The big story going into the New Hampshire primary—the first in the nation—is the shifting dynamics of one of the strangest presidential campaigns in American history.
Iowa’s caucus results are often not predictive of the final outcome—certainly on the GOP side where neither of the previous winners—Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum—received their party’s nomination.
But they do suggest that the simmering discontent in the general populace which candidates in both parties have been tapping into since the campaigning began is boiling up to the surface and the remaining contenders may ignore it at their peril.
New Hampshire—with its much different demographic makeup than Iowa—will further determine whether the nation is on course to make a radical shift in what the voters want in their leaders or will settle for much of the same.
If we are only seeing a temporary correction which after all the delegates have been counted will see a match-up between two nominees closest to the ideological centers, the next president whomever that be is not likely to get a mandate for sweeping change.
If, however, the ascendancy of candidates on both the extreme Right and Left results in the election of a leader that can actually deliver on the promises being made, it could signal a fundamental alteration in our political trajectory.
Bernie Sanders, the fire-breathing Vermont Socialist whose Iowa vote percentage basically matched that of his only remaining competitor, Hillary Clinton, seems primed to score an outright win in the Granite State unless the former Secretary of State can arouse the same enthusiasm she generated in her come-from-behind victory over President Obama in 2008.
The passion scale keeps tipping toward Sanders who, at 74 years of age, looks ready to go the whole fifteen rounds, and has been drawing huge crowds—many of them in their twenties and thirties—who have rallied to his calls for a “political revolution.”
However skeptics are very doubtful that Sander’s calls for Medicare for all, busting up the banks, getting big money totally out of politics, making all colleges tuition-free, radically altering the tax system, and pursuing a more isolationist foreign policy—to name just a few—are deliverable promises.
Clinton, on the other hand, who has one of the best resumes of anyone ever to seek the presidency, seems stuck in neutral and trying to find her rhythm after a head start where she was miles ahead of the hard-charging New Englander. Sanders in the latest polls leads in New Hampshire by 20 points, but that could change fast.
Both are familiar faces to the Capitol insiders but that may be more Clinton’s problem as a new generation of voters along withmiddle income workers who feel pushed aside may want fresh approaches more than glittering credentials.
New Hampshire, whose reputation as a state that prides itself in its fierce independent streak, has repeatedly foiled the pollsters. With the crowded GOP field producing more volatility than in any recent elections, and more voters still in the “undecided” columns, there is no certain Republican winner.
With Donald Trump’s look of invincibility seriously damaged in Iowa, Sen. Marco Rubio who trails him by only five percentage points, and closing fast, becomes the man to beat.
However if the voter unhappiness demonstrated in Iowa carries over and Trump can somehow regain his footing, this will further vindicate campaign tactics that defy all the rules.
Meanwhile Rubio’s sudden surge could once again throw everything out of whack and creates a potential void that could embolden the surviving moderates.
Those include former Ohio governor, John Kasich, who has so far made little impression on the voters, but could beat the odds, with former Florida governor, Jeb Bush, and New Jersey governor, Chris Christie nipping at his heels. Anything less than a third place finish here probably has both heading for the exit doors.
Ted Cruz, the surprise winner in Iowa, has lowered his expectations in New Hampshire where Christian Evangelists do not dominate but could remain a force in the slew of southern primaries to follow beginning with South Carolina in 3 weeks.
New Hampshire and Iowa only count for a total of 10 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. But they hold great weight symbolically.
In the last 40 years, just one candidate has gone on to win the presidency after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. That was Bill Clinton.
Even so, in the 1992 primary he was coined the “Comeback Kid’ after coming in second. This Clinton would be happy to reclaim that title after her narrow escape in Iowa. But to do so she will need to come in first or face a longer, more arduous road ahead.
The big question is whether the candidates on the fringes will continue to prevail?
Sanders is doing on the far Left what Cruz and Trump are achieving on the far Right—namely snubbing their noses at political orthodoxy and challenging voters to trust them even if they are offering up promises impossible to keep.
While Cruz and Trump are depending on blustery and often empty rhetoric in place of facts, Sander’s heavily dogmatic assertions, though more orderly and scholarly, are equally emotional. Each is resonating with groups who are angry, alienated, feeling left out, and determined that the ruling classes wherever they are operating be shorn of their power.
Whether these constituencies compose a sufficient portion of the electorate to change the outcome and will show up in the requisite numbers in November is unknowable.
Democrats would like nothing better than to see Trump (or Cruz) the winner in New Hampshire since they are considered the most vulnerable in a general election.
Similarly, Republicans would savor a victory for Sanders who a recent Gallup Poll showed as being unfavorable to 50% of Americans.
New Hampshire’s symbolic value far exceeds its electoral weight, meaning the entire nation will be paying attention as always. On with the vote!