Home >> United States & Canada >> Elections & Politics

     Email   Print 

The New Hampshire Surprise: Edwards Makes Clinton the Front-Runner

Ryan Mauro - 1/10/2008

Wow. All the polls were wrong. All the experts were wrong. Every analysis and projection for the future has to be re-worked. No major poll or expert indicated a comfortable Clinton victory, and there was almost unanimous consent that just the opposite would happen, with some predicting an Obama landslide due to Iowa’s momentum and independents. In easily the most stunning political turn-around of this election year, Clinton won brought out droves of female voters, particularly single female voters, that surpassed the tremendous advantages Obama had going in.

Other factors were also at play. It’s possible, albeit not proven, that the widely expected Obama victory led to decreased turnout among independents and Obama supporters, although this is contradicted by the fact that there was such tremendous turnout. Likewise, those who argue that Clinton’s supporters were more energized by the Iowa results to come out and campaign hard are not correct in citing that as the primary reason for victory, because turnout was very high in both Iowa and New Hampshire, debunking the idea of a tidal wave of supporters who previously weren’t willing to show up.

The presence of John McCain and Ron Paul on the Republican side also may have drawn some independents away from Obama, although McCain’s comfortable but not huge victory over Romney contradicts the theory of a massive independent turnout for McCain. Some analysts effectively argue that New Hampshire has an older voting population than Iowa, which helped Clinton, but I doubt that because such demographics were taken into account by the expert pollsters who previously predicted an easy Obama victory. Most likely, a combination of all these factors was at play, making a mathematical projection very difficult.

However, many people are forgetting The Edwards Factor. Edwards received 17%, and Richardson another 5%. The second-choice of these voters is Obama, and it’s easy to see why. Edwards’ speaking capabilities and populist rhetoric drive his supporters in a similar way as Obama’s does. These voters simply prefer Edwards over Obama as the “anti-Hillary.” His victory over her in Iowa caused them to stick with their candidate, as the Edwards campaigned hoped a series of defeats for Clinton in the early primaries would narrow the race down to himself, Obama, and Clinton as a more minor factor.

Richardson’s effect on the race is more problematic to project, as Richardson’s supporters back him as both an “anti-Hillary” force and based on experience. Richardson’s supporters therefore, if/when he drops out, must decide between picking the next best candidate based on experience (leading them to Clinton) or whatever motivated them to select a candidate besides Clinton (which would lead them to Obama). Most likely, based on Iowa’s results, Richardson’s supporters would also go to Obama.

While pundits will debate what factor was the most critical in Hillary’s surprise victory, one thing is clear: If Edwards, and to a lesser degree, Richardson, had dropped out after Iowa or their supporters had left in droves, Obama would have won New Hampshire, continuing his tremendous surge that would have given him better than 50-50 odds of winning the nomination. And as long as Edwards pulls double-digits and remains in the race, he will continue to hurt Obama. Should Edwards pull out now, the vote may solidify around Obama, allowing him to win South Carolina, Florida, and compete on Super Tuesday with better odds of winning, although Clinton would still remain the most likely victor. Clinton’s New Hampshire victory may make her unstoppable. In this writer’s opinion, Edwards has just crowned Hillary Clinton as the next Democratic presidential candidate and most likely, the next president of the United States.

And now, the new 2008 Presidential Candidate Rankings.

The Democrats

The Republicans