New Hampshire Primary

A bit late on this but here's what I've got.  First, big money isn't what it used to be.  Here are a few charts that shows how much the candidates spent and how that broke down per vote.  In theory, if money is what makes you win, the dollars per voter figure should be roughly equivalent.  Therefore, if Candidate A spends $10,000 and Candidate B spends $20,000, Candidate B should get twice as many votes.  At least, that is what the 'money in politics' people will tell you.  But this didn't work out in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nearly $100 million was spent on Jeb's campaign, dwarfing his nearest competitor by a factor of 2.  And yet, in Iowa he came in 6th with less than 3% of the vote.  He did better in New Hampshire, achieving 4th place with 11% of the vote.  Again, according the money in politics people, Jeb should have won but he is barely registering.  He spent $2600 per vote.

By contrast, Ted Cruz won Iowa with 27.6% of the vote and, despite spending less than half a million dollars in New Hampshire, achieved 3rd place with 11.7% of the vote.  He has spent $472 per vote.

But here is the big one.  Trump, who is almost exclusively self-financed, was 2nd in Iowa and 1st in New Hampshire for a mere $87 a vote.

If big money was the secret to winning the nomination, the top three Republicans should have been Jeb, Carson, and Rubio.  That is not to say that money has no role, it clearly does.  However, lots of money behind no message vs. little money behind a popular message, the message is winning rather than the money.  At least, that is how it works on the Republican side.

Among the Democrats, we have something that looks undemocratic.  Iowa was a virtual tie, with Hillary getting 0.2% more votes than Bernie.  In New Hampshire, it was a rout.  Bernie got a shade over 60% of the vote to Hillary's 38%.  Between the tie and the slaughter, Hillary has a commanding lead in delegates, 394 to Bernie's 44.  How can that be?  The Democrats have super delegates, party members who can pledge for whichever candidate they like, regardless of voting.  As it happens, though the voting delegates of New Hampshire (24) were split between Bernie (15) and Hillary (9) based on the vote totals, the 8 super delegates were spit among Hillary (6) and Unpledged (2).  That means the 22 point landslide in Bernie's favor found him getting 15 delegates to Hillary's 15.  Sure does look like the party bosses have decided on the nominee before the rank and file voters even have a say.  That's why it's call the Democratic Party.

 

Historically, this should be a Republican year to win.  In the last 60 years, only once has the party not changed after two terms: George Bush in 1988.  Reagan was sufficiently popular even after 8 years of ups and downs to convince the voters not to switch parties.  I don't think Obama will have that same effect.