New Hampshire primary

http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/thursday-february-11th-…

How accurate are exit polls?

Recall how different year 2000 exit polls were than the counted ballots; the spokesperson for the Republican Party stated that the Democrats had managed to tamper with all of the exit polls, while testimony under oath at the Congressional hearings on the subject stated it was the balloting machines that were tampered with (after two of the tamperers were granted immunity from prosecution).

If the year 2000 exit poll numbers were not tampered with, that means people lie about who they voted for and why just minutes after they voted. Would a woman who voted for Secretary Clinton lie and say she voted for Senator Sanders, possibly because she does not want the pollster to think she voted for Clinton only because Ms. Clinton is a woman?

I think when the polls show major differences or large numbers, they can be trusted to have some meaning.

I'll bet there is a lot of fuzziness.

"Astonishingly, shockingly, embarrassingly, and annoyingly, almost unconscionably, NBC did not think to ask about climate change."

Agree, but this doesn't exonerate the candidates. Either one could have complained about the absence of a climate change question or forced a discussion on the issue. Example:
Moderator: Which of these three, a,b, or c, constitutes the greatest threat to America?
Candidate: I don't accept that choice. The greatest threat to America, and the world, is climate change. Etc.

The lack of a climate change question makes me wonder how much attention Clinton and Sanders are paying to the matter. I would imagine that if climate change was an important part of their campaigns, the moderators would have been more likely to have asked about it, and the voters would have named it as an important issue.

Greg,

" In a way, one could argue that Clinton is the more electable candidate, but only if she doesn’t win the nomination."

Wha???

First explain that, and then I would like your opinion (since you did a good job on Iowa) about a Bernie -Kasich general election.

I am convinced it would be a really bad outcome for Dems-- not so much if it is Hillary.

As somebody who answered one of those New Hampshire exit polls, I was struck by the question asking "What is the most important issue facing this country?" with only 4 choices -- terrorism, economy/jobs, health care, income inequality.

A media narrative being enforced by survey questions just as it was by debate questions.

L Hamilton: As somebody who answered one of those New Hampshire exit polls, I was struck by the question asking “What is the most important issue facing this country?” with only 4 choices — terrorism, economy/jobs, health care, income inequality.

It seems to me that "terrorism" isn't even an issue worth mentioning in the USA when all of the other problems are considered.

I would place as the current #1 problem the legalization of bribery, which has erased even the pretense of the USA being a democratic republic. Solve that problem and the issue of climate change policy would be solved.

The #2 problem isn't on the survey's list either: wealth being taken away from the people who created it and given to the worthless parasites who did nothing at all to create it. Double the minimum wage everywhere for everyone, and raise taxes on the wealthy to a higher rate than the ever-dwindling middle-class: about 33% for the moderately wealthy, 70% for the very wealthy, 90% for the extremely wealthy. People who enjoy the many benefits of being USA citizens damn well ought to pay for the benefits they receive. USA corporations that move to other countries should be embargoed and face tariffs if they still want to do business in the USA.

#3: education costs far beyond what citizens can afford.

#4: Equal Rights Amendment. There is still no Constitutional guarantee that all citizens are allowed to vote.

#5: Aborting pregnancies as a human right, to anyone and everyone who requires one; also, free and easily available long-term contraception.

#6: Only then would I think health care is an issue, and when I am elected dictator I will fund the education of more physicians and nurses, and if their academic scores are high enough I would fund them for free if they agree to practice for their first three years on American Indian reservations, and in areas where there are no medical care services.

"Terrorism?" Sheeeish. Coal-fired power plants kill about 16,000 USA citizens every year---- far more than "terrorists" could kill.

Terrorism would seem to be a threat only in the things the republican frontrunners say they would do to fight it and social structures they'd destroy in order to pay for their fight.

dean: Terrorism would seem to be a threat only in the things the republican frontrunners say they would do to fight it and social structures they’d destroy in order to pay for their fight.

Much like "the war on drugs" (i.e., prohibition and the war on drug users). The single greatest fear I have is the fear of people who use fear as a political tool.

Yes, because as a political tool, the Right has learned that it's extremely effective and reliable -- unless the targets are educated and especially if well-traveled, too.

Desertphile,

Given the recent history of SCOTUS, including the new decision on coal plants, your list pretty much sums up why electability is the only meaningful criterion for the Democratic candidate.

SCOTUS will have a far more profound effect on the future in most of the areas you are concerned about than any presidential policy promises.

But I would vote for you as dictator in any event.

""“Astonishingly, shockingly, embarrassingly, and annoyingly, almost unconscionably, NBC did not think to ask about climate change.”

Agree, but this doesn’t exonerate the candidates""

I meant in the exit polls, they could not have complained about that. But yes, by now, everyone involved could have pushed harder to make climate change a more central issue in this campaign.

#11
"I meant in the exit polls, they could not have complained about that."

My mistake. Not asking about climate change made me think of the debate.

Are Clinton and Sanders talking about – not just mentioning, but talking about – the issue? I haven't noticed any signs of this in the press.

I'm going to see them both talk tomorrow night. I'll let you know!

http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/thursday-february-4th-h…

Who won the New Hampshire primary?

gregladen — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:43:40 +0000

Who won the New Hampshire primary?

At about 9 PM eastern, with 90% of the votes counted in the Democratic primary, Sanders is showing a strong win. He is currently at about 60%, while Clinton is at 38%. That gap is significantly larger than what I had intuitively established at the cutoff for a Sanders "lower than expectation loss." So, congratulations Bernie Sanders! If those numbers hold, that is a decisive win.

(A lot of Sanders supporters were crowing about a 20% lead in the polls, which seemed kind of extreme at the time. They may end up being proven right!)

In the Republican primary, with about 90% reporting, Donald Trump has been declared the winner, with 35% of the vote.

Kasich is being declared second, with 16%

Then we have Cruz (11.6%), Bush (11.1%), Rubio (10.5%), and Christie (7.5%) followed by Fiorina and Carson (insignificant).

Note that the gaps between the third and lower candidates is so small that the sum of "write in" and lower level candidates that could not possibly have won is enough to have allowed for a strategic repositioning of second or third place.

gregladen Tue, 02/09/2016 - 07:43

Tags

Rubio

http://www.lfda.org/candidate/mark-stewart-greenstein

Apparently, this year Millsfield has joined Dixville Notch and Harts Location in the midnight voting tradition. All are towns with two-digit populations, so yes, too early to say much.

