First Drafts - The Prospect magazine blog

One final thought on yesterday. This year’s primary elections had what was known as a “compressed” timetable. The primaries all moved forward in the calendar, to create a bunch around February 5th. The day that in previous campaigns had been known as “Super Tuesday” is now “Super-duper Tuesday.” This was designed specifically to stop an insurgent candidate winning big, early, and then having time to build momentum.

But after this result, it means something different. The conventional wisdom was that, with this compressed timetable, the early states would choose the candidate. Many sages thought that the candidates would likely be picked by now. But the conventional wisdom has now been proved completely wrong. Now, the candidates will indeed be decided on the first Tuesday in February. And for the first time in American history, the country’s largest state will also vote on this day. Put another way, the next election will now be decided not by the people of Iowa, or New Hampshire, but by the people of California. California: with Mexico ten miles from San Diego; where a visibly pro-environment Austrian Republican sits in residence; where most cities are “majority minority”; where America’s innovation hubs are facing a recession; where much of America’s media is located. I have the strangest feeling that when they see the first picture of Hillary campaigning on Venice Beach, or John McCain crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, the good people of New Hampshire might reflect that this was not quite the outcome they intended.

It’s just after 7.30 am US time as I write this, on the morning after the biggest political upset in recent American history. In a previous post I speculated about the banana skins that might slip up the Obama victory parade. I just didn’t expect them all to come at once.

We are now at a very odd moment in the campaign. Last night all the people who mattered flew out of New Hampshire. They drove to Manchester airport, got on planes, and went to South Carolina, Michigan, Florida and California, to continue the fight. So in one sense the campaign will continue, and quickly. But in another it stops now.

Now, only two things matter. First, for a few days, the only important thing in the public eye will be the battle for the explanation for what on earth just happened. The last time this happened in America was just after the presidential election in 2004, when the dominant frame of the “values voter” did battle with the influence of the “exurbs” to be the quickest instant explanation. (See, for example, this article by the conservative writer David Brooks, which was extraordinarily influential in helping people to understand President Bush’s victory. There was also in 2004 a snap poll which asked a misleading question about the relative importance of values vs foreign policy in deciding who to vote for; it too helped to shape the debate.)

Second, as ever, is cash. Ezra Klein, one of the most talented young bloggers in America, yesterday asked if the Clinton campaign was running out of cash. The thought was that given that Hillary was going to lose, her famous money machine might even break. Now we can expect it to come back to life with a jolt. And even more interestingly, what had previously been predicted to be the most expensive campaign in history is about to get even more costly. The campaigns must now go and fight for the really big states—Florida, California and New York. None will have ground operations in these states. And buying television adverts in these places costs a small fortune. So the big question becomes: who wins the new money race?

So for the next few days, the spinners and op-ed merchants will do battle. The moneymakers will make frantic calls. And this is even without mentioning that wise pollsters have an awful lot of explaining to do. Last night, as those planes left, each of the teams will have been huddled with their exhausted candidates trying to figure out how this just happened. Frankly, I have no idea which of the many things we didn’t see coming just came. But it strikes me this morning my list of six banana skins may well have usefully included two more:

• The Girl Power Effect. The most extraordinary split from last night seems to have been the women’s vote. In Iowa, Obama won women. Last night Clinton won the female vote by a mile, leaving Obama with a majority only among men. The initial story, then, is that women in New Hampshire are different from women in Iowa. But I wonder if the underlying story might not be the continuing strength of the women’s movement. In particular, pro-choice groups like NARAL wield huge power in the US. I noticed last week that media were beginning to report the likely impact of Republican victory on the make-up of the supreme court. (One of the liberal justices is nearly dead, and one more conservative on the nine-person court would be likely to overturn Roe v Wade and much else.) So it might be that the prominence of abortion as an issue will have had an effect. Or it might be that for all the talk about the fantastic organizing effect of the young “netroots,” well-marshalled women’s groups helped Clinton to turn out her huge number of votes.

• The Bhutto Effect. In the days before the poll, after Benazhir Bhutto was assassinated, there was much talk of how this made Clinton’s victory inevitable. The thought was that the killing would move the debate on to US foreign policy in a scary world, good terrain for Hillary. Herd-like, two days later, we all decided that it wasn’t going to be “about” foreign policy, and Obama was the certain victor. Through a group email list I received a message a few days ago, from a well-respected American commentator, the subject line of which, dripping with sarcasm, ran something like: “Why Bhutto’s Death Just Won it For Hillary.” His point was, at that time, everyone thought Hillary was certain to lose. The press moves in packs, and what had been conventional wisdom 48 hours previously suddenly wasn’t. Perhaps the knowing journo, without knowing it, was right after all? New Hampshire voters are attuned to foreign affairs. There are a lot of white veterans in the state, and many young people serving in Iraq. McCain’s influence made people think more about foreign affairs. And people think Hillary is by far the better candidate for sorting out bad guys abroad.

