Hi everybody.
I arrived back in Pittsburgh about half an hour ago. I have not had time to read any press, watch any media save election returns, and outside of skimming some of the last half dozen posts here, haven’t had any time to read through analysis. As such, what I write now is more or less reaction from somebody just coming off the floor of the Marriott ballroom immediately following Ron’s speech. And, I’ve gotten less sleep in the last week than just about any time prior in my life, so what I say may be a bit wonky. Also, I’ll follow this up with a brief post of my own personal stuff in the last month or so (which I’ll do late tomorrow night, after 16 hours or so of sleep), so mostly what I want to focus on here is asking the question in the post title, from an insider’s perspective (for those that don’t know, I’ve been unofficially working as a New Hampshire political organizer for the last few months, and spent the last week on the ground there).
First I’ll give some reasons for how things turned out at they did (not excuses), and then some final thoughts.
Ultimately, what screwed up the polls (or kept them right) was the turnout. Turnout in New Hampshire this year was ridiculous. A lot of that was honestly for the idiotically simple reason that the weather was really, really nice. Tuesday was after three days of snow thaw, and it was a ridiculously clear and balmy day of about 55 degrees (in New Hampshire, in January). At one point at about 6 PM, I overheard a high up Ron Paul staffer in a whisper conversation with another staffer that “this weather is killing us”. What happened essentially was that anybody who had the slightest inkling of voting, did. In New Hampshire, that favors two things: the older vote (half of New Hampshire’s voters are over the age of 50, and are more likely to stay home when the weather isn’t great), and the “just made up my mind in the last day” vote (which tends to favor name ID and momentum). I swore up and down that Obama was going to win in a walk in New Hampshire based on my own observation, but I think what ultimately killed him was the former, that just too many voters over the age of 45 turned out, and that helps nobody but Hillary (Obama still killed among those under 30, who themselves turned out in record numbers). On the Republican side, the older vote came in for McCain, and the quote unquote “casual” vote came in for McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani (I have to assume on that last one; I didn’t meet a single Rudy supporter the entire time I was in NH, but his name ID remains huge there; I did meet a significant number of people who had decided on Huckabee within the last week, and the crusty old conservatives were all well for McCain). As far as Ron Paul goes, had the turnout been 20% less, he would have been a big third, according to every internal (not just from his campaign) model I’ve seen, and according to a lot of information we got in during the early day. But the fact is, he had a glass ceiling, and the other campaigns (with the exceptions of possibly Romney and Edwards) mostly didn’t.
I’m enough on the inside that I have to be a bit careful in terms of what I can reveal (or even mention) and what I can’t. I will say this. The man-on-the-street vote came out for Obama and McCain and to a lesser extent Huckabee. The best organization in New Hampshire, that I could see, was Hillary Clinton, by far. The people purported to have the best operations in NH, Romney and Edwards, were nearly MIA that I could see. They had the paid people to do the boilerplate stuff like canvassing and meeting with local bosses and all that—to in essence lay the groundwork—but they weren’t even in shooting distance of Hillary’s final on-the-ground push and GOTV efforts. It was, I would say off the cuff, not just textbook last week campaign work, but as if they had bought the rights to said book, sat on them, and then published a massively expanded revised edition three days before the vote. To give you a sense of it, you know those people that work at polls in your local precinct, the little old ladies and button up upper middle age men and occasional overly-ambitious young Democrat? Imagine taking a tenth of them from across the country, sending them to New Hampshire, and organizing and dispatching them like you were running a military operation. That’s sort of what the Hillary campaign was like this week. That said, I STILL thought she would lose by 10 points or more, because there is absolutely no question to me that all the man-on-the-street enthusiasm was for Obama, but I guess you shouldn’t underestimate those things.
