af40's Blog

By now, all politically astute observers know that Illinois Senator Barack Obama is a rising Democratic star, one who is likely to make a strong showing in the primaries, and one who may even unseat Hillary Clinton as the highest profile Democratic candidate.

But Hillary Clinton is no shrinking violet (her mini-breakdown yesterday aside), and there are good reasons to believe that she can yet win the Democratic nomination- even with a likely New Hampshire loss looming on the austere January horizon.

What is rarely mentioned among the burgeoning crop of political gurus and commentators is that both Iowa and New Hampshire have open systems where independents can vote for either a Republican or Democratic candidate of choice (or both even). This system essentially disengages the traditionally tight link between party loyalists and candidate selection. This means that a Democratic candidate may win in open states even though he or she may actually poll second or even third in polls there among respective party members. This helps to explain why Obama is surging in New Hampshire- not only the first primary state but the first open primary- while actually trailing Clinton among most of the country's Democratic voters.

Now there are two plausible explanations concerning Obama's surge: the explanation more frequently touted in the press is that Obama represents a real change from politics as usual, and that he is a young, vibrant alternative to the tired old Washington partisan deadlock (one cannot emphasize just how powerful the press is in presenting candidates, positively or negatively. In 2000 the press was much more positive towards Bush, and it may have made the difference). There is a lot of validity to this theory: Obama is young- only 46- he is attractive and vibrant, and he speaks in very optimistic, rarely partisan, tones.

But Obama's surge is not entirely due to his overt optimism and the fervor of his supporters. It is likely due, at least in part, to the technical mechanics of the primary system, especially in open or quasi-open primary states like New Hampshire.

Since independents can choose to vote for any candidate of choice- whether Republican, Democrat, or "other"- a politically astute voter can strategically vote for an "enemy" candidate whom they feel is less likely to pose a challenge to one's desired candidate, or who can offer up a greater challenge to one's strongest enemy (sort of the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). An example here will better illustrate this phenomenon.

Say I lean conservative but have not decided in favor of a candidate of choice. I am technically independent but lean towards the Republican candidate. Even so, I know I simply do not like one candidate- say Hillary Clinton. I'll vote for anyone- just not her. How would I best make use of my vote?

I can certainly vote for the candidate who most closely represents my interests, possibly Senator McCain, as he is generally centrist but still represents the conservative ideology. I can help McCain win the nomination by voting for him in the primary, but what if I feel that it is more important to just eliminate a worst-of-all-scenarios candidate? I am, after all, not strongly partisan and I probably don't care all that much if, say, a Romney or Huckabee, wins. They seem so similar, in fact, that my benefit hinges probably more on losing less than on winning more.

It is, in essence, a strategic game of payoffs and losses.

A second alternative is to vote for a candidate that may pose a threat to a candidate I do not like and do not want to win.  Many polls, in fact, show that while Hillary still holds onto a majority of Democrats in terms of support, she has high negative numbers, especially among conservatives and independents. If I really really don't want Hillary to win, then one good strategy might be to make life difficult for her by voting for her Democratic opponent, in particular Barack Obama. This will force her to campaign longer, and lose more money in the process, therefore making it both less likely that she wins the nomination, and less strong financially if she does.

Machiavellian to be sure, and possibly beyond the strategic calculus or capability of most voters- but not entirely unlikely. Republicans are known to band together in a "crisis", and most have long known that Hillary was the candidate to beat in 2008 (I remember Rush Limbaugh almost deferentially discussing her future candidacy- a sign that the usually firebrand ideologue took her more seriously than previous candidates Kerry and Gore). And most independents in New Hampshire are not really completely "independent", but actually lean Republican. Voting for Obama may appear as a vote out of spite, but it is actually highly strategic if it pokes holes in Hillary's warship.

In fact, a lot of bloggers in cyberspace have been discussing the apparent contradiction among conservative-leaning independents concerning a linkage between McCain and Obama. While both candidates will likely draw from New Hampshire's pool of independents, the irony is that these two candidates represent nearly polar opposite ideological viewpoints. Obama, for example, is staunchly against the Iraq War, while McCain was a supporter of Bush's troop surge. On nearly every domestic, social, and economic issue they differ fundamentally. And yet, oddly enough, both seem to draw on independent voters? How? Why?

Independent voters are likely frustrated on many levels with politics as usual, and many are simply looking for a new direction, even if that direction is at odds with their issues-oriented leanings. Of the major candidates, only Obama, Huckabee and McCain seem to offer the less partisan approach to politics that appeals to independents.

Undoubtedly some of Obama's independent support represents genuine affinity for the candidate. But some of that may represent more a vote aimed against Hillary Clinton than for him. This reminds me of the fact that support for John Kerry in 2004 was on account of not so much that he was loved, but rather because he was simply not Bush. Voters may not strategize down to an exact science, but they know whom they don't want to win, and quite frequently vote appropriately.

Now there are many big "if's" here. If, for example, Obama appears to gain the upper hand, Hillary's voters may be energized to turn out in large numbers and vote, especially in the closed primaries. It is important to note that New Hampshire and Iowa, combined, represent only a minute fraction of the overall number of all delegates. But if Hillary loses enough momentum- and it is perceived that she is DOA (frightful reminders of Dean)- then she may lose sufficient votes- especially by February 5's super primary- to no longer be viable. Getting Hillary defeated early in the primary season (however unlikely) would be a  Republican's dream, as Obama, however fresh and inspiring he may appear, is seen as too untested nationally by a large cross-section of the voting public.

Whatever the case may be, history has shown that New Hampshire "correctly" chooses the Democratic nominee only about 57% of the time.  Moreover, the state does not represent a large cross-section of the country (it is, traditionally, more New England liberal- just the type of state to vote strongly in favor of Obama), and functionally represents only a small fraction of delegates. And finally, it is an open primary state, meaning that a Democratic (or Republican) "winner" may not be the actual candidate of choice of that party, as independents can vote for either (or both) party.

So much for New Hampshire. I'll take a wait-and-see approach, and watch closely, especially on February 5. I won't count Hillary out yet, even if she (likely) loses today.

This year's election is turning out to be one of the most exciting in decades.