton written off in NH, and she and McCain are now the “comeback kids.”
It’s wide open on both sides–well, it’s wide open between the favourites, that is.
Mark, this is very interesting for me, because, prior to 2004, I didn’t really follow politics during elections very much. Having competitios in both parties–no incumbents or successors–makes for an interesting election season.
I may have to postpone my PCS to England until after the election…not!
4. Huck Fillary | January 9th, 2008 at 4:41 am
Oh, NeoLoserClown, I was gonna change my nic, but Ms. Clinton’s victory in NH put a hold on it…
5. Christian Wright | January 9th, 2008 at 5:19 am
McCain will lose in the end. Nobody sane want to bomb Iran and McCain has made it clear that is his intention.
Clinton’s voting record will doom her in the end. Obama might pull it off, but I think Edwards will win in the end.
On another note: check out this link.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/The_Bomb_in_the_Shadows%3A_Proliferation%2C_Corruption_and_the_Way_of_the_World/
6. Christian Wright | January 9th, 2008 at 6:23 am
We all know the Republicans want to run against a Black man or a woman.
81% of the votes in New Hampshire were counted by Diebold machines.
7. OhioOrrin | January 9th, 2008 at 7:11 am
in the general, the indies decide who’s President since the bases cancel each other.
in NH, the indies voted McCain & Obama.
8. js | January 9th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Heck, if Ross Perot were running Independent, he might actually have a chance this year.
But instead, Bloomburg. Just imagine, a candidate who has a media conglomerate named after him.
Wow, talk about power.
9. hermie | January 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
The longer Hillary and Obama keep fighting each other, the better for the GOP.
We can see that the Dems have ‘Inexperience vs Fake Experience’; ‘Change without Definition vs Change With Failed Policies’; and ‘Race vs Gender’.