I may get in trouble for saying this, but the Paul campaign, by comparison, felt thrown together and scrambling. Most of what they were doing was what campaigns ought to do, but with little semblance of realizing why they ought to do it or how. They had far more volunteers and supporters than they knew what to do with, and given that the Paul campaign’s greatest strength has never been central organization, how they operating was often a bit frustrating and meandering. In short, it felt like a dry run for a real New Hampshire campaign, rather than the big show itself. I will qualify that, however, by saying that with some notable exceptions, every volunteer I met (and I personally sent out and organized A LOT) was as committed and enthusiastic and professional as any other campaign’s. The problem was not with the foot soldiers, but instead (sometimes) with the marching orders. That’s not sour grapes at all, by the way, because I LIKE almost the entire campaign staff, and they did their level best, but like I said most people in the campaign being paid to organize things are relative greens to all this—if we forced the comparison with the Clinton people, it would be downright embarassing—and thus it was hard for the official campaign to match the savvy or seasoning of the rest of the field. I have no doubt that if we had it to do over again, we would have worked out the kinks and would positively kill, and I really mean that, but of course, we don’t have that opportunity.
Independents—I think McCain hurt Obama a lot more than Obama hurt anybody else. In a weird way, all the “Obama rising to the nomination” stuff might have actually worked against Barack, in that a lot of independents seemed more interested in pushing McCain over the top than putting the last coffin nail in Hillary’s campaign (which people that might have been inclined to vote for Obama tended to feel was inevitable anyway). In another weird way, this might actually help Obama down the road. If what I saw was any indication, Obama has no problem bringing people out, getting people enthusiastic. But there might have been a sense here that the story had passed, or was in the process of passing, by the time voting day came around (versus the McCain-Huckabee-Romney story). Perhaps now that Hillary appears to not be dead just yet, a lot of those independents and casual Democrats are going to come back to vote against her big time.
But here’s the real skinny.
There is a tendency among election watchers that after the poll results come in, since there are winners and there are losers, somebody must have fucked up and somebody must have done great work. Of course, that is technically correct, in a narrow way. But in a more practical sense, it isn’t often. Elections are not exercises in bookkeeping. They’re more like sailing through uncharted waters. Skill and savvy can go a long way, but ultimately, make-or-breaks can come just as much through a random confluence of circumstance. Iowa is a good example. Hillary lost big, but in reality, she did mostly exactly what she needed to do. Any other year, she would have walked away with it. But this year, things just kind of fell together more for Obama. It really wasn’t so much that Hillary lost as that Obama won. That sounds pedantic, but it isn’t.
In New Hampshire, Obama didn’t lose, at least not that I saw. He did terrific. Things just turned out better for Hillary. Same with Ron Paul. His result was disappointing, but in the end, he got done exactly what he needed to get done to accomplish what he would have liked. But things didn’t work out in his favor. That’s not to say that Ron’s campaign didn’t make mistakes that cost him, or that Hillary’s didn’t do a phenomenal job, but it is to say that elections are a lot closer to chaos than arithmetic. It’s the same reason that, on any given day, any sports team can beat any other. Most days, they do. But a lot of days, they don’t, and it’s not necessarily because on those given days, one team screwed the pooch or that the other team is, in some objective cosmic sense, better. Shit happens. That might sound idiotically, apologetically simplistic, but it’s also the truth. Elections are not controlled laboratory experiments. It’s more like scrapped-together hypothesis followed by natural observation.
So, what do I think coming out of New Hampshire?
The Democratic race gets slightly more interesting, but Obama still kills. Hillary got just enough of a new lease on life to mobilize Obama’s people. Edwards has some strong states coming up, but after that, he’s a non-factor, and now that the choice is clear and practicable for Democratic voters, and the contest nation-wide, there is no amount of money I would not put on Obama. Seeing their efforts up close and personal, Hillary is not to be underestimated purely on organization and playbook politicking alone, but Obama really does represent a 1968-style revolution-in-the-making. I’ve been around enough campaigns to see when something is being done right, and when it doesn’t matter if something is done right or not, it’s just inevitable. Hillary is the former, Obama the latter. Unless he’s got some concealed personal history regarding sex with farm animals or somesuch, I’m having a hard time figuring out how he isn’t our next President. I’m that impressed with the on-the-ground perception of him, his campaign. and his support.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is done. Done. I stand by my prediction that the race becomes McCain-Huckabee, though it’s open enough that there are still some surprises in store. McCain, that I saw, didn’t win because his campaign was brilliant or because he had Obama-like man-on-the-street support. He won because the average GOP voter came home to roost—read settle—with him, and in reality, the vast majority of Republican voters, at least when turnout is average or above, are NOT dyed-in-the-wool evangelicals or nutty war hawks, but older people who happen to lean conservative. I, personally, think that’ll be enough to win him the nomination, but who knows. Huckabee’s ability to get casual voters to like him enough to pull the lever also shouldn’t be underestimated.
