January 10, 2008--Cheers for Tears

The polls in New Hampshire had it right—18 hours before voting began Barack Obama had a sizable lead. But then something happened to dramatically reverse things: Hillary “teared-up,” as the media described it.

But they did much more than relentlessly show her show of emotion—they analyzed it to death. Was it sincere or just another Clinton ploy to reveal her human, vulnerable side? If it was in fact genuine, why then did she, without stopping to dry her eyes or catch her breath, move on to attack Obama?

OK, others said, it was a genuine emotional moment. But after all these years of demonstrating that she has cajones as big as any previous Commander in Chief, didn’t her breaking down when in a (personal/political) crisis suggest she wasn’t “man” enough to run the military in this violent and dangerous world? And so on. Never forgetting to run and rerun the videotape. Gotcha!

Allow me to diverge for a moment.

If you rummage around in Barack Obama’s website you will find some interesting, even new things. For example, some of his stuff about the economy. Much of it is based on the latest hip economic theory—Behavioral Economics. Its proponents contend and provide evidence that unlike mainstream economic theory where the struggle is to quantify and thereby explicate and explain macro- as well as micro-economic behavior (all of this assuming that humans and markets act rationally in pursuit of their own best and long term interests), behavioral theory sees individuals and the larger economy frequently emotion driven.

Among their favorite examples are how people make decisions to buy houses—most individual’s largest purchase and ultimately major asset. Since it is thus such a significant decision, we would expect that rational homebuyers would do their due diligence—that they would check “comparables” (how much equivalent houses in the neighborhood have sold for), evaluate the quality of local public schools, have an engineer do a survey to see if the house is sound.

But it has been discovered that an astonishing number act no differently when buying a house than when making an impulse purchase. Real estate agents report that most of their sales are made to people who moments after stepping through the front door “fall in love” and make an offer without doing much analytical reflection.

Back to Tuesday in New Hampshire. There is evidence that perhaps a quarter of the voters made up their minds about who to vote for within just hours of going to the polls and that many of these, disproportionately middle-aged and older women, decided to vote for Hillary Clinton for at least, they say, two reasons—

First, her emotional display made her a more, not less, attractive candidate. Perhaps it rounded out her persona—she could be tough when necessary but now these voters knew she was also a “real person.”

Second, there was a more overtly gendered reaction: why, some asked, did the media not make an equivalent big deal when Mitt Romney teared-up on Meet the Press recently when he recalled crying after hearing in 1978 that his church, the Mormons, changed its policy to exclude blacks from membership? Was there, is there a double standard? You bet.

And further, did the late-deciding Hillary voters catch a whiff of that media aphrodisiac schadenfreudee that they didn't want to yuk along with? The Boston Herald’s headline on Monday, riding the Obama youth-change wave, accompanied by an image of a 78-rpm record and a tired-looking picture of Hillary was one word—“Yesterday.” Imagine how that made post 60-year-old women feel.

Then there were the thinly-veiled snickering by hosts and “experts” on all three cable news channels that the torch, thank God, was about to be passed to a new generation that at long last didn't include the Clintons. (Notice, incidentally how often we hear the plural rather than the singular Clinton.)

Perhaps what happened overnight that was not picked up by the polls might be thought of as a form of Behavioral Voting. Which is not to say that a vote for Senator Clinton (or Obama) is necessarily an impulse vote. But it sure seems that a lot of emotion was flowing that may better explain why there was such a huge swing in voter preferences.

Thus, moved and appropriately pissed off, several thousand who might have voted differently, cast their lot in solidarity with Hillary, and I suspect they feel very good about what they wrought. It wasn’t just the result of a lot of folks staying up all night studying her heath care plan.

If you’ve been following me the past few months, you’ve probably picked up some of my own snickering and considerable Obama infatuation. Guilty on both counts. I’ll try to reign in the snickering, but I’m not ready yet to let go of the infatuation.