The second-saddest thing about the New Hampshire primary | Opinion
No need to even mention the worst thing about this week’s New Hampshire primary.
Almost as depressing as the result, though, in a couple of ways, was watching one voter after another explain his or her decision-making process to cable news reporters.
On CNN, one Republican said that in the end, he’d veered away from former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and voted for Donald Trump because she’s “a little bit closer to the middle.” OK, that’s a fair assessment. But then he lamented that “there’s no one in the middle and I feel like there should be.” Wait, what?
I heard several people tell reporters that at the last minute, they’d ditched Haley and had jumped back on the Trump train after realizing that he was probably going to win. Yes, thanks in part to circular logic like that.
Now, I don’t find this painful because I’m a Haley supporter; I’m not, though I do think that as someone who is not going to “terminate” the U.S. Constitution or be found responsible for a sexually abusing anyone or send armed rioters to the U.S. Capitol, she would be a big improvement over her former boss.
But it’s still unfortunate that even among those Americans who bothered to turn out, and even in one of the only states where you can meet all the candidates multiple times without venturing too far from home, many voters seemed to have put more thought into what to have for lunch than into who should lead the nation; no wonder we’re in trouble.
This is not news, of course, which brings me to my second point.
A few days ago, I got a fundraising hustle from a news outlet I like, saying that sending reporters to New Hampshire is expensive, so please send money. Yes, it is expensive, and the blanket coverage so wasteful.
Now, I’ve done plenty of that kind of reporting, too, and have, yes, interviewed voters in New Hampshire and lots of other places. Trying to understand how the electorate is feeling and why is exciting, no matter how cold it is, and it’s hard work, too. Four years ago, I drove to Iowa and stayed with a friend in Des Moines for a few days just to hear from candidates and caucus-goers for myself.
But even as a fan of the process and as someone who loves listening to people, it was hard to see so much reporting power focused on asking New Hampshire voters why, why, why — while in so much of America, state and local government is barely being covered and so much corruption left uncovered.
I was sorry to have ever started thinking about the disparity, and all of the accountability journalism that local news outlets could have done with the money being spent on source dinners in Nashua.
Even if they’d eaten at the 7-Eleven, of course, that wouldn’t have helped us, because that’s not how the world works.
But journalistically, too, I’m not sure that the drama willed into existence about what was really a foregone conclusion was either completely honest or the best use of talent and time.
We’ve known for decades now that voting is such an emotional exercise, and so tribal, that for the most part, not even we know why we vote as we do.
So sending so many people to ask a question that most people can’t even answer when they’re trying to be forthcoming does strike me as a shame.
And when I heard some of those voters telling reporters that they had voted for Trump because he was going to win, I couldn’t help thinking that both the interviewer and the interviewee were just doing what they had always done. They were just following the crowd.
This story was originally published January 26, 2024 at 9:46 AM.