And with that, I’m off to find out what people think really happened, and find some breakfast.

It’s now about eight hours until close of polls in New Hampshire. Back at home, Britain is clocking off. So this is my last thought for today. Question: which lesser noticed factors might tip the balance in the Democratic race? In no particular order, the factors which might upset Obama, or help Clinton, include:

• Years. The people I meet in New Hampshire are mostly not under 25. The people I meet on Obama’s team, and at Obama’s events, mostly are. Will the older majority deliver a surprise?
• Tears. Hillary’s crying incident yesterday is being talked about a lot, both by campaigns and by voters. It has certainly given her more coverage. It has also shown she has changed her behaviour. But can looking vulnerable actually help her win?
• Toil and sweat. Each state with a primary has a basically autonomous “field” operation, to get out the vote. In Iowa, Obama surprised everyone by having a better operation than Hillary. In New Hampshire the same may not be true.
• Husbands. Twice today I’ve met voters who have used phrases like “with Hillary, you get two for the price of one.” Bill Clinton was hugely popular here. His presence has been little reported, but it might it make a difference.
• Sunshine. It’s a gorgeous sunny day here today, with temperatures even inching above freezing. For New Hampshire in January this is global warming came early. But will the warm temperatures mean a higher turnout of cold-fearing oldsters or idle, sunshine-seeking youngsters? This split is critical for Clinton and Obama, who dominate old and young voters respectively.
• Bloody minded independents. It is almost a trope of New Hampshire politics: the good people of the granite state are stubbornly, almost religiously independent. But these famed free spirits must choose, if they vote, which of the party primaries they vote in. They can’t vote in both. Many independents are thought to be on the fence not between Obama and Hillary, but between Obama or Republican John McCain. If McCain steals a bunch of Obama’s independent voters, it might be just the boost Hillary needs.

It might be that nothing can stop Obama from winning. The polls certainly suggest as much. But circumstances can change, and “events” have a habit of getting in the way of even the surest thing. Whatever the result, by the time Britain wakes up tomorrow morning, we’ll be finishing one hell of a night here.

It is now 10 hours until the polls close. Your guest blogger is out and about, blogging from some snow-covered roadsides. I have been in the US for a few weeks now, and am therefore out of touch with British coverage of the primaries. So I don’t know if British audiences will be aware which of the many presidential campaigns is the most interesting. Obama has the hype. Romney has the money. The Clinton machine is never to be underestimated. But the most interesting, innovative campaign in the entire election—to this point—is none of these. That prize goes to libertarian-leaning Texan Republican Ron Paul. His supporters, although not as numerous, more than out-shout and out-enthuse any other campaign, including Obama’s. Paul has also raised a stack of money, even outraising Hillary for a time. He may well finish third in New Hampshire, which for a candidate with a radically libertarian message and some fairly strange ideas besides, would be an amazing achievement. Even if he doesn’t, his campaign has been an extraordinary oddity.

A friend with whom I was having lunch yesterday in Concord, the New Hampshire state capital, mused that the trick Paul has pulled is managing to gather the support of people who liked Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader into one furious, mildly lunatic campaign. His support ranges from anti-imperialists on the left through to government-loathing “starve the beast”-ers on the right, taking in a motley collection of vegans, home-schoolers, gun cranks and others along the way. Drive down Elm Street—the main drag in Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest town—after 5pm any day, and you will find literally hundreds of fevered Paul supporters yelling on street corners. And just ten minutes ago, driving through the snowy roads of southwest New Hampshire, I saw another Paul innovation. Instead of using expensive yard signs, his campaign has started spray-painting “RON PAUL 08” on to the snow on the side of the road. The irony—that many of these roads were built, funded and maintained by the same government Paul’s supporters want shut down—is, almost certainly, lost.

It is 7.30am on the day of the New Hampshire presidential primary. The polls say Obama and McCain will win tonight. Time will tell. The temperature outside is just about freezing, but that makes it unseasonably warm. In the main plaza of downtown Manchester, a crowd of people has gathered—entirely orchestrated by the several campaigns. The aim is to create a crowd, with signs, which will form the backdrop to this morning’s recording of Good Morning America on television station ABC. In keeping with the relative sense of energy around the various campaigns, the most visible presence comes from those supporting Barack Obama. And the slogan you will hear most often? The crowd yell repeatedly: “Fired up! Ready to go.” (Generally it is heard with one person leading the chant – Q: “Are you all FIIIREEEED UP???” - with the hope that the crowd will repeat it back.)

The story behind how this slogan came to be is told by Obama himself often, at campaign stops, to explain how it become the rallying cry for his campaign, while this video from the Wall Street Journal gives more background. If Obama wins, you can expect to hear a lot more of this; it may well join “It’s the economy, stupid” in the pantheon of America’s best-known political slogans.