Hillary's Hampshire vote: A vote ad miserecordiam

The surprising performance of United States presidential aspirant, Senator Hillary Clinton, in the New Hampshire primaries defied two conventions – her husband Bill's belief that what matters is “the economy, stupid!” and the media polls showing her winnability rank below Senator Barack Obama.

In the December 16-19, 2007 ABC News/Facebook Polls, for instance, Hillary got only 45% as against Obama's 50% if the Republican contender will be the Rudy Giulani. Likewise, if the Republicans will field Mike Huckabee, Hillary will get only 50% while Obama will generate 52%. This is also being validated by the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Polls conducted in almost the same period. If the Republican contenders will either be Giulani or Huckabee, Hillary will only get 46% as opposed to Obama's 49% for a Giulani fight, and 46% as opposed to the African-American Obama's 48% for the Huckabee race.

Even the forecasts in new Hampshire alone shows that Hillary will be ranking either second or third in the primaries. But this time, Hillary bagged 39% as against Obama's 36.5%. The reason: women vote. Based on the polls conducted by New York Times, more women, especially those with ages between 45 and 59, tend to vote for Hillary rather than Obama. This, despite the fact that there is no such thing as a women's vote in the United States.

So what could the reason be for the unexpected turnout?

When Bill Clinton ran for presidency in 1992, he banked on the economy as the primary issue in his campaign. He pushed the idea that he is a better choice because his Republican contender, George H.W. Bush, had not adequately addressed the economy which was undergoing a recession at the time. For this, he won the elections with 44% popular vote as against Bush's 37%.

This time, however, the wife will not be carrying the economy as her major and foremost issue. Incumbent President George Bush has been boasting of a highly improved economy since 2006 and as such, the Democrats cannot ride on the economy to catapult their standard bearer in the presidential seat the way Bill did in 1992. For this, Hillary will be focusing on social welfare, health care, environment, and ending the war in Iraq among others. In a sense, “It is not the economy, stupid!”.

This being the case, and considering that Obama is also bearing the issues being carried by Hillary, what really is the factor that moved the New Hampshire vote? The answer: Her tears.

The teary eyed exchange between Hillary and a New Hampshire voter melted the hearts of the delegates that she earned a 3% edge against Obama. As reported by the New York Times, her swelling into tears is a reminder that Hillary is also a woman and that she also deserves a chance. Quoting Maureen Dowd of the New York Times: Getting brushed back by Barack Obama in Iowa, her emotional moment here in a cafe and her chagrin at a debate question suggesting she was not likable served the same purpose, making her more appealing, especially to women, particularly to women over 45.

Her “woman side” is also the reason why the female voters of New Hampshire are most likely to vote for her. This is also the observation of the Clinton campaign staff who saw the vote of the granite state as a response to the “emotional moment of Hillary as revealing so many sides of her personality.”

But can her tears lead her back to the Whitehouse? And can “her tears, stupid!” replace the “economy” as a springboard of the Clintons to the presidency? Well, these remains to be seen.##

Sphere: Related Content