Giuliani Follow

Some slightly-organized thoughts: Democrats (1) Why Hillary won. Because she got more votes. (2) No seriously. Why Hillary won. I think there are a number of factors that came in to play. Most voters made their decision in the past few days, so that's where my focus is. First, the last debate. I thought Edwards "won" it, but for people who were on the Obama-vs-Clinton fence, I think Clinton pulled more voters into her camp. Obama, while not commiting any gaffes, left his charisma in the hotel room that day. It didn't help him. Second, Hillary's "tearful moment". The more I think about it, the more I think this really put Hillary over the edge. It was really almost a non-event. As the video (in the post below) shows, she really didn't cry. Her eyes welled up slightly and her voice shook. But that was it. Now what was it about the "tearful moment" that New Hampshireites saw? Did they see a woman falling apart? No, they saw what I saw -- a woman keeping it together. In other words, the whole "moment" reflected well on Hillary (particularly for women voters). I read (somewhere) a comment from a New Hampshire woman who said that never forgave Hillary for that "baking cookies" comment in 1992 ...until the (so-called) "tearful moment". In that moment, Hillary showed herself to be a strong woman (as opposed to, you know, a strong MAN). I think the media reaction to the "tearful moment" also helped her. I mean, the thing was picked apart to death. The very idea that her smallest facial ticks get so much scrutiny is almost insulting and turns her into a sympathetic character. And I think many (myself included) were insulted at not only the "depth" of the analysis, but the not-so-subtle misogyny of it. Two theories were softly floated: (a) that Hillary's "crying" made her "weak" and "unpresidential"; and (b) that Hillary's "crying" was calculated on her part. Some have even tried to claim both are true (so she tried to make herself look like a weak unpresidential crybaby?). Neither registered as true to people who actually saw the video. This wasn't a Muskie moment; it was a human one which reflected well on Hillary. And people responded to seeing the human side of her, having been painted as being "cold" and "ambitious" for so long. The final reason Hillary won? I think that requires an understanding of the New Hampshire voter. When faced with convential wisdom about who is and isn't going to win their state, New Hampshire voters looooove to say "Now wait a minute there, pundits". The assumption is that if Iowa does X, then New Hampshire will do X. But New Hampshirites -- even those aligned with a political party -- love to strut their independent streak. They aren't prepared to "write off" anybody, no matter what the media says. They did it with Bill in 1992, after the whole Gennifer Flowers thing. So when the media started talking about the "inevitability" of Obama, and even suggested that Hillary's campaign was all but over, well, New Hampshire voters voted "Think again". So I think all those factors worked to carry Hillary over the top. (2) Why Obama didn't win. Oddly enough, if someone said two weeks ago that Obama would be within 3 percentage points of Clinton, it wouldn't be viewed as the "stunning blow" that people are now saying. And when it comes to delegate count, Obama got nine. Compared to Hillary's -- nine. That's right. A tie. That said, I think the Obama phenomenon didn't result in a first place win because he didn't get out the youth vote. Well, I mean, he did, but not enough. And speaking of the youth vote, here's my memo to the news media (and future candidates): Dartmouth isn't a state college, you morons. It's a national university with a national reputation. You know what that means? That means that the students are from all over the country and therefore, the vast majority of them don't vote in the New Hampshire primaries. So don't keep talking about the "returns from Hanover", as if it's going to result in some mammoth shift in the outcome. Duh. And no, I don't the "Wilder Effect" was in play here. (3) Whither Edwards? Like I said after Iowa, he'll be around for Super Duper Tuesday. And he'll continue to place third. But both he and Richardson and whoever else is left won't last long. Republicans (1) Why McCain won. Quite simply, it was his "maverick" image. He won in New Hampshire in 2000. People who voted for him them and who are dissatisfied with Bush got a chance to pull an "I Told You So" lever in the ballot box. Huckabee's christian conserservatism never had a chance in a state with the lowest church-going population in the country. Thompson and Giuliani didn't try. (Giuliani, no doubt, will find some way to compare his poor showing in New Hampshire to 9/11, as in, "I've been down before. Look at 9/11...") And Romney. Well, the people of New Hampshire know him. That was why he was on top of the polls for so long. Because they were at least familiar with him. But Romney's flip-flopping -- more blatent than any candidates in any recent election's memory -- doesn't sit well. And The Concord Monitor's devastating Romney anti-endorsement set the ball rolling. In short, McCain won by default. Other Thoughts (1) McCain? Clinton? What happened to "change"? I think the "change" mantra has become so overused that it is almost meaningless. Not that people don't want change, but they're hungry for something beyond a candidate who merely invokes the word (to death). Change is good, most people believe, but change plus experience is better. On the experience metric, Clinton and McCain beat their competitors hands down. But we're not done hearing about change. And I expect Obama and others to fine-tune their message to bring their...