Drink the Stein ...

Here's Greenstein, for those interested. Seems to be a libertarian sort of some kind.

He is so libertarian he doesn't even have a link.

Don't matter what is said or decided NO rePUKEian will get my vote because even if he is a honest good dude he still has the women hating bigots behind him.
Anyone else even a nazis that seems to have some chance in winning will get my vote.

I wonder which flavor of Libertarian Greenstein is? Conservative who smokes weed, or channeling Ayn Rand?
Then there's Jill Stein, Green Party.

Greg: ahh -hemm. Updating vote totals I understand, but rewriting your analysis is a bit cheeky. I seem to recall a bit of a snide remark to the Sanders supporters and the notion of a possible 20 point victory in an earlier version of this page.

As I pointed out in one of the other threads, a month ago Clinton was leading Sanders in several of the NH polls. Few were talking about an easy victory as the 'favorite son' from next door Vermont at that time. Clinton also beat Obama in NH in 2008.

I did find it interesting that the latest PEW poll shows those under 30 with a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism - they gave the highest approval of socialism of any demographic grouping.

And while Clinton is trailing Sanders ATM by 20+ pts with 43% of the precincts reporting, she's actually a few hundred votes ahead of Trump. The Democratic meme tonight should be that Trump finished *third* - assuming Clinton can maintain her slight lead on him.

Kevin, kiss off :)

I have in the past aggregated my comments, but I had set up the formatting on this post so my aggregation became ridiculous. So, I did a rewrite. Then, I decided that this one time I'd just do that, rewriting this brief post as info came in.

Yes, there was a snide remark about my fellow Democrats who were crowing about a 20 point lead. They got their lead and good for them!

The real question, aside from your concerns about my methodology, is where did the lead come from, because the polls really didn't show that. Based on various polling and conversations in NH, it seems quite possible that there was an unusual mix of activity among independents, who make up the largest of the three primary voting blocks in New Hampshire. look forward to analysis of what went on there.

Good point about Trump coming in Third. That makes Rubio, what, sixth? Seventh???

Based on percentages with 89% reporting, Republicans got over 264,000 votes, while Democrats got over 231,000 votes. Both numbers will settle higher.

Outsiders Trump and Cruz lost 53% of the Republican turnout to establishment candidates. Outsider Sanders lost 40% of the Democratic turnout. So the outsider factor turned out to be much stronger on the left than on the right. Or, Trump has a lower ceiling than Sanders.

Trump manged a few thousand more than Hillary in the late results - so, he managed 2nd place after all :(

I haven't dug through all the demographic tabs, but that Bernie won the female vote rather easily (55%) also surprised me. NH has a miniscule African-American population and that will become important in the ensuing weeks - Clinton has consistently polled better than Sanders in that demographic.

Sanders meanwhile becomes the first Jewish candidate to win a Presidential primary and, as far as I know, the first Socialist.

I only mentioned the 'update' cuz I had a good zinger prepared in response - which became rather moot :)

"I only mentioned the ‘update’ cuz I had a good zinger prepared in response – which became rather moot :)" What was it???

I've not seen any ethnic breakdown for either Iowa or N.H. (very white places). I expect there will be some polling now in SC and Nevada. Actually, I just saw a poll from Nevada, but haven't looked closely.

Also a factor: How will labor break?

The biggest danger to American democracy isn't Donald Trump, but the Koch centered oligarchy that has taken over the Republican party. Trump has some very ugly positions, but he's also said things that challenge the Republican establishment from the left. His defense of eminent domain in relation to the Keystone pipeline was not something you would hear from a Koch Republican. He argued for a compassionate healthcare system that didn't let poor people die in the streets. He explained his conservatism by referring to the verb conserve. He defends social security. He attacks the pharmaceutical companies. In short, Trump's message is in many ways inimical to the donor dependent Republican mainstream. In addition, his victory will force the campaign to drag on, resulting in mutually harmful attacks and escalating expenses. I'm glad he won. The following excerpts from progressive journalists amplify my argument:

“In the brief period that the national political media has not been fixated on him, Donald Trump has undergone an important metastasis. His populist rhetoric has firmed up and identified a different and somewhat more specific band of enemies, including (but not limited to) oil companies, insurance companies, defense contractors, and wealthy “bloodsuckers” in general...

...The underserved political market is voters who want less libertarianism. They oppose free trade, want to keep every penny of promised Social Security and Medicare, distrust big business, think immigrants hurt the country, and generally distrust the rest of the world.
Trump’s campaign initially emphasized his nativist position on immigration, which caused him to be identified with the Republican right. But Trump has repositioned himself increasingly as the candidate of the populist, disaffected center. Even though Trump has proposed a huge tax cut for the rich, he draws support from Republican voters who are most heavily in favor of raising taxes on the rich. (They have no other candidates to choose from within their party.)

Trump’s populism has slowly intensified. "I don't get along that well with the rich. I don't even like the rich people very much," he recently said. "It's like a weird deal." He has proposed to let the federal government negotiate lower prices for Medicare prescription drugs, a plan horrifying to conservatives (and drug companies). Like other Republicans, he proposes to eliminate Obamacare and replace it with something undefined but wonderful. The reason Trump’s vague repeal-and-replace stance makes them so nervous is that he once advocated single-payer insurance, and he has emphasized, in a way other Republicans have not, the horrors of leaving people who are too poor or sick to afford insurance on their own. Trump’s shorthand description of the travails of the uninsured before Obamacare — people “dying on the street” — alarms conventional conservatives precisely because it captures the broad reality of the suffering that justified Obamacare in the first place, and which would intensify if the law is repealed. The Republican fear is that Trump’s vague promise to replace Obamacare with something terrific is not just a hand-waving tactic to justify repealing Obamacare. Their fear is that he actually means it. Trump's populist positions may place him farther away from the Republican Party's intellectual and financial vanguard, but they draw him closer to its voters.

The clearest sign of Trump’s intentions is the conscious fashion in which he has tried to co-opt the appeal of Bernie Sanders (who, like Trump, has opened up a populist attack on his party’s consensus). Trump’s argument is that he agrees with Sanders on trade, but only Trump can put his critique into practice.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-is-getting-se…

“In New Hampshire, an angry populist who calls for a revolution and assails the Washington establishment, special-interest lobbyists, big-money politics, and rapacious corporations won an election in a historic move that could shake up and remake American politics.

And Bernie Sanders did, too.”

