Newswise — Two University of Maryland political communication experts just back from New Hampshire offer their interpretations of the surprise that voters handed pollsters, media and pundits in yesterday's first primary election of 2008.
Research professor Kathleen Kendall, who has trailed candidates through New Hampshire for 20 years argues that Hillary's shift in campaign style made the difference: "In the events we saw on Sunday, she listened to the voters' questions and concerns for longer periods of time than any other candidate...It was a tour de force."
Shawn Parry-Giles, director of the Center for Political Communication at the University of Maryland stressed that voters humbled media, pollsters and pundits: "The pollsters, pundits, and the press went too far this time in predetermining the outcome, with nearly all predicting an Obama victory and a Clinton defeat - well before any votes were cast...The results last night were a poignant reminder of what the election is really about and an important check on the arrogance of power that far too often creeps into the political process."
Here are their full comments. See below for contact information:
Hillary's Changed Campaign Style Made the Difference
By Kathleen E. Kendall, Research Professor, Department of Communication, University of Maryland
( Jan. 9, 2008, Washington, D.C.) In Hillary Clinton's door-to-door canvassing in Manchester last Sunday, she went into people's homes and talked with the residents. At one home, which had a McCain yard sign, she talked with a retired naval aviator who said he just had to vote for John McCain. She told him that she and McCain were friends in the Senate, and had travelled together on foreign trips. "It might end up being John and me" in the fall, she said. At the time, the idea that she would be the party nominee seemed highly unlikely. Polls showed her lagging behind Barack Obama by as much as 13 percentage points. Yet last night she won the New Hampshire primary, defeating Barack Obama by 39% to 37%, with John Edwards receiving 17%. Why?
Experts will analyze the data for many days to explain this big upset. Some of the theories being proposed are that her organizational skills played a role, as her campaign sent out hundreds of get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. Another theory is that Obama needed heavy support from Independent voters, but many of them chose to vote for John McCain, as they could vote in either party's primary. Or could it be that when she teared up in response to a voter's question on Monday, she evoked a big sympathy vote, especially from the women voters who outnumbered men at the polls?
In my own analysis, I turn to the role of political image in the primaries. Primaries are contests within one party, and the candidates usually agree on most policy issues. Candidates' most evident differences involve their personal images, the way voters evaluate their competence, honesty, decisiveness, compassion, and other qualities. What kind of person is the candidate? Does the candidate have the qualities you think are important in a president? Often the candidate will embody a particular issue, and that will become part of their public image. For example, Mayor Rudy Giuliani seeks to embody the issue of national security through his close association with September 11, 2001 in New York City.
The perception of image is co-constructed among the candidates, media, and voters Candidates try their best to communicate an image which the voters will find admirable. The media must boil down the candidate's message because of their limitations of space and time, choosing certain pictures and words for their stories. The voters play an active role in this process too, as they compare what they know about the candidate with their own vision of the ideal president.
In New Hampshire, the voters are used to participating actively in the evaluation of the candidates' images, studying the candidates right down to the wire. Historically they have often rejected the conventional wisdom and the polls and made surprising choices. For example, New Hampshire voters in 1952 chose Senator Estes Kefauver rather than President Harry Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower rather than Senator Robert Taft. In 1988, the late polls predicted that Senator Robert Dole would win the Republican primary, yet Vice President George Bush won instead.
McCain, who was slumping in the polls last summer, changed his campaign strategy and headed up to New Hampshire. He told the media, "I'm going to New Hampshire, where the voters don't let you make their decision for them." Yesterday's Democratic results showed that side of New Hampshire - the proud, "we will decide for ourselves" side.
With the benefit of hindsight, I believe I saw that side of the voters on Sunday, when I traveled with the Clinton campaign. Clinton spent the day (1) meeting with voters door-to-door in Manchester, followed by a huge media contingent, (2) speaking at a huge rally in Nashua (estimated by the campaign as 3,700 people), (3) having press interviews with national and local media, and (4) speaking at a large rally in Hampton. According to the reporters on the bus, she had changed her campaign style markedly after her Iowa loss. Now she was inviting active audience participation, through the kind of lengthy question-and-answer sessions which had been Bill Clinton's forte in 1992.
At the Nashua rally she spoke about 30 minutes and then answered audience questions for an hour. At Hampton, she spoke 12 minutes and then answered audience questions for 90 minutes, a total of 30 questions. Audience members asked her about virtually every issue in contemporary politics. Nothing stumped her. She spoke about health care, her negotiating experience in Northern Ireland , illegal immigration, bipartisanship, student loans, medical care for veterans, Iraq , homeland security, and many other topics.
She teased the Republicans in Congress, who, she said, attack health care plans yet enjoy their own government-run health care plan. She joked about the fact that people in 2000 thought that George W. Bush would be enjoyable to have a beer with."Maybe they should have left it at that," she said. What would Bill Clinton be called in the White House? She said that she would still call him "Bill." She praised the woman who just became a doctor, and the Republican who asked her a question. She praised her opponents. The audience laughed, clapped, and cheered. She ended the event with words echoing Bill Clinton's appeal in 1992: "I will never forget you, New Hampshire." Music poured into the room: "Taking care of business, working all the time." It was a tour de force.
In her victory speech Tuesday night, Clinton said to the New Hampshire voters, "I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice." In the events we saw on Sunday, she listened to the voters' questions and concerns for longer periods of time than any other candidate. (McCain is a close second - he is the master of the town meeting format.) This approach, which harks back to her successful "Listening Tour" of upstate New York when she first ran for the Senate in 2000, allows the audience to scrutinize her political image for the particular traits they most want. In the struggle to define a candidate's political image, giving the voter such an active role in constructing that image for themselves engages them and impresses them. In the end, 8,000 more voters found what they wanted in Hillary Clinton than in Barack Obama.
The Night Voters Humbled Media, Pollsters and Pundits
By Shawn Parry-Giles, Professor, Department of Communication, University of Maryland
(January 9, 2008, College Park, Md.) On Tuesday, the New Hampshire voters countered the outcome of the Iowa caucuses and proved why they are most famous for their independent and often contrary election results.
The New Hampshire voters defied the pollsters, pundits and press by doing what none of these observers believed was possible - delivering Hillary Clinton the win over Barack Obama, who had been dubbed the likely winner not only in New Hampshire but of the nomination overall.
As many try to understand how the pollsters could have been so wrong, an important lesson must be learned - voters are the ones who determine the outcome of elections. The pollsters, pundits, and the press went too far this time in predetermining the outcome, with nearly all predicting an Obama victory and a Clinton defeat well before any votes were cast. The news media over-stepped their authority as the fourth estate in New Hampshire, potentially usurping the voting rights of Americans.
Awaiting the results last night, this did not deter many in the media who were already looking ahead to South Carolina, suggesting that the outcome was inevitable!
In Iowa , Hillary Clinton was humbled and in New Hampshire Barack Obama experienced his most humbling moment. Most significantly, though, the New Hampshire primary of 2008 should be remembered as the time when the pollsters, pundits, and the press likewise learned their limitations. Elections are about the American people and their voting rights, celebrating the principles of democracy. The results last night were a poignant reminder of what the election is really about and an important check on the arrogance of power that far too often creeps into the political process.
RSS