THE STUMP JANUARY 10, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Barack Obama needs to get himself to New Hampshire, pronto. There are some awfully discombobulated voters up here, and if he has any hope of holding onto the state next fall, he’s going to need to have a serious talk with them.
That’s my main takeaway from Mitt Romney’s successful wearing down of a skeptical electorate to the point where, after six years of having him showing up at their tiniest parades and showering cash on their lowliest of elected officials, it finally said: Uncle. Now will you please go to South Carolina?
Romney, of course, is framing his 38 percent share -- a notch more than what John McCain got in winning the state four years ago -- as a monumental triumph. I already saw this spin in the works a few days ago, when I was chatting with New Hampshire state senator Jeb Bradley, a former congressman and major Romney backer in the state. Why was Romney doing so much better in the state this year than he did four years ago? I asked. Was it the weaker, McCain-less field? Oh no, Bradley said: “A weaker field? How could a field with Speaker Gingrich in it be a weaker field? Rick Santorum has surged and Rick Perry, while he hasn’t done too well so far, has a good record in Texas. This is actually a stronger field, I’d say.”
Back in the real world, Romney’s win should be regarded with about as much awe as those bumper stickers that only half-ironically declare, “This Car Climbed Mt. Washington.” Yay, your car drives up mountains that people climb on foot! When the man who ties with you in the Iowa caucuses speaks at an event without a working microphone on the night before the New Hampshire primary, it suggests something less than a fair fight.
But enough of that. Let me share with you some of the conversations I had with voters today at a polling station in Concord -- a church in an older, middle/working-class part of town -- to give some hint of how screwy this primary season has been, and what a state of disarray voters seem to be in. It was an admittedly small sample, but it included:
1. Anne Field, an independent who voted for Obama in the 2008 general election but voted for Romney today. Field is near retirement with her husband, who runs a small plumbing business for which she does the bookkeeping. Business has rebounded pretty well since 2008-09, but she’s worried about their retirement investments, and worried most of all about her daughter, who, with a master’s degree in marketing at age 27, is having trouble finding work. Here’s the thing: Field blames the bad economy on Republican rule last decade, and says Obama was left with an awful mess. She still thinks Obama is a “brilliant, brilliant speaker.” She appreciates that her investments have rebounded quite a bit since 2009, and she also is hoping for good things from Obamacare -- she’s heard good reviews from Massachusetts friend about the state’s law on which Obamacare was modeled. But she’s going to vote for Romney this fall anyway. “I just want things to get better for the United States,” she said. “It’s scary out there. I just want to get things going again. And Romney’s done some good things.” Was it his business experience? I asked. Did she see Romney’s Bain Capital years as a plus or a negative, as Obama and Romney’s rivals are trying to cast it. “I think he’s done more good than bad,” she said. “Sure, he had to agglomerate some people to get to where he was. He had to shave off some people. But I think that’s also what [the government] needs now. That’s the way business is -- there are times you have to cut things and be tough. That’s what’s we need in America now, someone to be tough.” As for Obamacare, she’s for it in principle but still doubtful. “Not that I’m totally against it -- I’m skeptical. I want it to work, but it makes me nervous, because so many things the government does don’t work.” Finally, I came back to her decision to back Romney even though she blames Republican policies for our current pass. She shrugged and smiled. “I don’t know,” she said. “Maybe I don’t have very good logic.”
2. Leigh MacDonald, a well-spoken massage therapist in her thirties, is an independent who leans Democratic but turned out to vote in the Republican primary mainly because she cannot abide Romney and wanted to vote for one of his rivals. “He’s too on the surface,” she said. “He’s the pretty boy and I don’t like pretty boys.” She is staunchly pro-choice, she mentioned, so I assumed she was going to say she voted for Jon Huntsman, who, while anti-abortion, emphasizes it less than the other Republicans in the field. But no: MacDonald voted for Rick Santorum. What? I said. What about the abortion issue? Well, she’d heard that Santorum actually wasn’t too pro-life, that he was realistic on the issue. (Hmmm.) She had first thought about Ron Paul, who was a “breath of fresh air,” but she settled on Santorum because she doesn’t care for Paul’s non-interventionism. But above all, she just liked the way Santorum came across. “He wasn’t wishy washy," she said. "For the most part, he seemed like a good guy. He answered questions and didn’t try to beat around the bush.”
3. A 23-year-old man who works at Concord Hospital, who voted for Romney and declined to let me use his name. He said he voted for Romney “because of the health care.” I asked, did he mean because Romney passed universal health care in Massachusetts, or because Romney is now outspokenly opposed to the national health care law that Obama passed, based on Romney’s law? The question seemed to stump the young man. He said that he had voted for Romney because he is registered Republican and “Romney is the only Republican I know anything about." And finally, he said that, yes, he was opposed to the national law. “If you don’t have insurance, tough shit,” he said. Those without insurance include his boyfriend, who had come to the polls with him to vote for Obama in the Democratic primary.
