US Letter: Clinton’s woes? It’s the candidate, stupid

Bernie Sanders’s drubbing of Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, the second heat of the US presidential race, cannot just be explained away as a home win for the Vermont senator or an independent senator winning the most independent state in the country.

One poor performance is a one-off, two is an emerging trend. Clinton’s tiny victory in Iowa and Sanders’s landslide in the New England state, the biggest in the modern era, has exposed underlying flaws in her candidacy that should unnerve the Democratic Party, which has cleared the field for her second presidential bid.

Team Clinton spun the New Hampshire loss as to be expected, claiming that Sanders would enjoy a 15-point advantage because he came from a neighbouring state. Forgotten was the fact this was the state that turned Bill Clinton into “the Comeback Kid”, hurtling him towards the White House in 1992, and that saved Hillary in 2008.

Much is made of Sanders 2016 not being Obama 2008 and that is correct – he doesn’t have the same support – but neither is the 2016 political climate like 2008, and the Democratic Party has changed too in those years, shifting left.

Take the blue-collar bellwether of Rochester in New Hampshire. It voted for Clinton over Obama 46 per cent to 36 per cent eight years ago and abandoned her on Tuesday, 38 per cent to 58 per cent for Sanders.

A 74-year-old democratic socialist senator has soared from obscurity to viability on a wave of a young and populist anti-establishment malaise, while Clinton, the continuity candidate, promises to build on Barack Obama’s achievements at a time when young liberals feel short-changed by him and dream revolutionary thoughts with Sanders.

Spend a weekend at Bernie’s and you will speak to many young voters at his rallies frustrated at the narrowing opportunities ahead. At Clinton’s events, they are older and more worldy-wise, talking up her experience and capacity to keep the White House blue in November.

At his rallies, Sanders brilliantly connects with his audience, asking people to shout out the college debt they owe and the high interest rates they pay on it. At hers, Clinton mistakes shouting for passion.

Sanders yells: "Sounds like you want to make a political revolution." Clinton's message: What do we want? Gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!" This Democratic primary battle comes down to heart versus head, revolution versus evolution. Sanders wants to change a "rigged" political system; Clinton, to his supporters, is the system.

In New Hampshire, Clinton tried to make young people see sense in her pragmatic ways and not to be taken in by her romantic socialist rival.

“I know that it’s maybe not the most appealing or charismatic message to say, ‘Hey, guys, be angry, and then let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work’,” she told students last Saturday. “Anger is a powerful emotion but it’s not a plan.”

Clinton’s point is moot when emotion is a key ingredient in this election, as Donald Trump has proven on the other side. Author Maya Angelou said: “People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

In a period of deep economic unease more and more people are willing to listen to the Sanders manifesto and are “feeling the Bern”.

Losing the youth vote so decisively in Iowa, Clinton adopted a new, patronising approach in New Hampshire that avoids self-examination: even if you don’t support me, I will still support you. Comedian Stephen Colbert described it as the “disappointed mom” strategy.

Older people, including moms, accounted for the only demographic group that Clinton won in New Hampshire. The state also confirmed the view in Iowa that Democrats don’t trust Clinton.

Even before all votes were counted in New Hampshire, the Clinton camp’s reaction to the impending loss was: look over there. Campaign manager Robby Mook emailed donors to reassure them that she would perform better in later states where the ethnic mix is more diverse.

This papers over cracks and ignores the question of what the deeper problem is here: it’s the candidate, stupid.

David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist in his 2008 campaign, tweeted this week that maybe Clinton should accept blame for her problems: "When the exact same problems crop up in separate campaigns, with different staff, at what point do the principals say, 'Hey, maybe it's us?'"

Clinton will likely win the Democratic nomination because Mook is right: her numbers will eventually stack up.

She will have a very strong chance in November too because of the chaos in the Republican race.

But the first results are hardly outliers. They point to her weakness as a candidate and, as she admitted on Tuesday, the work she still has to do.