Ron Paul: I suppose that’s what most of our readers are interested about. Here’s what I’ll say about Ron Paul.
Observations:
1. I do not think that the racism stuff hurt him much. I met a LOT of New Hampshire voters (in the hundreds), and I didn’t hear that once, nor did I hear about anybody else hearing about that once. The people who are following the TNR article kind of stuff are A. a very slim minority of average voters, and B. not exactly the sort of people who winnable for us, or people who could reasonably be described as voters that, at this point, can be influenced one way or the other (at least not in any organized way). Weirdly, the same goes for the libertarian aspect of Ron Paul’s message. Simply put, there are a significant contingent of people who won’t consider a general libertarian message at all acceptable. Those people, however, aren’t going to be won over no matter who is the candidate or how the message is tailored. I met a few people who pointed to some of Ron’s more extreme positions as evidence of them not voting for him. These were not people that went to Huckabee at the last minute. These are people that have been working for Edwards for several months.
2. I DO think that Ron Paul’s supporters turn people off. Part of that is justifiable. I got a lot of comments about how his supporter are rude or turn voters off or whatever. But part of it was in much the same vein that any people over 35 would be turned off by the crowd of a Slipknot concert. Too many young people too enthusiastic. This is the point I’ve been turning over the most in my mind, obviously, since I’m largely responsible for bringing out lots of people who tend to be Ron Paul supporters, and I haven’t yet figured out an easy answer. I think the truth is that enthusiasm of the level Paul generates is just not mainstream and can be off-putting to people who view politics more as a kitchen table breakfast conversation. Do Ron Paul supporters act like douchebags sometimes? Absolutely. But my own, admittedly personal, sense is that that was less of an issue, in its own right as far as specifics are concerned, than people being all-too-willing to view that as a defining thing. The conduct of a vociferous minority of Paul supporters is partly—even largely—to blame here, and believe me that’s what I want to blame it on, but my feeling is there’s something else going on there as well that I haven’t yet put my finger on.
3. I agree with James in many of his comments to Rojas’s big post on this subject. I think the media blackout has really hurt Ron Paul. I am NOT a big “MSM conspiring to do this or that!” guy, but the truth is, Ron does really well among people that made up their minds months ago (third in Iowa; second that I saw in New Hampshire), and he does pretty darn well among people who make up their minds on the day of the event (not so good here but still significant; good in Iowa. I chalk both up to the “Well, fuck it” vote), but he does very very poorly among people who just start paying attention a week or two before the vote and decide then. These are not people that go in depth enough to ponder the 1990 race newsletter or Ron’s position on the FDA (believe it or not, he does WELL among those people); these are not the people who have just in the last minute decided that they might as well vote. These are people who turn on CNN or Fox News a week before the polls open with the most cobwebby and casual impressions imaginable, ask their friends, and pretty much make up their minds based on that. And, on that front, Ron Paul got a mostly total media blackout in the last few weeks. But more significantly, it had nothing whatever to do with Ron Paul, and that’s what killed him. If you tuned in from December 15th on, you wouldn’t have any idea that Ron Paul was even in the race. I spent a fair bit of time in a bar the day before the election with a lot of reporters (by the way, I got to chat with Tucker Carlson, Sam Donaldson, Alan Colmes, and a few others), and the narrative for this election was already there. “If you want to vote, here is the situation” was the explicit premise of every media report that went out, and believe you me Ron Paul had no part of that narrative. Not because the media had some active conspiracy going, but just because they’re self-interested and lazy. The salient point is, if you’re a voter making up your mind in the last few weeks—why on earth is Ron Paul even on your radar, much less somebody you’d consider?
If you want my honest opinion: it’s that, more than anything, that makes him an un-viable candidate. If the media doesn’t decide you are a viable prospect worth treating as such, a great, great bulk of voters won’t either.