To be sure, there were also the more typical savvy voters of New Hampshire lore. Rob McCullen, who works for the state Department of Transportation, said he was torn between Santorum, whose beliefs he felt most drawn to, and Romney, who he thought had a better chance of beating Obama but whose convictions McCullen doubted. “I wish he felt more strongly on some things,” he said. But he went with Romney in the end. I asked what he made of Romney’s Bain Capital experience. “His business experience would be good for the economy.” What about the layoffs that came with his Bain success? “He’s a businessman. He had to do what he had to do to be good at business.” Then there was David Harris, a state employee who changed his registration from Democratic to independent so he could vote for Huntsman. “I did not cast my vote for the person that would be easiest [for Obama] to slap down. I want him to have a worthy competitor. And I want to show that New Hampshire isn’t going for a complete bunch of idiots.”
I spoke to several other people during the day -- Democrats and left-leaning independents -- who said they were voting for Huntsman for similar reasons. This made me start to doubt the conclusion that I drew after seeing Huntsman on Sunday in Keene -- that his purported surge was limited at best. I came to his election night party at a bar here just in case there was going to be a big Gene McCarthy-Bill Clinton second-place finish to be spun as a moral victory. The crowd -- a distinctly youthful and cosmopolitan assortment (there was even a large Scandinavian contingent) -- seemed to be thinking the same thing. But then the returns started coming in, showing Huntsman well behind the over-achieving Paul, and the chants that his loyalists occasionally started up became less sustained. When the candidate emerged, he did his best to conjure momentum -- “We’re in the hunt!” but the only real zip in the room was coming from the fire-engine red lipstick that the now-famous Huntsman daughters were sporting. Huntsman may claim that he’s got a “ticket to ride” to South Carolina, and who knows, maybe Daddy Huntsman will finally open up the family vault to make that happen. More telling was the look of regret on the faces of his supporters, including one particularly bereft-looking young man beside me. I asked him, a 23-year-old college student by the name of Bill Caldwell, whether he thought Huntsman could compete in South Carolina. “He’ll have trouble in the South,” Caldwell said. “It’s more conservative there.” But then it turned out that Caldwell wasn’t as bereft as he’d appeared. He’s actually a staunch Obama supporter who voted for him in 2008 and plans to again. And he’s from Massachusetts -- Athol, near the state line. “I had this right in my backyard, so why not come up?” he said.
No, such admirers will not win you a Republican primary in 2012. Mitt Romney has yet to be truly tested. Onward to the general election.
19 comments
Ack. We're doomed, if these reports are representative of the electorate's critical reasoning skills.
- jlewis001
January 11, 2012 at 2:16am
It's as if some of these people are waiting for a good reason to vote for Obama in November, if only one could be expressed to them. They don't sound like committed Republicans.
- ironyroad
January 11, 2012 at 2:24am
“Maybe I don’t have very good logic.” Amen, sister. But maybe you do have good logic. "Shaving people" off the companies you're invested in has grown your retirement investments. What you don't know is that Romney is talking about deregulating Wall Street again. Poof! There go your retirement investments. Vote for him and go in peace, sister.
- magboy47.
January 11, 2012 at 2:34am
What's with the interest in Scandinavians; MacGillis made the same reference to them in a tweet last night. Are there lots of Scandinavian Mormons? Is it that Scandinavians are usually liberal? My comment, however, relates to the comments of the voters interviewed by MacGillis and TNR readers' reaction to them. For some reason I decided to read Hitchens' memoir, and last night read the chapters about his early days as a socialist and friend of socialists. Hitchens is/was a smart fellow, but after reading those chapters I concluded that his sole reason for being a socialist was to hang around with other smart socialists and impress one another with clever allusions. It seems that people pick their politics about as well as they pick their spouses, which is with little logic and lots of emotion. We are not rational beings, especially when it comes to politics (and sex), so I would give the folks in New Hampshire (and elsewhere) some slack; after all, they can't be as smart as Hitchens.
- rayward
January 11, 2012 at 7:41am
Rayward: "Whats with ... the Scandanavians?" They're clearly Obama plants, as we all know that Scandanavian = Socialist Commie (yet oddly highly employed and productive) Obama lovers. My guess is that they're been a bit blatant in their efforts to sow discord among the fine residents of NH, which is why MacGillis has declined to quote any of them.
