[A-List] WSWS analysis of New Hampshire primary

["Charles Brown" <charlesb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The outcome of the Democratic primary suggests that Clinton benefited 
from a growing concern among working class voters over the state of the 
US economy. Clinton was the only candidate to raise the growing danger 
of recession in Saturdayâs televised debate, and exit polls showed that 
the economy was the number one issue of those who turned out to vote, 
whether they cast a Democratic or a Republican ballot. A staggering 98 
percent of those who voted in the Democratic primary said they were 
âveryâ or âsomewhatâ worried about the economy.

Clinton ran ahead of Obama in the working class industrial city of 
Manchester, New Hampshireâs largest, and there were significant class 
and economic distinctions between their voters. Clinton led Obama by 
sizeable margins among those with family incomes less than $100,000 a 
year, among union members, among those without college degrees, among 
those who felt that the state of the US economy is poor, and among those 
with children in the home. Her largest margin was among single working 
women.

Perhaps the most striking distinction between Clinton and Obama voters 
concerned feelings about their familyâs economic futures. Those who said 
their families were âgetting aheadâ backed Obama by 48 to 31 percent. 
Those who said their families were âfalling behindââa much larger 
groupâvoted for Clinton by 43 to 33 percent.

There was a significant age difference in the nearly evenly divided 
vote. Clintonâs entire margin of victory came among voters aged 65 or 
over. Among those aged 18 to 64, the two candidates were virtually tied. 
There were fewer younger voters as a proportion of those votingâ18 
percent were under 30, compared to 22 percent in Iowa. But the 
proportion of the elderly was down even more: they comprised 13 percent 
of the Democratic voters, compared to 22 percent in Iowa. This in part 
reflects the difference between a primary, where working-age voters can 
more easily get to the polls, and a caucus, which involves a greater 
commitment of time.

The exit polls suggested that voters did not make much of a distinction 
among the principal Democratic candidates on the issue of the war in 
Iraq. Despite Obamaâs frequent claims of early opposition to the war, 
voters who favored the quickest possible withdrawal of US forces in Iraq 
backed Clinton by 41 to 34 percent.

In her victory speech, Clinton reiterated the economic appeal adopted by 
her campaign in the last several days. She referred to meeting âpeople 
whoâve lost their homes to foreclosures, people who work but canât pay 
their bills, young people who canât afford to go to college.â

Embracing a populist appeal she had avoided in Iowa, Clinton went on to 
declare, âThe oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance 
companies, the predatory student loan companies have had for seven years 
a president who stands up for them. Itâs time you had a president who 
stands up for you.â

In demagogic fashion, she pledged, âThere will be no more invisible 
Americans,â adding that she advocated, âGovernment of the people, for 
the people, by the people, not just for the privileged few.â

The effectiveness of such appeals as an electoral tactic does not 
obviate the fact that this kind of rhetoric is completely bogus and 
cynical. Clinton, like all of her fellow Democratic and Republican 
candidates, is a representative of the class of millionaires and 
multi-millionaires who dominate US political and social life.


full: http://wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/newh-j09.shtml