By Brigitte L. Nacos
According to Hans
Nichols of Bloomberg, “Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Hillary Clinton
are each counting on capturing a plurality of their party's vote in tomorrow's New Hampshire primary
election. That may not be enough for either to win. Their fate may instead be
in the hands of people such as Barbara Pressly, a retired Nashua alderman, Stacy Pollard, a Merrimack hairdresser, and Jim Taylor, a Londonderry builder. The three are registered as independents, like some 40 percent of the
state's voters, and can participate in either primary.” In other words, 2 of 5 registered voters in New Hampshire are
Independents and entitled to cast their vote in either the Democratic or
Republican primary.
Thus, not those New Hampshire voters who
are registered Democrats or Republicans but rather registered Independents may
ultimately decide who wins and loses in this state and, given the irrational
media hype surrounding the first caucuses in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire, perhaps the contest for the two major
parties’ nomination. The fact that Independents can influence and even
determine the outcome of caucuses and primaries by choosing to participate in
either the Democratic or Republican primary is another strange feature of the
presidential selection process as is some states’ habit to allow Democrats and
Republicans to cross party lines in primary elections. (I
wrote earlier about the absurdity of mass-mediated presidential campaigns
that allow Iowa with less than 1% and New Hampshire with less than ½ of the total U. S. population the role of making and breaking presidential contenders).
The role of Independents in the selection of presidential candidates of
parties they do not identify with affects the contests of the major parties
differently. According to a recent WMUR/CNN poll, 56 percent of Independents
planned to participate in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire tomorrow, 44 percent in the
Republican race. If reporter Nichols is right, many of these Independents “may
choose to back Senators Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, or John
McCain, an Arizona Republican.“ Since significantly more Independents
plan to cast their vote in the Democratic contest, Barack Obama stands to
benefit even more than John McCain while Hillary Clinton stands to be
disadvantaged even more than Mitt Romney.
Independents tend to prefer mavericks who claim not to be in lockstep with their fellow-partisans.
One wonders if these voters ask themselves whether a
maverick in the White House could be effective in the constitutionally required
power sharing arrangement with the Congress and its Democratic and Republican
members? John McCain has cultivated and exploited the maverick label for a long
time, and Barack Obama, too, runs now as a maverick and populist. Reporting on
hairdresser Stacy Pollard, an Independent in New Hampshire, Bloomberg’s Fisher writes,
“She likes what she hears from McCain on cutting wasteful spending, as well as
Obama's health- care proposal.” Given the drastically different ages, careers,
and—most importantly--agendas of these two candidates—not only with respect to
the Iraq war and the so-called war, how could anyone ponder a choice between McCain
and Obama at a time when “change” has become the most attractive campaign
promise?
It seems that so far in this primary season the populist rhetoric trumps the
political reality.
Comments