January 9, 2008 4:00 AM PST

Handshakes, not the Internet, win N.H. for Clinton and McCain

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, with his wife Cindy, thanks supporters in a victory speech Tuesday evening.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/News.com )

NASHUA, N.H.--Hillary Clinton and John McCain won Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries the old-fashioned way: trekking to scores of coffee houses, diners, and high school gymnasiums. They shook hands, answered questions, and eventually convinced a plurality of voters.

This was politicking at its most traditional, employing venerable tactics like McCain's Straight Talk Express bus tour and Clinton's "Time to Pick a President" meetings with voters. By the time the polls closed, it was a rare Granite State resident who managed to avoid in-person contact with a would-be president or a pushy surrogate.

In other words, it was anything but high-tech. Sure, there were robo-calls and e-mail alerts, but, for the most part, the local events that convinced voters to pick Clinton and McCain could have been convened at any point in the last century.

One example: the day after losing in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton asked supporters to meet her at a hangar at the airport here in the frosty pre-dawn gloom. It was a miserable day not only for campaign aides but also for locals, with temperatures at the event hovering around minus 6 degrees Fahrenheit. The Democratic senator showed up, responded to questions, and departed in a coach emblazoned with "BIG CHALLENGES, REAL SOLUTIONS, TIME TO PICK A PRESIDENT" in bold letters.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton prepare for her victory speech that took place later this evening in a gymnasium in Manchester, N.H.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/News.com)

Another example: employees of defense contractor BAE Systems crowded into a small auditorium to hear McCain speak, and, when that filled up, crowded into the main lobby to watch his remarks on a screen. The Republican senator spoke for half an hour, and, when the event was over, the workers waited patiently for the chance to shake McCain's hand or glimpse his campaign bus on the way out.

New Hampshire residents love it. More precisely, they claim to be annoyed by candidates and journalists interrupting their meals at diners and parking on their lawns when nearby events fill up, but they savor their chance to influence a presidential election and they take this role seriously.

Not only did Clinton's and McCain's tiresome, repetitive, voice-hoarsening efforts work, they nicely put into perspective the clamor that has arisen over social networks and other Internet popularity contests.

Neither of those candidates was a favorite online. Barack Obama, who came in second in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, has 219,707 MySpace "friends" to Clinton's 160,414. Obama and John Edwards each had more viewers on YouTube than Clinton did. Obama had around four times the number of "Eventful" demands for a visit than Clinton did and more than three times the Facebook friends.

And by any Internet metric, Texas Rep. Ron Paul should have captured the lion's share of the GOP vote in New Hampshire. He's arguably the Internet's favorite candidate, with Google engineers campaigning for him here, a remarkable lead on Eventful and Facebook, and 111,757 MySpace "friends" to McCain's mere 40,770.

Instead, Paul received just 8 percent of the vote (which is somewhat surprising after a weekend poll put him at 14 percent).

The reason for this, of course, is that Paul and Obama supporters tend to be young and tech savvy, which gives them disproportionate representation online. They flood online polls. They feverishly add their preferred candidate to their social networks. They organize, and raise funds, incredibly well.

John Edwards may not be the Internet's favorite candidate, but a campaign event in Portsmouth, N.H. proves he's adept at kissing babies.

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/News.com )

There's nothing wrong with that. But in presidential elections, votes matter, and those in Iowa and New Hampshire matter the most. Exercises in online nose-counting like press releases heralding the so-called "MySpace primary" don't.

To be sure, online politicking has been part of the 2008 election. The YouTube debates proved to be a provocative exercise in user-generated content, Meetup and MoveOn changed the way activism works, and e-mail lets campaigns stay in touch with voters and volunteers. As Paul devotees know, online fundraising is a powerful tool.

Journalists love these metrics (see above for the obligatory MySpace statistics) because they're easy to measure and report. But Tuesday's results should be a cautionary tale: votes matter. In-person meetings matter. Handshakes matter. MySpace friends don't.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.