- Nari224
January 11, 2012 at 8:39am
Good reporting by Alec. It's too easy to say these people have no clue, but they certainly don't have a lot of clues. The best line, of course, is about the 23-year old Romney voter who doesn't care if you have health insurance ... but whose boyfriend doesn't have health insurance. Of course, when you're 23 years old, health insurance is about as relevant to your daily thoughts as denture cream and Early Bird specials at Denny's. As for Huntsman's "ticket to ride" to South Carolina, it puts me in mind of the next line of the song -- "But she don't care". Huntsman is about to find out quickly that South Carolina don't care.
- wildboy
January 11, 2012 at 9:26am
Speaking of Obama and New Hampshire ... his polling in that state has consistently lagged behind similarly situated states during the past four years, so that the state will be a legitimate toss-up this November (even leaning Republican assuming Romney is the nominee). Some of that is obviously attributable to Romney's home-field attributes there, similar to what John Kerry enjoyed when he won New Hampshire in 2004. However, I wonder if there is some residue of anti-Obama sentiment hanging over from the 2008 Democratic primary similar to what you find in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states that Hillary won after high-profile primaries that year. It's not attirbutable to "Appalachianism" the way it is in those other states, but I do think it is attributable to a lingering distrust or dislike of Obama on the part of a sizeable part of the New Hampshire electorate. Does anyone have some clearer ideas on that?
- wildboy
January 11, 2012 at 9:33am
“If you don’t have insurance, tough shit.” You betcha. Except 23-year-olds do have to go to the doctor--for things like crabs and strep throat and drug OD's and high-speed driving accidents--and somebody else has to pay for it. What this Republican was saying is that it's tough shit for the taxpayers. Ayn Rand would surely second that thought.
- magboy47.
January 11, 2012 at 10:42am
A 23-year old gay Republican, who is also a supporter of the current health care system? Not long now until we have militant atheists obnoxiously pro-life and openly against the separation of church and state.
- Madara
January 11, 2012 at 12:36pm
Another "what's with" comment, this one what's with the Scheiber-MacGillis hostility toward Huntsman? They've left disrespect and gone right into hostility. They even have interns (interns!) bashing Huntsman. Did I miss something despicable about Huntsman?
- rayward
January 11, 2012 at 12:41pm
This article has a passage that underlines Romney's secret selling point: “Sure, he had to agglomerate some people to get to where he was. He had to shave off some people. But I think that’s also what [the government] needs now. That’s the way business is -- there are times you have to cut things and be tough. That’s what’s we need in America now, someone to be tough.” In other words, the Federal Government needs a private equity guy to whip it into shape, just like the private sector needed them. He can take on the civil service like no one else can. If Romney portrays himself in these terms, or gets portrayed that way, his base might become more enthusiastic about him. And Obama would have a much more difficult time.
- art.kleiner@booz.com-old1
January 11, 2012 at 12:52pm
...in other words... "The federal government workers work for all of us, and I love to fire people who work for me...."
- art.kleiner@booz.com-old1
January 11, 2012 at 12:54pm
I'll just tack some of this onto my list of why swing voters are idiots and be moving along...thankyouverymuch.
- GSpinks
January 11, 2012 at 1:16pm
As stayted on another site, the problem that BHO and the Dems face is that the Repub nominee, whoever that may be, is highly likely to win. Odds are on by summer of 2012, BHO will be deemed responsible for 9% unemployment or more and rising in a flat or falling GNP. [And with much good reason.. not passing an adequate stimulus and constantly compromising with intractable oipposite whose main goal is BHO's demise.] At 9% or greater unemployment, it's ABO time-- Anybody But Obama. And the nature of the Anybody matters less than BHO had 4 years to correct the great Recession/Lesser Depression-- and didn't. And he will be continue to promise small Keynbesian increments combined with Hooverian budget reductions to solve the problem-- and small inadequate increments that he can't deliver. Odds are on, ABO wins. [Google Hungary as a case on point. Or Spain.] Neither party is proposing appropriate Keynesian solutions to solve the US economic problems --- same goes for any party in the EU and the coming EU disastwer will accelerate the US Greater Recession/Lesser Depression. In the US, it will be hard to say who are the greater fools-- those buying the Repub ABO or those buying that re-electing BHO will do anything than provide the Repubs a Democratic Hoover against whom they can run for a generation.
- drofnats1
January 11, 2012 at 1:53pm
I have to nod in silent agreement as I read this account of NH primary voters. I live in NH and after I voted yesterday afternoon, I stopped in the village market to pick up a couple of things. In front of me at the cash register was a fit, white-haired lady probably in her late-70s or early 80s. She spoke to the register clerk, another white haired lady of about the same age:"Have you voted yet?" "No, I just don't know who to vote for." "Me either." "I went to hear (someone didn't get the name) speak. He was ok, but his people were sooo nice. Didn't demand anything. Just asked very politely for my vote. So nice. Maybe I'll vote for him." It left me with a feeling of despair. Not so nice.
