Change that change theme

Dick Meyer:

For all the breast-beating and soul-searching being performed by the political elite over why we so badly blew predicting Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire resurrection, we actually blew something much bigger: understanding the central dynamic of the presidential election.

After Iowa, poll readers, pundits, Republican and Democratic candidates declared the voters wanted “change.” No matter what “change” actually is, no matter that “change” means different things to different people: “change” is what the voters want.

Barack Obama cornered the market on change. After Iowa, John Edwards wanted to get some market share as did Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Hillary stuck with experience. Contrarian pundits mocked Obama for pushing change without beef, unfairly.

The sorry truth is that “change” was merely a phantom conjured by the political elite - a nano-trend, a shorthand, a figment, a wild goose chase.

In 2008, there have been four elections with four winners: Obama, Clinton, Huckabee and McCain. Go ahead: pick an uber-theme that fits all these winners. It ain’t change.

Sure, Obama talks a lot about change and he had a big win. But he also talks about hope, leadership, health care and opportunity. And he also lost New Hampshire.

It was the Iowa exit polls that gave change mega-buzz. Among Democratic primary voters, the most coveted quality in a candidate was the capacity “bring about needed change.” A whopping 52 percent want change. In New Hampshire, it was the same but more so, with 54 percent opting for change in their multiple choice selections.

Well, use some common sense here. The quality that a candidate “can bring about needed change” can mean he/she will get out of Iraq to one voter. It can mean universal health care to another. Or cleaning up campaign finance, invading Iran, curing cancer or restoring the American Way.

In this context change is just a Rorschach test, not a political diagnosis. It is nearly meaningless.

...

Reducing political a contest to a one word theme is pretty ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when you consider that Obama came up with "change" as a way to fight off another one word theme "experience." As the guy with the least experience in the field he wanted to change the subject and had some success in doing so in Iowa. New Hampshire helped change the subject again. Who will shed tears over this latest change? Not Hillary this time.