Predictions:
Bad news first:
1. Anybody with any hope that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination, or even become a hugely significant factor in it, should get realistic. He won’t. As far as the major race is concerned, he has now become a nobody. The other candidates won’t pay any attention to him, the media won’t pay any attention to him, and the voters that remain undecided now probably won’t pay any attention to him (barring some kind of maneuver that I’m not seeing). Whether that was ever the case remains questionable, but I think it can be safely said that the Ron Paul race for the Republican nomination, or at least a significant showing in it, was predicated on that possibility.
Whether or not that’s fair is another discussion, but it’s the truth. Ron getting third in New Hampshire was the viability test. Had he done so, the fence-sitting election-watchers as far as Ron Paul is concerned (RCP, National Review, a large part of CNN, back-page stories in most magazines, etc) would have been inclined to talk about him. Now that he hasn’t, the more mainstream blackout of his campaign appears justified and will rule the day. Bill Richardson (presuming he doesn’t drop out) will get more mainstream consideration that Ron Paul. Sucks, but that’s the reality of it.
2. I will also say that the chances or Ron Paul making an independent bid are greatly lessened. I’m almost certain this is not kosher to share (forgive me; I’m new to blogging!) but Paul, his family, and his chief staff were all close to crushed with the result. Early signs on voting day had him doing very, very well (more than you’d think or that anybody would have predicted), but it just got worse as the day went on, and I think that they were predicating a lot of their later strategy on how he did on Tuesday. No clue where they go from here, but I’m on pretty safe ground in saying this was not the result they would have liked, or the one they were expecting (and they are not given to pie-in-the-sky optimism).
3. The people that like Ron Paul and his campaign and message the least are hardcore Republicans. By FAR the most venom I ever got, or heard about, to Ron Paul was not from Democrats or Independents (who, if they had heard of him at all, tended to respect him and “agree to disagree” and wish him well), but from party-line Republicans, the worst of which saw him as something close to the anti-Christ who ought to be burnt on a stake. Even that was a minority view, but if it came from anywhere, it came from party-line Republicans.
Better news:
1. One thing New Hampshire proved, though you might not have thought of this angle yet, is that his support is national. Almost all the discussion has been that he should do disproportionately well in New Hampshire because of its reputation as freedom-loving, but the truth is, he got about 8% there. He got about 8% (actually 10) in Iowa). He’ll get about the same in South Carolina, Nevada, and Michigan. My guess is that in some very big states (New York, Florida, etc), he’ll get about 5 (based largely on name ID and being able to spread the word), and in some smaller states (Alaska, Montana, maybe Nevada) he’ll get about 15, but really, in almost every state in the union, my guess is he does between 6-12%, and the supposed “libertarianisticism” of each state won’t affect that much.
2. His support isn’t likely to go down. The people that are for Ron Paul now are going to be for Ron Paul in 2016. Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee may range from 2-40% depending on momentum, narrative, spending, whatever, but Ron’s 10%, solid. My guess is that Ron’s showing in New Hampshire doesn’t depress his numbers at all. It will put a glass ceiling to it, but the support that he does have (which is significant, and I would guess is about 10% of the GOP and about 15% of the general electorate) will not be significantly depressed.
The Real News:
Back when everybody thought he would get third and still make a race for the nomination, you know what the central piece of conversation being kicked around by Ron personally, his campaign, and most significantly his supporters, was?
“Where do we go from here”.
Even on Tuesday night, Ron’s people spent as much time talking with potential Ron Paul Republicans who might run for Congress as with shaking hands with undecided voters. They took they time making the Liberty Forum, with all its freedom-seeking people, a priority. After Ron’s concession speech, he personally spent two hours standing next to the stage, making sure that literally every single person that wanted to got their shit signed by him or got to shake his hand or got to ask him their question or tell him their idea. Some suggested that his time might be better spent talking to undecideds, but I don’t necessarily think so. The thing is, it may only be 10-15% of the electorate, but Ron, his campaign, and even his supporters, seem to already be intuiting that the Republican convention will be the end of the beginning, that Tuesday was not the beginning of the end.
I have no idea what that will entail, but it was unmistakable at every turn. Take that as you will.