Undeclared observation of the NH Primary….
Among the more pleasurable burdens that comes with an appointment in the political science department at the University of New Hampshire is that you are sought out as a political pundit by the media covering the presidential primary. This is my first primary season (like leap year, a quadrennial event — so I might not have too many left), and it is quite an experience. Among the UNH faculty there are really two experts on the primary: Andy Smith, who heads the Granite State Poll at the UNH Survey Research Center; and Dante Sala, who recently joined our faculty after several years at St. Anselm College in Manchester. I know when I get a call to comment on the primary, it is typically because the two of them are overwhelmed or the caller had no better sense than to pick a name from the faculty website…
As the Iowa caucus process came to an end, attention shifted to New Hampshire and the calls for comments and observations has picked up. Responding to questions from reporters both local and European, I found myself thinking that these folks are just not asking the right questions. What better excuse for blogging…
Observation number one: the undeclared voter in New Hampshire will be the key to victory in both the Democratic and Republican contests. New Hampshire effectively runs an open primary, meaning just about anyone registered to vote (which actually means qualified to vote, since registration can take place at the voting station) can do so for either party if they are undeclared as they walk into a polling place. (If you are registered for a party on the election rolls when you enter the polling place, you are restricted to voting in that party’s primary. However, you can change your party affiliation one day prior to the primary election — or even change it to undeclared so that you can make up your mind at the last minute about which party’s primary you wish to vote. In other words, it is a VERY open primary.)
The number of undeclared voters in the state is very high, in part by tradition since all the old timers understand the strategic advantage of being able to keep your options open, and in part because of demographic trends. As my colleague Andy Smith explains, New Hampshire’s politics is being greatly impacted by an influx of new residents who are far more moderate to liberal than the traditional New Hampshire voter. The myth is that most new residence are anti-tax conservatives escaping from Massachusetts; but in fact that group is pretty concentrated along the southern border area of the state which is convenient for those who commute to jobs within the “128 corridor” around Boston. More significant has been the influx of folks from more liberal middle Atlantic states who for one reason or another have relocated along the Merrimack River corridor (Manchester, Concord) or in the Seacoast area (Portsmouth, Dover, Durham). It is a demographic trend that is increasingly turning New Hampshire into a “Blue State”, but it is also a process characterized by a growth in the number of undeclared voters. These are the folks that can make a difference in both races.
On the Republican side, John McCain is once before benefited from a large turnout of undeclared voters when he trounced George W. Bush by 19 points in the 2000 primary. That gave McCain a significant boost, which he was unable to sustain as he headed into the southern primaries that year. But it is a group that he is counting on this year as he attempts to make a come back from the major campaign organization collapse he suffered this past summer. Mitt Romney has obviously been much better financed and well-organized in New Hampshire than any other GOP candidate, but if the undeclared voters turn out again in force for McCain then look for Romney to suffer a significant defeat.
What about Huckabee? I would speculate that he will do better than might be expected had he not won the Iowa caucuses — but I still think he won’t do better than third, and I suspect Ron Paul (who is a surprisingly strong candidate in New Hampshire among the die hard libertarians) will give him a pretty good run for his money for that second-tier lead. Fred Thompson does not seem to be on the radar screens at the moment, but at best he might be competitive with Huckabee and Paul.
The problem Huckabee faces is that the rhetoric he used to win the Iowa caucus works against him in New Hampshire, and it is clear that Ed Rollins (his campaign manager) realizes this and had Huckabee tone down and neutralized his Christian conservative message almost immediately after winning in Iowa. But toning down the message and playing up his humorous and cuddly side won’t work in the state where libertarianism and secularism clearly trumps any fundamentalist or social conservative message. The best Huckabee can hope for is a major victory for McCain over Romney and at least a decent showing against Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. (Oops, almost forgot Rudy — second tier as well…)
On the Democratic side, it is Barak Obama who has the most to gain from a high turnout of undeclared voters for the Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton certainly has a strong base in New Hampshire built on Bill Clinton’s work in the state during the 1990s. (Although it should be noted that Bill Clinton did not win New Hampshire in 1992, but rather made a significant showing after a disastrous start in Iowa where he received only 3% of the caucus vote that year. It was the New Hampshire results that showed he was gaining ground, and it was probably the birthplace of the now famous “it’s the economy stupid” campaign theme that eventually won him the White House.) But if the undeclared voters are mobilized by Obama in New Hampshire like they were in Iowa, then Hillary Clinton will suffer the same outcome as she did in Iowa. John Edwards is a factor in terms of the rhetoric, but it seems he would place third in New Hampshire if things remain the same. So assuming that McCain doesn’t draw off a significant number of undeclared voters, the advantage is definitely to Obama.
The key to the Obama campaign is being able to make the transition from the community organizing mode that was so successful in Iowa to a “get out the vote” mode that is required in the New Hampshire primary. The difference is not subtle here, but there are two very different types of organizational capacities involved. Obama himself has experience in community organizing and understands its potential and its limitations; and his campaign manager, David Axelrod, is certainly from that tradition. One has to assume that they understand the difference, and the high-energy, pep rally rhetoric we’ve seen out of Obama in the past week or so is a pretty good indication that they understand that the process now calls for mass mobilization of voters rather than the one-on-one, precinct-level contact that worked in Iowa. My guess is that in New Hampshire the undeclared voters can be mobilized by Obama’s impressive stump speeches (they really are quite impressive!), especially those groups of young and Generation X voters who are central to his victory over Hillary Clinton’s party based organization.
More to come…
A blog focused on things related to accountability, governance and all sorts of other ideas that I might want to share.