The answer may well be: by bucking the male political pundit stereotype of how a Presidential candidate should act.
Peering through the New Hampshire entrails is likely to go on for some time, and throw up more evidence as time goes on (particularly when the pollsters who were predicting a large Obama win starting trying to figure out where they went wrong), but the early signs are that a strong Clinton showing amongst women who made up their minds in the last few days of the campaign was key to her victory.
What could have caused her to do well amongst this group of people?
There were two events in the last few days that might have had a big political impact: Obama’s win in Iowa (but which, if anything, would have made people more likely to vote for him) and Clinton’s display of emotion. At one point when speaking she appeared to be close to breaking into tears, before regaining her composure and getting back on track – all within a matter of a few seconds.
This triggered an orgy of punditry speculation, largely from male pundits, about whether she really had the strength to be President (as well as a few brickbats aimed at those same pundits from those who pointed out that Republican Mitt Romney has three times started crying in public during his Presidential campaign, all three of which went largely unremarked and didn’t trigger any similar questioning of his own suitability).
But it now looks as if the pundits didn’t just give this issue undue attention because it was a woman/Clinton, they actually got the politics of it all wrong. Because amongst female voters, Clinton’s popularity seems (on the evidence so far, caveat, caveat) to have prospered after the incident, helping deliver her victory.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Matt Sanders selected by Lib Dems for South West Hertfordshire
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
18 Comments
If you gave as much attention to UK politics as the US then the party might be getting somewhere. Lib Dem Voice shouldn’t spend so much time repeating US speculation (and getting it terribly wrong) and actually repeating what anyone can read in a daily paper and get on with its real job for the UK Lib Dem membership.
Or perhaps, by looking at American and other international campaigns, some of us might learn something…
Disappointing, I supsect the over-enthusiasm and triumphalism of Obama’s supporters being beamed around the airwaves didn’t help him.
I have to say as well that I’m truely troubled for the voters who found Clinton’s faux-emote-for-the-crowd moment convincing.
#1, which daily paper can I pick up today, covers the New Hampshire primary results?
I am no fan of Clinton but all Obama seems to do is say ‘I’m new’ and I can quote Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln – I would hope Americans would want a bit more from a potential President than that.
Re: “and getting it terribly wrong” – actually, having blogged on this site how the polls weren’t really nearly so good for Obama as The Telegraph was reporting, it looked like I was about to be left with some egg on my face – until the votes were counted 🙂 Now, was I just lucky or was I being insightful…
Something else that the British press won’t tell you…
The tears that did for Muskie, helped Hillary this time around. Perhaps the biggest ‘inside baseball’ story though will be the impact of Michael Whouley. He came in at the last minute and helped win Iowa for John Kerry in 2004, and now he went straight to New Hampshire and pulled Hillary’s chestnuts from the fire. Lib Dems should find out how he runs a GOTV operation as soon as possible!
My response is at:
http://duncanborrowman.blogspot.com/2008/01/so-what-happened-in-new-hampshire-and.html
Re those tears:
Her emotion was real, it was just she was overcome by her own wonderfulness and goodness. This is why she must become president, so she can force all her goodness upon the American people.
Of course, the last Democrat to win New Hampshire in an open contest and become president was Carter…
MArk @ 1, LDV spends a lot of time covering UK politics, these US posts are in addition to not instead of. I for one welcome informed coverage on a site where I can discuss it with informed interested observers, away from the partizan bickering that US blogs and forums frequently devolve into.
@ Mark Pack and Duncan, the Beeb is saying that she won because she mobilised the core vote where she’s stronger, whereas turnout amongst Obama’s core of new voters and young professionals was lower, and that her emotional appeal is a smokescreen at best. Either way it’s interesting, and I wonder if we can learn stuff from it.
Politicians that break the facade and appear to be normal people get more respect from voters and/or money and the name factor worked together to bring out the Dem core which likes her through her links to Bill?
Matt GB@10. The relative turnout point is a good one. That’s why Mike Whouley should be credited with the win as much as the tears have been!
Matt @10: perhaps the most telling point on the “appearing to be normal” score is that you talked about “Bill”. Would you have said “George”?
Well, no, I’d have said Dubbya or “the idiot”. I’d likely have said Ronnie though.
But you’re right, Hilary’s main selling point is that she’s Bill’s wife. That’s a horrible thing to be saying, but the name factor is a big one. Dubbya’s main wasn’t that he was Bush jnr, it was that he was a folksy down to earth reformed, “saved” man. How much is positioning and how much is genuine I don’t know.
I do know I dislike Hilary’s positioning system over her term in the Senate, with the war when the voters were in favour, sorta against now but not actually apologising (unlike Edwards), etc.
Heh. @ both Mark and Simon. Mat. Not Matt, but Mat. There is no reason why, but pressing that button once less must be easier, surely? 😉
MatGB @ 10. The emotional display would not have brought the huge turn around in of itself. The turnout point is a bit mute because turnout was huge for both registered democrats and registered independents. What we saw was the traditional democrat primary going base turn out in huge numbers and vote for the traditional democrat candidate (Hillary). This itself (strong leads for those with incomes under $60,000, women, union members, non-graduates, pensioners etc) would be enough to draw her nearly level with Obama to perhaps 38-37 in BHO’s favour. The clincher was the one in seven voters who turned up at the polling stations without their minds made up. They went for Hillary, sending her into her 2 point lead. It appears that the base was not ready to let Hillary go. She’s not as hated as everyone thinks and that Clinton machine is more than myth.
“She’s not as hated as everyone thinks and that Clinton machine is more than myth”
On most, I concur, there’s no one factor, whcih is what makes it interesting. On the last though, my reading is that within the Democrat base, she’s not hated. But nationally, there a bunch of people that aren’t Dems but Republicans and/or non-aligned who really don’t like here.
What the percentage is I don’t know, but it’s there, and it’d concern me a little if the polling said it was big.
Right now, the Dems are on a high, but a lot of that is anti-Bush, anti-incumbency. In November, it won’t be Bush they’re fighting, and if it’s someone who isn’t politically hated in the way Bush now is, then that high will disperse a little. I think Obama or Edwards, will do better than Clinton. But I don’t know, it’s just an estimate based on reading of polling and looking at the vitriol directed at her from various quarters. Yes, some of that is partizan, some of it is sexist, but I think some of it is genuine, and it’s something I just don’t understand enough to even estimate.
MatGB, I can see Obama being more electable, unless there is a crisis (terror or foreign policy related especially) than Clinton. But Edwards, really? He’s not liked. He’s a worse “sneery liberal” (how he will be charactered) than Clinton. Edwards will be torn apart on the economy, foreign policy flip flops, the fact he ran as a centrist in 04 and now sounds like a southern great depression demagogue. Plus he is incredibly repetitive without being inspiring. He’s just too slick.
Usually Hillary Clinton shows less emotions than her male competitors, and now when she did show some, some commentators wanted to label them as feminine weakness, and asked how would she survive as a president, if she breaks already now, and others as a calculated pretence.
This despite Barack Obama having written emotional books about his absent father in “Dreams From My Father” and about his marital crisis in “The Audacity of Hope”, and John Edwards speaking openly about his son who died in a car crash and his terminally ill wife.
A female candidate doesn’t get fair treatment; if she doesn’t show her emotions, she is considered cold and distant, and if she does, she is considered weak or a feigner.
Anonymous, the male dominated political hackery hasn’t yet got its head around what it means to be a female candidate. The odd bit of humanity here and there is probably very effective, just as long as it doesn’t get too cringe.