ProudProgressive

In the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Hillary Clinton did better in New Hampshire, which has a regular primary election, than in the Iowa caucuses. Granted, the sample size of two states is small, there are myriad possible reasons for the differences, and extrapolating from these results is probably not a good idea. Nonetheless, here’s my theory.

I believe that the caucus format itself serves to discourage votes for Hillary. The difference between a caucus and a primary is that in a primary every vote is private, whereas in a caucus votes are public and discussion and debate are encouraged. The problem with a public vote and discussion is that it discourages votes for more controversial and polarizing candidates. Hillary is both controversial and polarizing, and so suffers from this format. I imagine that it’s difficult to stand in front of a crowd and declare support for someone who inspires so much criticism from both the anti-war left and the right.

I also suspect that Hillary suffers in caucuses as a female candidate. Men may be less likely to declare their public affinity for Hillary, particularly in front of other men, than they would be in the privacy of a voting booth.

I believe that many people in this country like Hillary and support her candidacy – they’d just rather do so in private.

Although we can’t run a controlled study, it will be interesting to watch the results in the next few weeks. Barring a national shift in momentum strongly in favor of one of the candidates, my prediction is that Hillary will fare better in the states with primaries, such as South Carolina, Florida, and California, than in states with caucuses such as Nevada, Colorado, and Minnesota.

Tags: California, Caucus, Caucuses, Colorado, Election 2008, Florida, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Presidential Primaries, South Carolina