When Barack Obama fell short of defeating Hillary Clinton last week, what first came to mind was Bill Bradley: a reform-minded "agent of change" who fell four points short of Al Gore in New Hampshire, and whose campaign plummeted once he left the friendly confines of the Granite State.
What made the Granite State so friendly to Bradley was the presence of so many upscale, white-collar Democrats. As Ron Brownstein noted back then, these "Volvo Democrats" were naturally inclined toward an insurgent like Bradley who vowed to change "politics as usual." Once insurgent campaigns left New Hampshire, they often found themselves struggling in states where traditional blue-collar Democrats, more concerned about bread-and-butter economic issues, held the upper hand. That's exactly what happened to Bradley.
Brownstein's observation became the catalyst for my work on the demographics of New Hampshire Democratic presidential primaries. By isolating presidential candidates' vote support in (1) affluent communities and (2) working-class areas, one could see how well a particular candidates appealed to each of these important parts of the Democratic Party. (For a list of the areas I isolated in New Hampshire, see here.)
Further, one could measure a candidate's potential to build a coalition between upscale and working-class white Democrats by dividing the percentage of the candidate's vote in elite areas by the percentage of the candidate's vote in working-class areas:
elite score = candidate's percentage of vote in elite areas /
percentage in working-class areas
An elite score of 1.0 would be a perfect score, reflective of a candidate who could appeal equally well to both constituencies. The higher the score went above 1.0, the more elite the candidate's base of support. The lower the score went below 1.0, the more the candidate's support came from the working class.
Although Bill Bradley almost won the 2000 New Hampshire primary, he showed little ability to put together a coalition that spanned the class divide in the Democratic Party. In elite areas, he shined, winning by a margin of 52 percent to 43 percent. But in working-class areas, he slumped, losing to Gore 57 percent to 34 percent.
Bradley's elite score was in the nosebleed section: 1.56. In contrast, Al Gore's score was a more down-to-earth 0.76.
To put Bradley's score in context:
Paul Tsongas, another insurgent candidate whose campaign wilted after New Hampshire, had an elite score of 1.80 in 1992. Back in 1976, Mo Udall's elite score was a whopping 2.26; in other words, he did twice as well in elite areas than he did in working-class areas. George McGovern scored 1.57 back in 1972.
In contrast, Al Gore's elite score of 0.76 strongly resembled previous nominees' scores in New Hampshire. For instance:
Bill Clinton, 1992: 0.78
Michael Dukakis, 1988: 1.04
Walter Mondale, 1984: 0.69
Now let's take a look at last week's results, using the preliminary data provided by the New Hampshire Union Leader and the Secretary of State's office:
In elite areas, Obama won by a margin of 41.3 percent to Clinton's 36.3. John Edwards won 15.8 percent of the elite vote.
In working-class areas, Clinton defeated Obama, 44.7 percent to 31.2 percent. Edwards won 18.2 percent of the vote here.
And here is a first cut at the elite scores of the three main candidates:
Clinton: 0.81
Obama: 1.32
Edwards: 0.87
Clearly, Clinton's score puts her in very good standing for the nomination of her party. Her score is almost identical to Gore's score in 2000 and her husband's score back in 1992.
Obama's score clearly tilts elite, but his support is not nearly as lopsided as that of Bradley and Tsongas. Rather, his score more closely resembles the one insurgent who came closest to winning the nomination after New Hampshire in the last quarter-century: Gary Hart, who had an elite score of 1.20 in the 1984 New Hampshire primary. Hart's battle with Mondale raged until the very last primaries before the convention.
An additional factor, of course, is that Obama may be the first insurgent candidate since Jesse Jackson (New Hampshire elite score, 1988: 1.50) who can draw significant support from African-Americans.
And as Brownstein himself noted today, upscale Democrats are playing an increased role in this cycle's primaries. (See here and here.)
So when all is said and done, what does New Hampshire tell us? That Barack Obama has the best chance in a quarter-century to upset the establishment frontrunner.
