January 8th it is!

So we again preserve the first-in-the-nation-primary status of the New Hampshire primaries. This drama has been going on for two years now. The Democratic party at the national level has been trying to have a more "balanced" early primary season, which more accurately reflects the demographics of the US. The logical part of me of course agrees with that. But the New Hampshire resident part of me does not - it is way too much to live in a state with the first-in-the-nation-primary! No way we are giving that up :) The local newspapers have closely followed the attempt to reduce the importance of New Hampshire, with many editorials devoted to how the New Hampshire's town hall style campaigning is critical to the political process, and how New Hampshire voters are so well-informed. All true, I think :)

The process of setting the date rests in the hands of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, Bill Gardner. New Hampshire has a law that states that we have to go before everyone else - interesting law, because it can get difficult to implement it by ourselves :) A few months ago, everyone started leap-frogging, much to our alarm. The Democratic party chose to have the Nevada caucuses on January 19th (the then tentative New Hampshire primary date was January 22nd or so), though after some thought that seemed OK. It was just a caucus after all. But then Florida moved ahead, Michigan declared a move to January 15th, and all major states (California, New York, etc.) moved their primary to February 5, after which the primaries would virtually be over. If we were too close to the day when practically every other state voted, we would lose our influence. But where could we move to? Every Tuesday seemed to be taken up. There was talking of holding the New Hampshire primary in December, and national newspapers lamented that voters might be going to the polls along with Christmas carolers. As a local newspaper cartoon put it beautifully - in a picture of leap-frogging frogs, the Iowa frog tells the New Hampshire frog - "I don't know about you, but we are holding our elections today!".

Iowa finally set its caucuses to be on January 3rd, and New Hampshire chose January 8th. It is a bit too close to Iowa's caucuses - a full week would be nice - but at least we are preserving the order which New Hampshire residents think is their birthright :) Iowa holds caucuses, while New Hampshire holds a primary, which more accurately reflects the general election. Also in New Hampshire voters registered as independents can vote in the primary, so a result in New Hampshire can reflect the mood of voters who are independents. Iowa's caucuses are always held first, followed by the first-in-the-nation-primary in New Hampshire.

The elections are beginning too close to the holidays, and are way too compressed. But as a New York Times columnist put it, yet again we have managed to keep the critical phase of electing a new president in the preserve of some very, very special people who live in very, very special places :)

Calling

Calling voters to campaign for Edwards was simpler than I expected. I had to tell people that Edwards was going in town the following week, give them the time and location, and ask them whether they had decided on a candidate. Having a specific message like that was better than just campaigning on the phone.

I rapidly realized that people really are making up their own mind. There really is nothing much one can say to convince them - they decide based on their interests and their observations, and primary voters are generally well-informed. For example, Edwards wants to raise the minimum wage. If a voter does not agree with that, there is nothing much you can do while campaigning. All you can do is explain Edwards' position, but not change their opinion on what they feel about minimum wage. Change in thought has to come at a more fundamental level - through discussions, reading articles and books, and very importantly through thoughts of family and friends around one. So a campaign essentially becomes an operation that is trying to figure out what people want and planning one's positions accordingly, instead deciding on a position and convincing people that that is the right position (for example, that the minimum wage has to be increased, or that America's foreign policy has to be changed). So campaigns "pander" to the voters.

Hmmm. I guess that is what democracy is supposed to be - leaders' positions reflect what people want. However leaders try to influence the voters in other ways ..... like managing to get people to think that the war against Iraq was necessary, all through subtly influencing people's thoughts, playing on their insecurities, presenting dreams as possibilities.

Anyway, coming back to Edwards. One gentleman felt he was liberal, and wanted his positions in writing before he made up his mind. We gladly sent him a policy booklet (a thick booklet which contains his detailed positions in writing - another reason I like Edwards). Next to me at the phones a campaign staff member was having a funny conversation with a voter over the phone. The voter said he did not like Edwards because he was a millionaire. "But so is Hillary" said the campaign staff member. And then went on to add that Edwards is working against the interests of powerful millionaires, unlike other millionaires who are working in cahoots with powerful millionaires. I don't think the voter changed his mind :)

Door-to-Door

I finally gave in and agreed to do some door-to-door campaigning for the Edwards campaign. Volunteers do this in pairs, and since I was new a staff member was going to do it with me. I met up with Paul at the campaign office on a Saturday afternoon and we got started in Ward 1, the ward where I live.

The first few houses were all leaning towards Edwards, which was very encouraging. It was raining the whole day and I think we made a good impression on some people, that we were out campaigning for Edwards even on a cold, rainy day. People were mostly friendly, and I soon figured out the simple tricks of how many times one should knock, figuring out whether one should be knocking on the side door instead of the front door, and so on, essentially tricks to ensure that I would not annoy the person whose door I was knocking on. These were all democrats, and independents who had voted in 2004 (which meant they were probably democratic leaning independents), and this meant that they received Edwards campaign folks in a friendly manner. Paul was good company, and the task was not as bad as I had thought it would be at all.

50-60% were either not at home or did not answer the door (we left literature for them). In the remaining 40-50% three quarters of them had not decided. In the remaining small number of people, a good number had decided on Edwards or were leaning towards him. One said she had decided on Hillary, and one said she did not like Edwards, and that was it. Everyone was either undecided or liked Edwards so far. I decided I was not going to listen to a single poll from now on! Poll results did not seem to reflect what I observed at all (granted this was only in one ward).

Towards the end of the afternoon we decided to go to Alicia Lane, as I had a friend on that street, someone who had been very active in the Dean campaign in 2004. I told Paul we should stop there. That whole street ended up being very good. In the first house on that street the husband said he was undecided but his wife was leaning towards Edwards; to him electability was the most critical thing. Paul was ready with various polls showing Edwards doing well against most Republican front runners. At my friend’s house we went in. Fanny had been very interested in Obama, but lately had said he did not fire her up as Edwards did. We sat down in their living room and I explained why I supported Edwards, and she slowly got convinced – she said, “I really have to get over my infatuation with Obama”, and went on to add that, “I cannot believe that I am not going to vote for a black candidate”. After we left Paul said, “I feel exactly the same way. I want to show that we can elect a black president”. Then he looked at me and said, “I don’t suppose you understand that”, and I said, “no, I don’t”. Fanny and Paul, being progressive whites, felt strongly that they should support a viable black candidate. That was a surprise to me. Having been part of a “minority” pretty much all my life, as Paul said I did not understand (or rather had not thought of that) the desire by the “majority” who are progressive to vote for a “minority” candidate. Interesting.