After New Hampshire, nothing is clear
The Clinton
campaign and
mainstream Republicans need
to rethink their strategies
Lesley Russell
It was was a cold, snowy day in New Hampshire, but that didnt deter record numbers of citizens turning out to vote in the 2016 presidential primaries. Their votes reinforced the momentum for socialist senator Bernie Sanders and bellicose businessman Donald Trump, showing for some weeks in the polls, and yet delivered little clarity on the future political fortunes of the candidates who remain in the race for president.
Just twenty minutes after the polls closed, the major television stations were declaring victory for Sanders against Hillary Clinton and Trump against his eight Republican rivals.
But the also-rans got to put their own spin on the evenings results and the ongoing complications of this tortured primary season were soon apparent.
The Democratic primary is now down to two candidates, and while it was always predicted that Sanders would beat Clinton in New Hampshire no one foresaw that he would do this by more than twenty points. Clinton nevertheless gave a rousing and effective concession speech to her campaign troops that belied her substantial loss in a state she won handsomely in 2008, and it can be argued that she has every right to feel that the future is still hers to seize. As the campaign moves into states with more diverse populations, support from African Americans and Hispanics will boost her polling; and she has the endorsements, the financing and the organisation to carry her through. But her campaign staff are seriously worried and it is clear that they are wrestling with how to manage the conundrum that is Bernie Sanders.
Among the people of New Hampshire who voted in the Democrat primaries, Sanders won 83 per cent of voters under the age of 30, highlighting his appeal to young people. He won 73 per cent of self-described independents and 67 per cent of people who described themselves as very liberal. He also took 55 per cent of Democrat womens votes. Its not clear if this simply reflects his overwhelming winning margin or if women (especially young women) are turning away from Clinton. Perhaps the most telling numbers are those that show he was the overwhelming favourite of voters who were looking for a candidate they see as honest and trustworthy (92 per cent) and caring about people like them (82 per cent).
These numbers highlight the problem facing Clinton: her message is in urgent need of renovation. She has admirable policies and processes for implementing them, but has been unable to project a vision. Her pragmatic approach, and the incrementalism that necessarily accompanies it, are of little appeal to voters who are angry about current politics and who favour integrity and authenticity over electability. Sanders, on the other hand, has tapped into the move to the left among Democrats thus claiming the title of progressive at Clintons expense and has been so bold as to capitalise on the progressives disappointment in President Obama. It is intriguing that a seventy-three-year-old man has been able so effectively to galvanise young people, and even the young women who might be expected to support the possibility of the nations first woman president.
Ironically, many of these same issues an angry electorate, voters who feel betrayed by Washington and look to reject the establishment helped fuel Donald Trumps win in the primary. In their own very different ways, Trump and Sanders have exposed the injuries of socioeconomic divides in todays America. In both Sanders and Trump, the people of New Hampshire have chosen candidates whose policies and pronouncements are effectively unimplementable, and who are the least likely of all the candidates to make Washington work better than it does currently. Yet that is of little concern to these voters. They dont want more insiders like Clinton and Bush, they want a true outsider.
Even Trumps ugly and xenophobic pronouncements brought him success in New Hampshire. Polls found that 68 per cent of Republican voters in the primaries supported his proposed ban on Muslims coming to the United States, and this figure rose to 82 per cent among Republican voters.
Trumps continued, even growing, viability is helped by the infighting between the Republican candidates and the fact that with so many still in the race, he can continue to win with only 34 per cent of the vote. Candidates like Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio currently split a more moderate conservative vote that could be enough to defeat Trump and/or Ted Cruz. This situation is little eased by Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina leaving the race, although it will be interesting to see where their support (voters and donors) direct their attention. Of those who remain (Bush, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Ben Carson), all but Kasich have significant campaign funds, although only Bush appears to have a fully implemented campaign organisation.
Ahead are unknowns on all sides. The primaries in South Carolina and the caucuses in Nevada are both split, requiring candidates to divide their time between the two states. In South Carolina, Republicans will vote on 20 February and Democrats on 27 February. The Nevada caucuses for Democrats are also on 20 February and those for Republicans are three days later.
To date there has been little polling in these states; the most recent Real Clear Politics aggregate of polls taken in South Carolina in January has Clinton ahead of Sanders by 29.5 percentage points and Trump well ahead of his rivals. There have been no new polls in Nevada since the end of 2015, and further public polling seems unlikely because pollsters believe it is hard to get accurate results in this state.
The competition between Sanders and Clinton, as exemplified by their 4 February debate, is increasingly fierce. Importantly, Sanders has the money to ensure that his candidacy doesnt falter in the weeks ahead. He has relied on very successful grassroots donations and eschewed political action committees, or PACs, to build what has been described as a fundraising juggernaut. Open Secrets puts the total figure at US$75.3 million. Clinton, who accepts PAC money, has amassed a campaign fund estimated by Open Secrets to be $163.6 million.
Both of these candidates must now make gains with new constituencies. In just the last few days Sanders has reached out to African-American leaders such as Al Sharpton, looking for the boost their endorsements would bring. Clinton has admitted she must do more to reach young voters.
Decisive wins in South Carolina and Nevada are essential for Clinton, not because of the number of delegates involved but because of the impact a loss will have on public perceptions of her candidacy and perhaps even on the morale of the Democrat leaders. There are those who see Sanderss emergence as a presidential candidate as suicide for the party, in the same way that Trump and Cruz are seen as destructive for the future of the GOP.
On the Republican side, its hard to see what or who can stop the Trump steamroller. Cruz is trying to present South Carolina as a two-man race between himself and Trump, but the fact is that Rubio, Bush and Kasich must all be considered competition at least for Cruz. The next few weeks will be make or break for these men, although we have already seen how a close or surprising second, third and even fourth place can boost a candidates chances.
Money and how its spent will be important. Bloomberg News reports that the Republican candidates and the groups supporting them have already poured an estimated $24 million into political advertisements in South Carolina, nearly triple the amount spent in 2012.
The writer is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy at the University of Sydney