- suzanne
January 11, 2012 at 4:01pm
"the Repub nominee, whoever that may be, is highly likely to win." Maybe in faerie land ABO will win but the only way BHO will lose is if he stays home and does nothing. Dro continues to think that the GOP (if they win) will suddenly get right with Keynes and pass us some of that stimulus he keeps going on about. I hate to break it to you Dro but the GOP will do no such thing. What will happen, if (and that's a big IF) the GOP nominee (Mr. Mittens) wins, the GOP will then tell the American people that it REALLY has a mandate from the American people to go forth and enact broad cuts to everything but the military budget and make government small enough that Grover can really drown it in the bathtub. Watch as every Government sector that doesn't serve the crony-capitalists that the GOP sucks up to is cut further to the bone. Infrastructure investments? Nope. But we will see the opening of Anwar to drilling , the gutting of the EPA, defunding of the Consumer Protection Bureau, the Labor Relations Board, OSHA, FDA, Obamacare, Education, SS and Medicare. We'll see a renewal of oil & gas subsidization, a deep cut in corporate taxes, increased corporate tax credits, a regressive movement of tax rates down the economic ladder, and other policies that further erode the ground from under the struggling middle class as the GOP remove any remaining barriers to the near oligarchy they've created over the last several decades. If you actually thought ABO was going to magically move anything progressive that you might approve of you're hitting the bong too much. Finally, I'm not sure how anyone thinks that BHO has control over what the EU does regarding it's economic meltdown. Does Dro think that BHO simply has failed in controlling what Germany or Italy does? ABO would fair no better and actually make matters worse because their 'austerity' measures soon enacted would exacerbate what impacts the EU Euro implosion may have on the US economy. What BHO can do the remaining year is come out promoting programs that would continue to support and foster the continued downward trend in unemployment. I'm not happy with everything BHO has done the last 3 years but looking at what he's had to deal with in Congress (recalcitrant and intransigent GOP and the not so effective Dems) but I'm not delusional enough to think that a GOP president would improve the state of the union. In fact it would get worse than it is now.
- singlspeed
January 11, 2012 at 4:19pm
If those voters are typical of NH primary voters then Romney's name recognition must have counted for a lot. This small sample of voters is pretty ignorant about where the candidates stand and their records. Romney follows in the Republican tradition of losers who keep trying every election cycle. His 6 years of running has given him the most name recognition and his prior loss has "earned" him his turn for the nomination. Is there any reason to expect any different from SC or FL Republican voters. I can only hope all the Republicans damage themselves so badly in the primaries to make any of them un-electable in the general.
- srodar
January 11, 2012 at 7:01pm
#2. staunchly pro-choice, and votes for Santorum???? Truly means no one was paying attention until January 3 and that name recognition is all that matters, except for the Ron Paul devotees. Native Son Steven Colbert is going to win South Carolina. He is already polling ahead of Huntsman! I forget the exact number, but, over the past forty years, many states dropped 8th Grade CIVICS from their classrooms. High information voters are numbered in the tens of thousands out of the hundreds of millions. Read a comment thread elsewhere and someone always wants to know the details of the candidate's proposals but refuses to take the time to visit the campaign website to read for themselves. I have a new neighbor who believes it is because of the fluoride in the drinking water because of all the Prozac that gets flushed down the toilet. He was very articulate about that. Alec, the reason Huntsman is going to SC is because there is a tag team effort (not necessarily planned in a secret location) to take down Romney and Ron Paul in South Carolina. Plus, Huntsman automatically qualified for the next two debates because he placed 3rd.
- K2K
January 12, 2012 at 1:52am
singlespeed. Please upgrade your reading comprehension, if not reading speed. My thesis is not that BHO should control EU events-- but that EU events will negatively impact the US economy and BHO's election chances in November.. Which aren't great to begin with in January. And speaking of believing in fairies--I gather your belief is no matter what the US economy does next year, TinkerBell will always save BHO. Good luck with that. Google Hungary or Spain for what happens to reasonable political parties in bad economic times. Or read singlespeed, but with comprehension, about Germamy, Japan, Spain, Poland, etc, etc in the 1930's. As for Repubs and Keynesion stimuli, again read carefully. BHO will get nada, zero, zip, nothing. Repubs won't do great, but they will spend--especially on the military. And something beats nothing. Be prepared for new President Mittens-- no matter what current President Barry says. It's what Barry didn't do-- improve the economy in 4 years-- that will elect Mittens.
- drofnats1
January 12, 2012 at 7:05pm