“Most intriguing was his [Trump's] attack on the corrupt power elite. He started off this portion of his speech by bashing the Republican National Committee for handing out tickets to Saturday's debate to donors and special-interest lobbyists. (By the way, do you know that he "won" the debate?) And then Trump offered this assault on a "they" he didn't bother to identify:
They want to chop away at Social Security like they want to chop away at the Second Amendment [on guns]…like they're chopping away at Christianity. Very soon, we're going to start saying Merry Christmas."
That line about holiday greetings drew one of the loudest cheers of the night from the Trumpites. But here was Trump melding a Sanders-like populist proclamation (I won't let them weaken Social Security)...

...He next blasted big drug companies for hiring lobbyists and donating to politicians in order to prevent the government from negotiating lower drug prices. He pledged, "We want to take care of people without health care…the Republican way—if people can't help themselves, we have to help them. Those drug companies are going to hate me so much."
It's always unclear how much of what Trump does as a politician is planned. Is he driven by instinct? Does he cunningly calculate his moves? But by the end of the New Hampshire campaign, he had crafted an ideologically muddled populism with appeal mostly to conservatives but also to economically insecure independents who are pissed off at the powers that be, whoever the hell they are.”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/new-hampshire-primary-trump…

“Like other members of the Republican elite, the Koch brothers misjudged Donald Trump. They never considered the real estate scion a serious contender, and his politics on taxes, trade, and foreign policy clashed thoroughly with theirs. (Charles Koch noted that Trump’s Muslim registry, for instance, would “destroy our free society.”)
...the Kochs, after building a shadow party on the right, are now struggling to gain traction in a political landscape they have helped to bring into existence.

This election cycle was supposed to be the one in which the Koch network fulfilled its mission of installing a Republican in the White House. But that goal, and the millions behind it, are at risk. And before the Kochs begin to take on Hillary or Bernie, they are carefully considering whether to wage a war against Trump.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/koch-brothers-take-on-trump

It's far too early to say how the Republican race will pan out, and we don't know whether the great deal maker will end up making deals that accommodate the interests of the big-monied donors. But by the time it ends Trump will have inflicted considerable damage on the party's message and image.

As I noted in an earlier thread I think there are several things that work for Sanders in New England. New Hampshire has more college towns than people realize, and though they are small they add up, probably to low tens of thousands of votes for each party if you use the town populations. (Antioch is there, for instance, and UNH has several campuses -- there are actually about a dozen or so schools).

So that would work well for Sanders from the get-go. New Hampshire is also about as white as it gets.

I also take Sanders' victory (don't get me wrong, I'd prefer him over Clinton) with a large grain of salt. i looked at how much money he's raised in South Carolina and Nevada. It's not much. Like ~$60,000 not much in SC. That's so tiny it's ridiculous; Clinton outspends him and crucially, out-raises there by a factor of 10. I predict a crushing defeat in that particular state, even if by some miracle half of the black Democrats there vote for Sanders.

It's early in the race yet; Nevada is a caucus state which also has little that works in Sanders' favor. (The CWA and NNU aren't as big of a deal there).

The reason I am not thinking yet that this is a big win for Sanders is that Iowa and New Hampshire are about as UNrepresentative of the larger electorate as you can possibly be. Pick almost *any* demographic and both states are outliers. Especially compared to states that have a population that's bigger than that of say, Boston's Metro Area. Both Iowa and New Hampshire could fit comfortably in single districts of Chicago or New York.

So I am skeptical that this means as much as we might like. (Remember Paul Tsongas? Nobody else does, either).

What I am more confident about is that Sanders moves the party leftward a bit; at least when it comes to convention time.

On the GOP side it gets interesting because Trump clearly has solid support of the rank and file (I mentioned this a few threads ago here and can I crow a bit about being right?) but nothing from the elites of the party. The last guy who managed that was McGovern early in his campaign. (I can't think of anyone else whose endorsements came to basically zero at this point in the process -- only Sanders is paralleling that this time around).

And let's remember: the party basically abandoned McGovern. Trump could have a similar fate from the GOP side. A bad presidency could hurt the GOP worse than losing -- people still beat Dems over the head with Jimmy Carter (whose presidency, all things considered, wasn't terrible -- he just didn't have any major policy victories and voters who think bombing people makes their penises bigger hate him).

Anyhow, Trump's support cuts across many sectors of the party, and that's a bad sign for those of us who care about being non-sociopaths.

If Sanders wants to win either the nomination or the general election he has to give all those voters of color a reason to actually get up and vote. We'll see if he manages that.

One thing that struck me: Sanders would be the very first Jewish president. Who would have thought we'd elect a black guy before a Jewish guy? (Maybe that makes an odd kind of sense, since so many people assume Jews are loyal to Israel automatically -- leaving NYC is always weird to me that way, because I find myself doing a double take and asking myself "what year is this again?").

So with either Sanders or Clinton we get a first. Not bad, IMO.

For these reasons, I think that South Carolina will be a very interesting test. Clinton will almost certainly win there, but the split will matter a lot. What the percentages mean for the primary is probably not as important as how the demographics work out, like you suggest.

Yes, the first Jewish President thing is not lost on me. I think it is being underplayed because you don't have to say it out loud to count in favor, but if you say it out loud too much latent anti-Semitism may play a role.

He defends social security. He attacks the pharmaceutical companies. In short, Trump’s message is in many ways inimical to the donor dependent Republican mainstream.

Trump does say a great deal of things, borrowing from both sides of the political spectrum. The primary question is whether he actually believes in any of the things he says he supports and wants to do, or whether he is simply shrewd.

There is also the question of whether, even if he does feel strongly about these issues, and really would want to implement them if elected, he would be able to do any of them.

In my opinion, he may feel strongly about the more bigoted/racist positions he's spouted - but not the other social issues. I don't think the folks on the far right believe he is serious about those issues either: I can't see them supporting him if they thought he was serious about them.

#16
I can't judge Trump's sincerity, and I don't think it's particularly important. His rhetoric, sincere or not, is at odds with Republican orthodoxy, and it's causing problems for the party. The more progressive positions he's spoken out in favor of seem to be popular with a segment of Republican voters, and are not supported by any of the other Republican candidates, or the Kochs and Adelsons backing them. In effect, he's exposing the party's class interest and lack of concern for those who aren't wealthy. Some of his supporters have argued that Trump is more trustworthy because he isn't indebted to the big donors. The implication is that the others are less trustworthy, or untrustworthy.

