It wasn't the tears wot won it

In a desperate search to explain why they got New Hampshire so wrong, the media appears to be latching on to the notion that Hillary Clinton's pre-election day tears provoked a wave of sympathy - especially among women - which carried her to victory last night.

Not so. As the excellent RealClearPolitics HorseRace blog outlines, the New York senator's win over Barack Obama has all the elements - a strong showing amongst self-identified Democrats, those without a college degree and on low incomes, Catholics, and older voters - which has ' delivered Democrats the nomination again and again'. By contrast, Senator Obama polled well among independents (who could vote in either the Democrat or Republican primaries), those with college degrees, and non-union households.

In short, Clinton employed the 'Mondale model' - after the former vice president who captured the Democrat nomination in 1984 after a fierce challenge from the prototype New Democrat, Senator Gary Hart. Obama, indeed, won the votes of the kind of people who backed Hart in his upset win in  the Granite State  24 years ago.

The 'Mondale model' could help Clinton in the state-by-state campaign she's promising to fight. But as HorseRaceBlog points out, what we don't know - thanks to the lily-white nature of New Hampshire and Iowa - is which way black voters - 'the most loyal and potent part of the traditional Democratic coalition' - are going to break. With Michigan and South Carolina next to vote, we'll get the first real indication.

Comments

[Neil Harding]

I don't think Michigan will tell us much, as Clinton is the only candidate. This is because the state was punished by the democrat party hierachy and has had its right to send delegates to the democratic convention removed for bringing its primary vote forward against the rules.