Rove’s Response to Why Hillary Won

This seems to be the second post this election cycle that will include insight and citation from a political article written by (the infamous) Karl Rove. Despite my relative disdain for the fellow, he is flaunted as one of the most respected political advisers in the business.

In Rove’s article written for the Wall Street Journal he lays out 4 reasons why Hillary Clinton won the state of New Hampshire:

1. HRC’s campaign made a smart decision at its start to target women Democrats, especially single women. Furthermore, HRC seemed to capture the rural working-class, while Obama won the more affluent and campus constituents.
2. HRC’s self-deprecating response to voters “hesitating on the likability issue.” And her heart-warmed response in Portsmouth to the question “how you do it?”
3. Emphasizing Obama’s dim track record and lack of experience.
4. Obama’s failure to provide a strong message of contrast and change. Instead relying on “soaring rhetoric and inspirational rallies.” Rove considered this last point the biggest reasons for HRC’s win.

The proverbial question is this: What does this mean? Is this a microcosm of what’s to come at the national level? Will Hillary’s experience surpass the unconventional “no-negative” campaigning by Obama. According to Rove that will be the biggest advantage for HRC.

So what’s next?

According to Rove, Obama is likely to win Nevada on Jan. 19 (despite Sen. Harry Reid’s son serving as Hillary’s Nevada chairman). In South Carolina (Jan. 26) half the Democratic voters are likely to be African-American, indicating a likely Obama victory. That means on the 29th Florida will likely turn into a showdown in the Sunshine State — “The outcome of the contest in the Sunshine State is likely to have a disproportionate impact on the 23 contests on Super Tuesday.”

Exciting? Uh, yeah.