#13 Correction
big-monied donors – big-moneyed donors.

"I don’t think it’s particularly important."

I would say it could be, if he could convince enough people that he means what he says to make to through the nomination process.

I don't know if he will keep his momentum or not, but on the Republican side it hardly matters: Cruz et. al. are no less crazy and potentially dangerous to the economy and civil system in the U.S. than Trump - they are simply better at hiding it.

#19

He doesn't have to convince people that he means what he says. Simply by confirming pre-existing beliefs, telling people what they want to hear, he's perceived as someone who “tells it like it is.” He doesn't need to argue or produce evidence. All he needs to do is produce the requisite stimulus. He doesn't need to be sincere. Reading his audience and reacting to its whims are enough. Eventually he'll probably have to explain how he intends to fulfill some of his promises, but remember: Richard Nixon claimed he had a plan to end the war in Vietnam. Nixon's claim was shrewd and expedient, and not at all sincere.

My view, as stated above (#13), is that the candidates that are in line with the donor oligarchy are more dangerous than Trump. They would find it easier to get elected, and they would be in greater agreement with a Republican congress. In that case the danger would be real, not potential.

Should note: saying that you want to protect Social Security doesn't make you a left-winger, after all every fascist government in Europe had some form of that. Trump is in many ways a classical fascist.

How? Let's count:

-- harking back to a mythical past? Check. ("Make America Great Again")

-- Xenophobia? Check

-- A lean to authoritarianism, a contempt for the legislative processes? Check

-- Appealing to the fears of those who feel disenfranchised, with a power base among said populations? Check

-- Cult of personality? Check

If it looks like a duck...

Trump is dangerous because every fascist aligns themselves with some segment of the elites of their country. That's how fascism works.

Trump is really, really dangerous because he hasn't got the slightest self restraint. I could see him ordering air strikes on some country to look "strong" -- and damn the consequences. And can you imagine how he might legitimize some pretty awful stuff if you are say, Latino? Muslim? "Hey, we went out and beat up a few Latinos with our minutemen pals, might have killed a few!" -- you think Trump would call for that person to go to jail, or do you think he'd say "welp, regrettable but they were just protecting what is theirs."

#21 Jesse - Trump meets a number of the fascist criterion set out by Dr. Lawrence Britt . Hyper nationalism, disdain for human rights, supremacy of the military, sexism, obsession with national security, labor suppression, disdain for intellectuals and the arts, obsessions with crime and punishment, cronyism and corruption. He does, however, fall down on a couple of key points, particularly his problems connecting successfully with some on the religious right, his war with the fossil fuel barons, and the fact that he hasn't yet had a chance to rig an election. Still I would definitely call him a fascistoid.

Is he really dangerous though?I think he isn't. Scary, but more a wanna be than a real threat IMO. The unwholesome values that he inherited from his grandfather aren't likely to work as well in a prosperous and diverse US as they did in an impoverished early 20th century Germany. Still, I think that we definitely do need to keep an eye on him, and we definitely need to make sure that he doesn't get to the White House. .

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary

gregladen — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:14:50 +0000

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary

I wrote about what I thought might happen in the New Hampshire primary a few days ago, but enough new stuff has happened to make it worth revisiting.

Who will win the New Hampshire GOP Primary?

And, perhaps more important, who will come in second, third, and fourth?

We know that Donald Trump will win the New Hampshire primary. Polls show him up far above the other candidates, he has been on a modest upward trend since the beginning of the year, and the most recent polls show an abrupt upward swing. He now stands at about 17% above the second place candidates.

New Hampshire seems to like Rubio and Cruz to about equal amounts, but has been showing a preference for the up and coming Rubio over the last week or so. But, Rubio's performance in the GOP debate is widely seen as abysmal, even embarrassing. The most recent polls seem to show a drop in Rubio's share since the debate. It looks like nothing more than a squiggle of the magnitude one expects in such polls, especially with so many candidates, but given the debate, it is quite possible that his support is rapidly declining.

So, even though Rubio's average poll rating over the last several days suggests he is a weak second place contender, I'm going to predict that he does not come in second place. I suspect Kasich and Cruz are tied for that honor, but Cruz has consistently polled ahead of Kasich, and seems to be preferred over other candidates, even Trump, in head to head polls among many New Hampshire voters. In other words, when supporters of Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Christie, and everybody else have their candidates taken away in a hypothetical, they break for Cruz, not Trump.

For this reason, I'm going to predict that Cruz will come in second. The amount of damage suffered by Rubio will determine if he comes in third, or possibly fourth behind Kasich. That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least until tomorrow night when we find out what actually happened!

Who will win the New Hampshire Democratic Primary?

All the numbers suggest that Sanders will win in New Hampshire, so that is pretty much settled. The question is, by how much. Sanders' lead over clinton has been steadily increasing in the Granite State since mid January, and it was starting to look like he could be way ahead of Clinton. But, as is the case with the GOP race, the last few days has shown a narrowing between the two candidates. The last few polls have them between 17 and 13 points or so apart, with the gap closing.

While everybody thinks their own candidate nailed the New Hampshire debate, the fact is that Clinton may have faired better, or Sanders worse. Sanders produced at least to really bad answers on foreign policy, and Clinton parried questions that has been raised about her fairly effectively. New Hampshire voters tend to keep themselves open until fairly late in the game, it is said, and these factors may influence the outcome.

If the gap closes to 10% or less, that is bad news for the Sanders campaign and good news for the Clinton campaign. If the gap ends up being around 13% plus or minus a few, then the message being sent by New Hampshire would be similar to that sent by Iowa: "You Democrats have two roughly equal candidates, carry on!" If the gap re-widens to beyond 15%, the there is evidence of a Sanders surge. If one take Iowa's message as also meaning "Sanders, previously low in polling, rose quite a bit before the caucus" and New Hampshire says something similar, then that would be a very strong message in favor of Sanders.

(We do not expect equal numbers in New Hampshire because of the modest favorite son effect.)

Stay Tuned.

gregladen Mon, 02/08/2016 - 07:14

Tags

Rubio

I think Trump may be blowing his lead. On the strength of his media identity, he's been running his campaign on the cheap. I think he will need a ground game to seal the deal. Cruz is too crazy, Rubio is too robotic, and Jeb! is too pathetic, but someone like Kasich could step in to the space left vacant by Trump's unfavorables.

I missed the debate, but the reviews I saw graded Hillary and Bernie about the same. I have Facebook friends that tend both ways. The Hillbots seem upset, while the BernFeelers seem enthused. From what I read, Bernie got a lot of donations after Iowa. If he's investing it in ground operations he couldn't afford before, he could hang around for a while.

I agree that Trump is not playing the ground game right, and that is why he lost in Iowa (as I predicted) . It will be interesting to see if that plays out in NH

The ground game is more important in a caucus, because it is more exposed to activists. But, NH primary voters also can see the ground game and pay a lot of attention to it, it is said. If Trump is not eating pancakes and kissing babies, they may well blow him off. That adds a real interesting element to what might happen.

The Republican debate wasn't kind to Cruz and Rubio. It drew more attention to Cruz's sanctimonious sleaziness, and Rubio succeeded in making a fool of himself. Rubio's been extremely good at delivering the messages that Republicans want to hear, but he does come across scripted, and in Manchester he was stuck on repeat. The problem is bigger than just talking points. Rubio speaks written rather than spoken English. His English is correct, but not natural. Note, for example, that there are many occasions where Rubio says it is or it has or it does not, where almost all native speakers would use contractions.

Re. Trump:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/koch-brothers-take-on-trump

Foreign policy:
Sanders has repeatedly criticized Clinton for her vote on the Iraq war, while emphasizing his own superior judgement. This seems to be his foreign policy Rubiot. When asked about the greatest current threats, his North Korea answer was what one might call a Ben Carson moment. When asked to name his foreign policy advisers, he couldn't name any:

"Asked recently to name his foreign policy advisers, he threw out a few names of people who later said they had barely discussed the issues with him. One of them was Benjamin J. Rhodes, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser for communications, who said he had given Mr. Sanders some standard briefings, but no advice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/us/politics/foreign-policy-questions-…

He doesn't even know enough to criticize Clinton for her reaction to the coup in Honduras or her relationship to Uribe in Columbia. He's never mentioned the possible implications of her ties to the Clinton Foundation, and its ties to repressive regimes. Where she represents tainted competence, he stands for uninterested ignorance.

But, NH primary voters also can see the ground game and pay a lot of attention to it, it is said.

Granted, I live in one of the bluest towns in the state, but Sunday morning was the first I saw any evidence of s ground game from a Republican (Jeb, of all people, had canvassers in my neighborhood). All of the Dems, including O'Malley, have been intermittently canvassing the neighborhood since November. There were even a couple of Clinton people in my neighborhood this morning as I was shoveling the driveway (about 0730),

My party affiliation had been undeclared before today, but when I voted this morning in the Democratic primary, I skipped the table where you can reclaim your unaffiliated status. The aggravation I've been getting from being on Republican mailing and phone lists is no longer worth it. I feel like I would need a hazmat suit to vote in the R primary, and I don't own one.

Who will win the New Hampshire Primary and what will that mean?

gregladen — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:34:07 +0000

Who will win the New Hampshire Primary and what will that mean?

SEE THIS UPDATE

ADDED: Following the GOP primary, there has been another development. In most recent polls, Trump is clearly ahead in New Hampshire, with Marco Rubio a moderately strong second or third. In various polls he is second in most polls (by a few points) and tied in one. Kasich is generally right behind Rubio, with Cruz in third place in a few polls.

Rubio crashed and burned in last night's debate, according to most observers. And he really did. So, this may be reflected in New Hamsphire with Rubio moving down quite a bit. He crashed in part because Christie skillfully skewered him. I suspect this could bring Cristie's numbers up a bit. We ight be looking at an order something like this: Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Christie, then Rubio and Bush coming in fourth and fifth. Carson will not do well, and this may be his last primary.

Who will win the GOP primary?

First, let us dispense with the Republicans. (If only it were so easy!)

Trump is so far ahead in the polling that it is impossible to imagine him not winning. He is so far ahead, that if he doesn't win, the we can expect most of his financial backers to back away and his candidacy to be severely damaged.

Of course, since he is probably his own main financial backer, that will mean that a damaged candidacy will continue to lead the Republican pack for a while. But, really, that is not likely to happen. He is going to win the primary.

The more important question is who will come in second and third. There are actually three candidates that have a good chance of coming in second: Rubio, Cruz, Kasic
h and Bush. (In that order according to FiveThirtyEight's Polls-Plus forecast). This turns out to be a fairly complicated matter, then, when tying to interpret the meaning of New Hampshire going forward. So, I made a chart:

Who will win the Democratic primary?

This is more interesting at this point. We can see from polling data that Sanders is likely to with the NH primary. But the amount he wins by is going to determine a partial answer to that question of viability for him. Meanwhile, if Clinton does better than expectations, she will win kudos for organization and appeal. If Sanders and Clinton come in about as expected, meaning they both show well but Sanders wins, then New Hampshire will be sending roughly the same message as did Iowa: Dear Democrats, you have two viable candidates. Continue with the primary process.

But what is the number and how far off do the final results have to be before we can say someone did better or worse than expectations?

Looking at just the last ten non-partisan polls (ignoring likely voters vs. not likely, because that is part of the ground game) with all these polls overlapping January 20th or later, the Sanders-Clinton breakdown is 56.3-35.6. There is some O'Malley and undecided in there, so the ratio is more important than the number. So, the expectation for Sanders would be about 60%.

This conforms to the most recent polls, so any recent change (to date) is probably captured here. The total range is close to about 10 points.

So, I would argue, using gut instincts and nothing fancy, that Sanders will meet expectations with a percentage anywhere from 50% up. In other words, any level of win by Sanders meets expectations. If he gets more than 65% that may be meaningful, but since he is a) expected to do well and b) the state (within the party) matches him fairly well, I'm not sure how many points he gets.

Conversely, since we are so often asking the question in terms of insurgent Sanders' viability, if he loses by only a few points, a signal of concern will be sent to his campaign.

Looking at it from Clinton's point of view, every percentage point below 40% that she achieves will be a mark against her, showing weakness against the insurgent.

One thing is almost certain. New Hampshire will not be splitting hairs. This will not be close. Most likely the New Hampshire results will conform to the current polling, and the result will be that the hypothesis that Sanders can't be a viable candidate will not be falsified. I'm wording that in a fairly negative way, i.e., a good win in New Hampshire does not push Sanders viability estimate much at all. That sort of outcome is more likely to happen in relation to South Carolina and Nevada.

Not looking at specific numbers yet, if Sanders does not lose by too much in South Carolina, the hypotheses that he will do poorly among African Americans is not supported. If he wins in South Carolina, that hypothesis is in serious trouble.

In Nevada, if I'm reading things correctly, the outcome is likely to be stark, one or the other candidates winning handily, it can be either one or the other, and it will be a signal as to which candidate labor and unions is breaking for. To me, Nevada may be the most important of the first four races. (Aside from the unlikely scenario of the insurgent losing badly in Iowa or New Hampshire, in terms of meaning.)

The reason I say that Nevada will likely break either one way or the other is that I expect the unions to make a relatively unified decision I just don't know what that decision will be.

gregladen Thu, 02/04/2016 - 04:34

Tags

Election 2016

clinton

Election 2016

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/new-hampshire-primary-weathe…

Greg are you taking into account the way Latinos are voting (no idea how many there are in NH)? - In Iowa they turned up in record numbers to register as Republicans so that they could vote against Trump. That may very well have hurt Bernie as otherwise they probably would have voted Democratic and he's the most progressive of the two.

That could matter a lot in Nevada, and I have left Nevada wide open, partly because of that. I assume there is a large overlap between Democrat/Latino/Union-labor in Nevada. I don't know what the unions are doing there. Sometimes unions do things rather quietly and you don't know what there plan is until it was.

The "latino/hispanic" population in New Hampshire is about 2%.

NH, Maine, and West Virginia are tied for being the whitest states. Vermont is the whitest state. (By the way, Nevada is 28% latino, 50% white)

Douglas -- Latino voters are 3% of ALL the voters in Iowa (the population itself is larger but not by much, Iowa is ~91% white and ~3% AfAm and ~2% Asian, so Latinos would be at most ~4% or so).

So while Latino voters could sway a general election if it is close, unless almost the whole group registered GOP I can't see it making much difference in the primary. Some difference, but not a lot.

1) I know very little about the Northeast and have never lived there, but I've continually heard that Sanders will do well in NH because of the "neighboring State" effect. However, I've also heard talk from people that lived there, that NH is more "establishment" than VT. Hillary won NH in 2008. This would leave me to believe, indeed, that if Bernie does better than 60% that it will be a big win for him.

2) Without a lot of research, information which might not even be available, I'm not convinced the "union" factor supports Hillary. Internet gossip is that unions that let the workers vote... mostly went with Bernie. Unions in which only management got to vote, and not the workers themselves, endorsed Hillary.

@Randy -- I know a bit about the Labor movement, and I can tell you that there is some division on this point. The SEIU leadership backed HIllary Clinton but the rank and file (the locals) were divided, or example, AFSCME was the same -- the Wisconsin chapters seemed to want Bernie Sanders and the leadership went with Clinton. Communications Workers of America went for Sanders whole hog. IBEW in Nevada went Sanders.

Generally, the big national unions went with Hillary, largely because the bigger locals did. So you could have a situation where some locals wanted Bernie and some wanted Hillary and the national leadership went with the majority (or at least the biggest and wealthiest locals). I don't know the details of every union and they all have different structures.

So call it a split decision. The unions are ambivalent about Clinton because her lukewarm policy support hasn't always helped them out. They're ambivalent about Sanders because he says the right things but has never been in a position to do a ton and even if he were president right now he still might not be, if you see what I mean.

In Iowa, snow held off until after the caucuses closed and did not put a damper on participation. Checking whether weather might affect the turnout in New Hampshire, I find that temperatures are expected to be in the 20s with little wind and only scattered snow flurries. This is fairly typical for NH in February and is unlikely to deter many voters.

Martin O'Malley never polled higher than single digits in New Hampshire, according to the New York Times. With his exit, I expect the majority of his supporters to switch to Sanders. It will be interesting to see how much difference this makes.

Lessons from the Iowa Caucus

gregladen — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:52:16 +0000

Lessons from the Iowa Caucus

Increasingly, I feel the need to declare my position on the candidates before commenting on the process, because, increasingly, the conversation has become one of comparative litmus tests. So, here's the deal on that: I like Clinton and Sanders both, and I like each of them for both overlapping and different reasons. As a life long Democrat I'm glad to see such good candidates running. I will decide whom to support in the Minnesota Caucus some time after I walk into the building, most likely. Then, later, I will decide which candidate, if any, I might work for during the time between our caucus and the convention, though most likely it will be neither. I don't have a lot of money to donate to anything, but so far I have split my financial support evenly. After the convention (or a bit before if there is a clear winner a priori) I will do everything I can to move the chosen candidate into the White House, while at the same time working on my Congressional District and state wide races or issues.

The first thing we learned from the Iowa Caucus is that Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate who can win. I didn't doubt that before, but his showing in Iowa, a statistical tie, demonstrates this. This is not really too important in the big picture, partly because it simply reifies what was already known, and partly because Iowa (and New Hampshire) provide only a part of information needed to think strategically about the process. The way things are set up, we really won't know until Super Tuesday, I think, how the two candidates stand. South Carolina may tell us something about the alleged demographic disconnect that favors Clinton over Sanders, and Nevada may show us if Unions matter in this election, and who they matter to. But from that perspective (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada) it will be very difficult to predict Super Tuesday's outcome.

But, here's the thing: Bernie supporters who have shown a great deal of angst and jitteriness, to the point of sometimes acting inappropriately for a Primary, can relax a bit now. Your candidate is for real, we all know this. And best of luck to you and to us all.

At the same time, Clinton supporters who may have viewed Bernie as an anomalous inviable insurgent now know that isn't true. This should have been obvious all along, but for the doubters, stop doubting.

The second lesson is a bit more complex. On one hand, Clinton should have done better in Iowa, given the demographic match up. This puts Clinton on notice. Every campaign is like a herd of bison moving across the plains, with each bison being unique and likely to go in any of several directions. The efficient campaign tends to ignore the bison that are going in the "right" direction (for that campaign) and focus on those that seem likely to stray. I think Iowa demonstrates that some of Clinton's bison need to have a good talking to.

On the other hand, the Sanders campaign makes the point that the #FeelTheBern surge will not only carry Sanders past the demographic disconnects he faces, but that it will sprout a long and stable coat tail to bring Congress with him. Did going from an obscure(ish) Senator from an obscure(ish) state to nearly besting The Anointed One (for good reason) in Iowa constitute a Bern-Surge? Or was it not enough? The turnout in Iowa was pretty good, but it was not Obama-esque. To the extent that Obama's 2008 campaign is a model for a 2016 Sanders campaign, something is lacking here. This may or may not be important.

One test of the surgosity of the Sanders campaign may be South Carolina and Nevada. He is unlikely to win in South Carolina and Nevada is obscure. But if he does way better than expectations, that might mean that the surge if getting fueled (by itself, as surges do). I suppose New Hampshire could also be an indicator. Sanders will likely win that state. Not because New Hampshire and Vermont are clones -- they are very different. But because among Democrats, Sanders will be seen as something of a favorite son. (New Hampshire and Vermont share a long border, but most cross-state interconnections, I think, are: Vermont-Update NY, and Vermont-Berkshires/Pioneer Valley, MA; and New Hampshire-Greater Boston Areas.) In any event, if Sanders does better than X percent over Clinton in New Hampshire, that could be a post-Iowa surge-fueling effect. X is probably around 12% .

On the Republican side, there are more lessons than I want or need to discuss, but I'll mention two. First, as per this item, no matter how out of the box some of this year's campaigns seem to be (i.e., Trump's celebrity approach), the political process is a real, living entity that can't be ignored. Trump risks loss for doing so.

See: Dark Money by Jane Mayer

The other major lesson, I think, is that the field is now much smaller than it used to be. I'm not sure if any of the bottom tier candidates can recover, however, New Hampshire might bring one or two back into the race. But right now, it is looking like Trump-Cruz-Rubio. I've seen some convincing commentary that Cruz is actually not viable long term. I don't know if I believe that, even if I can hope it to be so. So, the Trump Will Burn Out theory says that Rubio is the GOP nominee, and based on overall patterns, likely the next President unless the Democrats pull their heads out of each other's butts and start focusing on the end game. I suppose it could be worse.

gregladen Tue, 02/02/2016 - 03:52

Tags

Rubio

I suspect the "bottom tier candidates" are meant for PAC donation fodder, where people donating money have been deceived in to thinking the money is going to those candidates--- and the Republican Party is getting almost all of it. Carson exists as a "candidate" exclusively to funnel money from morons in to Republican Party candidates other than him.

My concern about the current elections is that on the Republican Party side there appear to be no actual adults offered as candidates. I keep expecting the RNC to step in and reveal their real candidates.

Let me throw out some additional thoughts (certainly re: NH-VT-MA, because I am from there).

New Hampshire and Vermont are very different, it is true -- New Hampshire was in many ways more semi-industrial, for instance. That said, the demographics in New Hampshire favor Sanders, and he's local. The similarities between New Hampshire and the towns along the North Shore and getting up into Lawrence and Lowell work for Sanders here too: a guy that does well among college students working in Boston is a pretty good bet, given that the whole city runs along the beat of the academic calendar.

Let's leave aside the famous Harvard and MIT which have a lot of out of staters. There's BU, BC, UMass Boston, Bowdoin, Suffolk U, Mass Art, Berklee, Northeastern, Wentworth, Emerson, Mt. Ida, and about two dozen others and that's just in the city environs. In New Hampshire there's Dartmouth and UNH and the latter serves largely students from the area (and from Massachusetts -- we used to joke that if you wanted to go to high school again UNH was the way to do it). The areas outside of Boston are pretty college heavy too, and in many cases have some cross-over appeal to non-college educated white workers, I think, since the families that send their kids to Salem State U aren't exactly affluent. (People who aren't from there often don't see the myriad small public and private schools that cater to a lot of first-generation college students).

So Sanders has a big built-in advantage in the most populous districts in Massachusetts, and a base to work from out west too. (Williams, for instance, is out in the Berkshires).

So I could see -- if everything breaks right for him -- Sanders making a hell of a showing in New Hampshire, Vermont (of course) and Massachusetts. I should also add Sanders would have some appeal in Connecticut and Rhode Island, though a bit less. New England doesn't get you a ton of delegates but it was in some ways the "soul" of the Democratic party in the Northeast, punching above its weight; the party elites take what goes on there seriously enough that they might take steps if things don't go their way. (See: 2006, and what they did to Ned Lamont).

Outside of that Sanders is going to have some problems. He hasn't connected super well to nonwhite voters, and the behavior of a few of his supporters has been a real problem -- he needs to get the campaign on message and disciplined in a way that I suspect is a bit foreign to him if for no other reason than the sheer size. My own hypothesis is that the BernieBro phenomenon comes from relatively new activists -- people who aren't and haven't been terribly relevant to the progressive movements before but got a platform and ran with it. Unfortunately they are the ones who didn't have a nice sit down with the adults.

There's a whole other discussion here about the role of social media and all that. But getting back to Sanders: he needs to give nonwhites a reason to vote for him, and he hasn't, not really. His missteps with Black Lives Matter hurt him there. And as far as I know he has done zero outreach to Latino voters.

So I see Sanders as one who will do well in states where white-er progressives dominate -- Oregon, perhaps. Wisconsin. He will falter in states where they don't (Illinois, California). The latter are where the delegates are, and we haven't even gotten to the fact that a load of endorsements have gone to Hillary Clinton from the get-go.

Jesse, excellent analysis.

However, I disagree with one (not very important) point. Harvard is not as out of region as most people assume. When I worked/went to school there, I was surprised to learn what a large percentage of Harvard College students were from within 100 miles. Very large (can't remember). Among staff, 100% local, among faculty, very very local compared to what one might think, because of the relatively concentrated and insular nature of the academic community. Harvard is like the Yankees. Every academic department in the country with more than 15 people in it has at least one Harvard PhD, but at home, not so much the reverse.

Graduate school is the reverse, of course. In my program, counting the year before, mine, and the year after, to get up a good number, I think there were exactly two of us who were local, and I was actually form NY originally.

Thanks. I wasn't thinking that Harvard is that non-local -- lord knows in high school it was the go-to "reach" for every smart kid (sometimes I think the Valedictorian of every school in Massachusetts is contractually obligated to apply). Just that every time you mention schools in Boston people from outside the region say "Harvard" and "MIT" even though the numbers of students there relative to everywhere else is tiny. Both schools -- MIT even more so -- pride themselves on geographic diversity too, though as you note that doesn't always happen.

(There's a whole rant I could get into about the way Harvard chooses students that privileges people who are descendants of the "right" people, even decades after they dropped Jewish quotas and the like).

