After all the complaints about Iowa's caucus system, was New Hampshire's odd crossover voting responsible for the most significant primary result so far--Hillary Clinton's surprise victory over Barack Obama?
The explanation starts with Mitt Romney's unpopularity there. New Hampshire newspapers anti-endorsed him, the Union-Leader asserting "his words are memorized, not heartfelt" and the Concord Monitor calling him a candidate built from a kit, "a disquieting figure who sure looks like the next president and most surely must be stopped."
With all that animosity in the air along with a barrage of Romney commercials in a close contest with McCain and the polls showing Obama ahead by double digits, how many Independents decided it was more important to vote against Romney rather than for Obama?
As the only Massachusetts governor ever to lose a primary in his neighboring state, Mitt may have in passing done Hillary Clinton a huge favor. Politics makes strange...
I've been hearing this theory today. Funny thing is, that's one of the two main factors I think were at work. "Stop Romney" and "Don't Tell Us Who We're Voting For". Everybody seemed to know how this was going to turn out. The truth is, however... they were RIGHT. If they'd just gone with Obama, I'm sure Hillary and McCain would have BOTH been dealt seriously crushing blows that their campaigns (and their finances) may not have recovered from. Twists of fate. In the long run, Obama's still in it, and Romney is looking haggard. Compromise is hard. Could Obama OR Edwards win against Romney or one of the others though? More than likely it would have been easier for the Dems.
ReplyDelete