New Hampshire: Who Knows?

Now there is a mystery: why did Senator Obama lose the primary when all polls showed him with a sizable lead? Adding to the mystery are they myriad of theories thrown at the wall. Did women suddenly empathize with Senator Clinton's desperate appeal of Monday, or did they remember the feminist priorities that the women of Iowa forgot? Did the young people fail to show up in the expected numbers, and did the old rally to "experience" to spite "hope"? Is it true that the stats show that the less wealthy and less educated you were, the more likely you were to vote for Clinton? Did Mr. Clinton, who would have beaten his wife (pun intended? you tell me) in a theoretical election, carry the day with his peculiar glamour? Or was the so-called "Bradley Effect" a reality -- did people lie to pollsters about supporting the black candidate out of fear of being called racists, only to vote against him yesterday? Did Obama actually lose because New Hampshire had a secret ballot, while in Iowa the people caucused in the open and might shame one another for abandoning the Illinois senator?

The biggest mystery of all is more than fifty years old, and that's why this little state should matter so much. At least in the past the Granite State could claim a kingmaking role because no one had lost the primary and gone on to win the White House, but Bill Clinton and George W. Bush rendered that fact a myth. They still pretend that New Hampshire gives a candidate decisive momentum, but they make the same claim for Iowa, and Obama and Huckabee will tell you what good Iowa did them yesterday.

The primary and caucus schedule as it exists reminds me of the traditional bowl games that end the college football season. There's a certain romance and tradition to them, but they're no rational way to choose a champion or a party nominee. There's no good reason why there shouldn't be a national primary. Some say that would favor the more moneyed candidates, but money hasn't really flourished this year, particularly on the Republican side. The long haul of debates has done much to counteract money's influence, because, for all their faults, they present the candidates' views more objectively, and sometimes more objectionably, than commercials do. They've succeeded in allowing at least one insurgent candidate, Huckabee, to emerge from the pack, while until recently they've also been scrupulous in allowing less popular candidates to participate and giving them the chance to catch fire. A similar sequence of debates culminating in a national primary, or indeed a general multi-candidate election, might actually become a system that works. But what works will always depend, in the eye of the beholder, on the results you desire. Some people will want to keep tinkering with the system until Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul can win, but no one is hiding them from the public, at least until very recently, so for those disappointed factions, the American people, not the system, is probably to blame.