New Hampshire Voters to Pundits: We Don’t Need Your Stinkin’ Lanes

Why the political conventional wisdom gets crushed in the Granite State.

Charles Krupa/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

For over a year, many pundits and political observers who puzzle over the 2020 Democratic contest have been obsessed with the Lane Theory. It’s a simple notion: There are different lanes in the raceā€”one for moderates, one for progressives, maybe one for a new face, and so on. This has dominated much of the analysis. Think of the Road Warrior movies: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are in a death race in the lefty lane; Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg are in their own demolition derby in the centrist lane, with Amy Klobuchar trying to jump the median and get into that mix. That all seems to make sense. Except for this: voters don’t live in lanes.

Meet Michele Vilamarim, a 56-year-old homemaker who lives in Nashua, New Hampshire. On Thursday afternoon, she was at a packed American Legion hall in Merrimack, where Buttigieg was holding a town hall focused on veterans issues. The place was full of Buttigieg supporters. But many attendees, like Vilamarim, were voters who did not know how they are going to vote on Tuesday. And what was most interesting to an outsider (that is, me) was that the undecideds were undecided in a way that did not fit into lanes. One local physicians said she was torn between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Warren, and Tom Steyer. Seriously. She could go in any direction. How was she going to make a choice? She shrugged: “I have no idea.” A school teacher said she could vote for Biden, Warren, Klobuchar, or Andrew Yang. Really?

Back to Vilamarim. She said she was torn between Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg. Here’s a photo of her:

It’s a pic of her meeting Biden a few days earlier. She spoke to Biden about her mother, whose health insurance carrier recently stopped paying for medicine she needs. The monthly cost of the drugs is $300ā€”and that’s $300 her mother, who lives off Social Security, doesn’t have. As she explained her mother’s plight to Biden, Vilamarim broke down and started sobbing. “He looked me in the eye,” she recalled, “and said, ‘We’re going to help your mother,’ and asked for my information and gave it to an aide.”

That impressed her greatly. As for Warren, Vilamarim was disappointed that at a campaign event the Massachusetts senator walked past her without engaging with her: “It was kind of impersonal.” As for Buttigieg, before he took the stage, she remarked, “I’m going to listen hard. Everyone has great plans. I really want to hear how he will help people as a whole. I care about moral integrity.”

Vilamarim was in no lane. And as Holly Shulman, a longtime Democratic Party official in New Hampshire told me, this is not unusual. “Voters here don’t respond that much to debates and big speeches. If people canvass and make it through the snow to their door, that counts. Small interactionsā€”which may seem imperceptible to those looking at the big pictureā€”can do the trick. It’s all about these interactions.” And it is hard to calculate the accumulation of all these interactions. 

That may be particularly so this time around. The Iowa results and the subsequent polls show that the Democratic Party is highly fractured, with many of its voters caring more about dethroning Donald Trump than they do about a specific candidate. Sanders may be leading an overthrow-the-system revolution, and Buttigieg may be leading a let’s-come-together crusadeā€”each claiming he can bring new voters to the polls for the Democratsā€”yet turnout was down in Iowa. And neither of them assembled a dominant plurality. Will New Hampshire voters turn the party in a decisive direction? And if so, will it have an ideological or thematic component? That is, will they flood a lane?

No one voter can symbolize what’s happening in the Granite State. And there is certainly a set of voters who are torn between Sanders and Warren and another group struggling over Biden and Buttigieg. But this first-in-the-nation primary more resembles the parking lot in a stadium at the end of the big game then a super highway with bright white lines. 

Think this:

Getty Images

Rather than this:

Getty Images

As for Vilamarim, after the Buttigieg event, as she was tromping through the ice and snow, she said she was now leaning toward Bidenā€”mainly because he seemed to care about her and her mother. That is, because he got into Vilamarim’s very own lane. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate