Politics & Policy

New Hampshire’s Rebuke

Sanders campaign signs in Manchester, February 5, 2016. (Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty)

New Hampshire voters issued a rebuke to conventional party leaders when they voted by large margins for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in Tuesday’s primaries. But Sanders is not going to win the Democratic nomination, and it’s by no means certain that Trump will be the Republican nominee.

The results show that Hillary Clinton has a clear but clunky path to the nomination but is a problematic general-election candidate. They show that the Republicans have a potential advantage in November but first must get through a problematic nomination process.

Consider turnout, which is the one thing pollsters have trouble forecasting. As in Iowa, more people in New Hampshire voted in the Republican contest than the Democratic. That’s the opposite of 2008, the last time both parties had contests. Both these target states seem to tilt Republican this time.

As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton got fewer votes and a lower percentage than when she won New Hampshire in 2008. Then she won “beer Democrats” but lost “wine Democrats” to Barack Obama. This time, not so much. In Manchester, the state’s largest city, she got 41 percent, compared with 45 percent in 2008.

The exit poll suggests that she did worse with women. Millennial women voted about 80 percent for Sanders. Clinton is banking on near-unanimous black support in southern and industrial-state primaries, but she probably won’t match her 2008 showings among beer Democrats and may falter with Hispanics, who enabled her to carry Texas and California. It seems certain she won’t match Obama’s 2008 turnout or percentages from millennials.

Donald Trump has established that he has a high floor among primary voters — but also perhaps a low ceiling: Forty-seven percent of Republicans said they’d be dissatisfied if he were nominated.

One-third of New Hampshire Democrats based their vote on honesty and trustworthiness, and 93 percent voted for Sanders. Yes, those “damn e-mails” hurt.

As for the Republicans, they face a problematic primary season. Donald Trump has established that he has a high floor among primary voters — but also perhaps a low ceiling: Forty-seven percent of Republicans said they’d be dissatisfied if he were nominated. He could easily lose one-on-one primaries.

But he’s not going to face one any time soon. Each potential challenger faces serious obstacles but has a rationale to keep on fighting.

John Kasich got one point less than Jon Huntsman’s 17 percent in 2012, but that was a poor third in a smaller, weaker field. Kasich’s 16 percent made him No. 2, though far behind the winner. His problem is that his shtick is poorly adapted to the electorates in South Carolina and other southern states voting next. An endorsement by the New York Times is no help there.

Then there are the three candidates who essentially tied for third, with between 10.5 and 12 percent of the vote.

Ted Cruz exceeded expectations, and he proceeds now to favorable southern turf. But he’s the likely target of other candidates, as Marco Rubio was in New Hampshire, and certainly of the media. Cruz’s argument that he can turn out additional conservatives in November has some basis. But he’s not a clear general-election winner.

Jeb Bush, for whom millions were spent in New Hampshire, gets to fight in South Carolina after finishing just ahead of Rubio. His father and brother won big victories in South Carolina, the latter after losing by 19 points in New Hampshire. But the more serious Jeb’s chances, the more he has to battle the polling evidence suggesting he’s a sure loser in November.

Marco Rubio admitted that he messed up in the January 30 debate and promised not to do so again. He will have his chance in the Greenville debate February 13, when his nemesis, Chris Christie, will be missing, and he’s done well in debates before. He needs to argue, as George W. Bush did in 2000, that he’s a reformer with results and a November winner.

All three of the tied-for-third Republicans face the classic problem of candidates in multi-candidate races. If Candidate A attacks Candidate B, he can hurt B but he also can hurt himself and help Candidates C, D, or E. That’s what Chris Christie did in New Hampshire, with no benefit to himself.

Bush has already attacked Trump, antagonizing some of his voters, and Cruz and Rubio have tussled over immigration in a way that seemed to hurt both. Kasich has an itch to attack Republican conservatives generally.

The Republicans have good prospects in November. But the results in New Hampshire’s Mardi Gras primary show they have a rough ride in the weeks and months ahead.

— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. © 2016 The Washington Examiner. Distributed by Creators.com.

Michael Barone — Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. © 2018 Creators.com

Most Popular


Two Minnesota Republican Candidates Assaulted

Two Republican candidates for state office in Minnesota have been physically assaulted in recent days, leading prominent Republican lawmakers to caution their Democratic colleagues against employing inflammatory rhetoric. Republican state representative Sarah Anderson was punched in the arm last week after ... Read More
PC Culture

Warren Is a Fraud

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has been telling a story for years. It’s a deeply romantic story about her parents and their young love, fraught with the familial bigotry of an earlier time. Here’s how she told it this week in a video she released in preparation for her 2020 run: My daddy always said he ... Read More

The State of the Race for the House

Way back in January, I went through the then-34 seats where a Republican incumbent was retiring and concluded that most were in deeply red districts and not likely to flip to Democrats. Pollsters and media organizations are less inclined to conduct surveys of House races, both because there’s less public ... Read More