Recent posts from News Blog
YouTube ads for viral videos: 'buzz targeting'
EA tops expectations, looks ahead
Hackers going after restaurants, supermarkets
GIS exec works to unlock hidden geo data
New Office 2007 add-on makes commands easier to find
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 28 comments (Page 1 of 2)
Well that makes sense
by Lee in San Diego January 9, 2008 5:25 AM PST
How big is New Hampshire, how many people. Handshaking most of the voters will not be so easy in the larger States.
Reply to this comment View reply
Umm what's the broadband pentration in N.H.
by chaser7016 January 9, 2008 5:46 AM PST
There are a ton of rural towns in NH that lack broadband. So....
Reply to this comment
Television, Newspapers
by randombits January 9, 2008 6:00 AM PST
The article left out the influence of television and newspapers who often push for their favorite candidates with extreme bias.
Reply to this comment View reply
$200 A Vote Doesn't Hurt Either
by Stating January 9, 2008 9:26 AM PST
Candidates spent $200 per vote in Iowa. I'll bet a certain Demo candidate spent $300 in New Hampshire.
Reply to this comment
myspace
by theeighteenthofjanuary January 9, 2008 10:24 AM PST
I am a regular user of myspace. I tried several times the day of the "myspace primary" to vote, but each time i did- nothing happened. my vote would never go through. was it because of my choice of candidate? who knows? my choice was hillary clinton. i will also note that although barack obama is counted among my myspace friends, he is not my choice for the primary. if i am any example, these internet gauges might not be an accurate way of predicting who people will vote for in the primary.
Reply to this comment
Elections rigged
by chash360 January 9, 2008 11:02 AM PST
How can one state's primaries deviate from a nation wide 'poll' of citizens that choose so differently? There is not even a statistical relationship between the NH results and the political communities online. How many people live in NH, verses how many have expressed their views online. Being online or not should not really be a deciding factor in political canidates, there are so many more non-net related issues. Answer: its rigged, they will tell you who won, and how will you know any different? Did you count the votes? We are no longer in control of our gov, not sure that we ever were. We need to update our voting system for the new century. The only reason we have the electoral college system was the logistical difficulties in massive nation wide voting of the past. With a proper secured electronic voting system, where you store your vote uniquely and anonomously on local storage (a voter memory card, etc) as well as online uniquely and anonomously, to validate no tampering occurs with your vote, we could have a system we could trust. Distribute the anonymous voter memory cards (picked at random from a bin), through gov offices, DMV, etc, by showing valid registered voter ID. Only with a validating anonymous system, can we trust any electronic voting system, otherwise it is just to easy for them to cheat (just like the last time). Until then our 'democracy' and 'elections' will continue to be controlled by those with enough money or influence to control the media coverage and spin. They control our system by limiting choices, and dividing people along those limited perspectives. These are the same types that imply if you are against the war, you are not supporting our troops. If you don't like the president, you are a terrorist. If you question the administartion's propoganda, or provide evidence contrary to it, you could be held without charge as an enemy of the state. So, If there is a truly honest canidate that will fight for the people, you can be fairly certain we will not get a chance to vote for them when the time comes. If we do, they will still tell us who they are putting in the office, and how will you be able to argue it? Gore had all the evidence to prove he did win the election last time, or at least florida, and evidence of tampering so why didn't he? Answer: He was not in control of the media, and the media was not free to report the truth.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
I am laughing at you Ron Paul supporters
by Nuke Baby January 9, 2008 12:03 PM PST
Ron Paul lost because he's a crazed moron. Face it, America doesn't want him. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Takes more to be a citizen that sitting on your Ass
by JohnnyL January 9, 2008 12:38 PM PST
If all it took to be a responsible citizen of this country was to sit on your ass and click your mouse a few times then everyone would fulfilling their civic duty. Fortunately it take a little more effort than that which is why it should surprise anyone that great internet numbers is no predictor of the real world. Its really funny to see all of the so called journalists and pundits take it on the chin. They obviously were doing their own jobs by sitting on their rears instead of getting out and actually talking to real people.
Reply to this comment
Independents won for McCain
by spm82 January 9, 2008 1:23 PM PST
The fact that people didn't have to be registered as Republicans to participate in the Republican primary are what won it for John McCain. He is quite possibly the most liberal of the Republican candidates, but if opposing a candidate like Hillary or Obama the bulk of these independents would likely not vote for him. FYI, that's also the obvious reason Ron Paul got 8% or whatever it was he finished with. As for the idiot that blasted Giuliani's placement, if you followed any political commentary you would know that Giuliani barely touched down in Iowa or New Hampshire. He is focusing right now on Florida and Michigan and very well may win both states, much to my chagrin as a supporter of another GOP candidate.
Reply to this comment View reply
From New Hampshire
by Dr_Zinj January 10, 2008 7:33 AM PST
The internet did not make or break any of the candidates campaigns here in N.H. What it did do is provide an additional venue, more responsive to the voters, to discover information about the candidates: their history, their stands on issues, where they were going to appear, etc. In the past week, we were deluged with junk mail fliers, e-mail ads, and phone calls. Saturday alone I counted over 25 political phone calls to my house, and that doesn't count the dozen or so ones that hung up as soon as the answering machine came on. I'm a barely registered Republican, although my actual voting habits are more Independent. I evaluated all the candidates several times over the past couple of months and arrived at the conclusion that Ron Paul would be the best person in the White House for the nation. Unfortunately, at this time he is not really electable; and there are several Republicans running that are not suitable to run this country. That being the case, I voted for McCain as being the second most suitable Republican in an effort to shut out the undesireables. On the Democratic side, it will really come down to Obama and Clinton - Edwards might make a good VP running mate, but isn't going to be able to stir the nation like these other two. Clinton makes a good speech, but looking back at her performance in Washington, as well as historically, she is as much business as usual as the current occupants of the White House. Obama really is the only viable Democratic change candidate. Here's a little history on Ms. Clinton from my experience. My apologies to the Dales if this causes some undesired attentions to be placed back on them. Ms Hillary claims to have extensive experience in how to run the presidency by virtue of her work behind the scenes during her husband's terms of office. That being the case, she was probably intimately involved, if not instrumental, in the events leading to the Travelgate scandal. For those who fail to remember, Travelgate was the situation where the administration basically attempted to frame Billy Dale, the then manager of the White House Travel Office, in order to justify their firing him from his civil service position, converting that position into a contracted job and giving it to the cronies of the Clintons. What happened then was the administration put Mr Dale, and his extended family, through hell on earth for a couple of years, and eventually had to drop their case due to absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. So I'm not too keen on Ms. Clinton's honesty because of that. Now Ms. Clinton claims to be concerned about the healthcare situation in this nation. But it seems to me that that's a bit of crocodile tears; as the stress of the Travelgate investigation probably caused Mrs. Blanche Dale, wife of Billy, to suffer a stroke from which she never fully recovered. What this means is that Hillary is the penultimate politician. As I see it, as long as she's going where you want her to, you have a wonderfully aggressive fighter working for you. But the minute you are no longer of use to her, or you get in her way, you'll find you're riding a tiger that's likely to turn and devour you. At least Obama doesn't have a track record of kneecapping his opponents.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
Click Here
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Latest from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

One More Thing by Tom Krazit Tom Krazit takes on the tech phenomenon that is Apple, and keeps a close watch on the chip industry.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh Exploring the intersection of politics and technology.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

advertisement
On TV.com: MILEY CYRUS photographs
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: