Before jumping into this post, it’s worth saying that I got New Hampshire wrong. So did everyone else I know, but that’s not really an excuse. So the following analysis reaches back to facts and reportage that seemed, at the time, to point towards a different outcome, and reassembles them into an analysis that makes sense in light of the actual results. I think there’s some validity to it. But I also think there’s a lot of overthinking here, and that a lot of voters in New Hampshire simply liked, and felt comfortable, with Hillary Clinton, and one needn’t look much deeper than that to explain a three percent victory.In the final week of the campaign, both Obama and Clinton subtly shifted their rhetoric. Clinton doubled down on her experience. She essentially dissolved her message to do so, spending ever more time demonstrating policy chops and broad knowledge to the voters. Obama, by contrast, enlarged his message. Where he used to speak of unity and imply that he could expand the current coalition, now he spoke of that talent concretely, explicitly. He invited listeners to envision “a new majority,” talked of the “Independents who recognize that the current course we're on is not working, and are ready to form a coalition with Democrats for progressive change," spoke often of the remarkable fact that “young people voted at the same rate as senior citizens” in Iowa. In other words, in the final days of New Hampshire, the movement became ever more the message.Hillary, in part, was able to “where’s the beef?” him. Where Obama had message, she had specifics. Where Obama spoke of his ability to get elected, she spoke of her capacity to govern. And that’s what the exit polls showed. Voters bought Obama’s argument that he was the most electable. They even bought Obama’s argument that he was the best able to bring about change. But a plurality named Hillary Clinton “the best Commander-in-Chief,” and Clinton overwhelmingly won their votes. And my hunch is that those deciding in the final 24 hours — which is the group who made the difference — decided on that criteria. I don’t think you make last-minute decisions based on electability or visions of a new majority or desire to be part of a movement. When you decide at the last minute, you go with the safe choice, not the gamble. And Clinton was able to make herself the safe choice. In the final week, Obama spoke too much to his movement and too little to those who hadn’t already bought into it. Clinton spoke to those who were simply looking for a competent choice for president.(Image used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user chuckumentary.) HOW OBAMA GOT BEEF'D.
Before jumping into this post, it’s worth saying that I got New Hampshire wrong. So did everyone else I know, but that’s not really an excuse. So the following analysis reaches back to facts and reportage that seemed, at the time, to point towards a different outcome, and reassembles them into an analysis that makes sense in light of the actual results. I think there’s some validity to it. But I also think there’s a lot of overthinking here, and that a lot of voters in New Hampshire simply liked, and felt comfortable, with Hillary Clinton, and one needn’t look much deeper than that to explain a three percent victory.In the final week of the campaign, both Obama and Clinton subtly shifted their rhetoric. Clinton doubled down on her experience. She essentially dissolved her message to do so, spending ever more time demonstrating policy chops and broad knowledge to the voters. Obama, by contrast, enlarged his message. Where he used to speak of unity and imply that he could expand the current coalition, now he spoke of that talent concretely, explicitly. He invited listeners to envision “a new majority,” talked of the “Independents who recognize that the current course we're on is not working, and are ready to form a coalition with Democrats for progressive change," spoke often of the remarkable fact that “young people voted at the same rate as senior citizens” in Iowa. In other words, in the final days of New Hampshire, the movement became ever more the message.Hillary, in part, was able to “where’s the beef?” him. Where Obama had message, she had specifics. Where Obama spoke of his ability to get elected, she spoke of her capacity to govern. And that’s what the exit polls showed. Voters bought Obama’s argument that he was the most electable. They even bought Obama’s argument that he was the best able to bring about change. But a plurality named Hillary Clinton “the best Commander-in-Chief,” and Clinton overwhelmingly won their votes. And my hunch is that those deciding in the final 24 hours — which is the group who made the difference — decided on that criteria. I don’t think you make last-minute decisions based on electability or visions of a new majority or desire to be part of a movement. When you decide at the last minute, you go with the safe choice, not the gamble. And Clinton was able to make herself the safe choice. In the final week, Obama spoke too much to his movement and too little to those who hadn’t already bought into it. Clinton spoke to those who were simply looking for a competent choice for president.(Image used under a Creative Commons license from Flickr user chuckumentary.) 