Further to the question of relating New Hampshire (my adopted home state) to the neighboring states: Southeastern New Hampshire is officially part of Greater Boston. But the bedroom towns in that part of the state is where you find the Tea Party types (it's not exactly rational, since tax-wise, they get the worst of both worlds: Massachusetts income tax and New Hampshire property tax), just as you find such people in exurban areas elsewhere in the country. Democrats are mostly concentrated in a few towns: Portsmouth/Dover/Durham area, Nashua, Concord, and to a lesser extent Manchester and Exeter. But north and west of Concord, it is very much like Vermont, and to a lesser extent western Maine. In particular, the Democratic primary electorate in those areas will be quite similar to Vermont's. Dartmouth is an anomaly (it's more of an Ivy League type environment), but it isn't big enough to make that much of a difference beyond Hanover and neighboring towns.

"The first thing we learned from the Iowa Caucus is that Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate who can win."

Sanders could win the nomination, but the election? It's possible that his candidacy could inspire many who otherwise wouldn't vote. I don't believe that he could inspire enough to elect a House and Senate that would support his agenda. What worries me most is the ability of the Republicans to attack Sanders as a socialist who wants to raise taxes on the middle class. To me, the combination of socialism and higher middle class taxes in an American election doesn't look like a winner.
I hope I'm wrong.

Each of the two remaining Democratic candidates have a huge question mark behind their names when it comes to a general election. Question marks that don't always come front and center in a party primary.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Hillary Clinton is a Clinton.

I'm not sure which is the larger cross to bear. Intuitively I'd say it's the 'socialist' tag that Republicans will try to beat Sanders with, but given the political atmosphere it might actually be an advantage.

Similarly the name 'Clinton' will just cause some voters to foam at the mouth - not all of them rabid Republicans. Yet, this too could be an advantage for Hillary; the Democratic Party almost by necessity requires a large African-American turnout to win elections in toss-up states. Other than Barack Obama, can anyone generate more excitement and approval in the African-American community than Bill Clinton?

Given what's presented on the GOP side, any Democrat that wouldn't fully support either Bernie or Hillary in the general election is a fool.

cosmicomics: "Sanders could win the nomination, but the election?" That depends on how he does in the other primaries. Each primary is a test of part of that question.

Kevin, it is not clear to me either which is the more relevant negative.

Jesse, don't forget Franklin Pierce, Keene State and St Anselm! I had a GF who went to Pierce - she was a Westwood chick who called the locals, "Humps from New Humpshire." I lived in Manchester for several years, and one of my friends taught at St A. Then I briefly lived in Keene and they called the Vermonters, "Woolly Bears." One of my favorite things to do in Keene was take the short drive to Brattleboro.

If Sanders and Trump supporters could somehow find common cause, they would be a force to reckon with. One of my work buddies swears that there's a stat that a lot of people are picking Trump and Sanders as their first and second choices right now. No matter what the media say about Iowa, people still want a change.

Donal--
Honestly I doubt Trump and Sanders voters have a lot in common, ultimately.

The polling crosstabs show that Sanders does well among (relatively) educated white liberals, with some crossover to nonwhites with college degrees. Trump is appealing to those without the degrees -- your non-college white workers.

This isn't to say that there are no non-college educated white workers who support Sanders -- he has the backing of several unions. But the idea that the two groups would somehow make common cause over dissatisfaction with the status quo is farfetched to me.

Trump's appeal is to a really nasty xenophobic streak. Those folks will not go near anyone who says they want to help people if it looks like people of color might be helped as well. This is a fundamental political reality that has existed for decades. One reason some welfare programs were attacked was precisely because they aided people of color. (Remember the "welfare queen?")

So no, I just don't buy the two groups coming together very much at all, except at the margins maybe.

Jesse, I think what Sanders and Trump supporters have in common is that they are being left behind in the economy. Yes they identify very different groups as the enemy. Trump voters blame immigrants while Sanders voters focus on the 1%. But I think they both suspect that the top 25% are also complicit in their fate. The top 25% support establishment candidates like Clinton and someone who isn't Trump or Cruz. I don't see nativists and millennials making common cause in this cycle, but it could happen eventually.

Some Thoughts About The New Hampshire Primaries

grrlscientist — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:24:27 +0000

Some Thoughts About The New Hampshire Primaries

tags: politics, NH primary, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential primaries, news coverage

Past Primary campaign buttons from the collections of the NH Historical Society and the NH Political Library.

Image: WBUR, Boston's NPR affiliate.

I was hanging out in my local watering hole last night, watching the primary coverage for New Hampshire on television until the results were announced. While I was there, I overheard a particularly empassioned conversation between the bartender (a musician in his mid-forties) and a "regular" (a medical doctor in his mid-fifties) where they were abusing Hillary Clinton for "crying" because she lost the Iowa caucus.

"No crying! Politics are for men!" They crowed arrogantly to each other.

Did Hillary actually cry? That's not what I've been reading in the newspapers this morning. Anyway, they both attributed Hillary's narrowly winning the NH Democratic primary to this emotional "outburst". Do you agree with their observation?

As you know, I am not a fan of Hillary (I don't dislike her, either, I am simply .. neutral about her), however, I think that crediting a few seconds of an "emotional display" to winning a state presidential primary is completely ludacris.

People are missing the fact that this was a real primary and not a caucus, which means that the residents of New Hampshire were not participating in a socail event, they were secluded in a little voting booth where no one but themselves could see who they were actually voting for.

Anyway, here are a few of my thoughts about Clinton and Obama; even though Barack is reputed to be more liberal that Hillary, I have my doubts since Barack is apparently more attractive to independents than is Hillary, and independents are typically less liberal than the average Democrat, which explains why they swing from D to R and back again. Futher, from what I have read and seen (I do live in NYstate afterall), Hillary is more practical and down-to-earth than the more charismatic Barack (I have read both his memoirs afterall), which makes her plans and her track record more realistic and more achievable than Barack's, especially in view of the problems currently being experienced in this country. And what did you think of the fact that by winning, Hillary is the first woman to ever win a state primary? I think that's really impressive (and long overdue), despite my abivalence towards all the democratic candidates in general.

Interestingly, today's news coverage is mostly focused on asking how was it possible for Hillary to win NH? Um, huh? What happened in the media to cause Hillary to go from the predicted Democratic presidential front-runner to an also-ran after the Iowa caucus, which is simply a glorified party night instead of a real primary?

Based on all this falderall, it makes me think that the real (unspoken) prejudice is what I've often sensed with regards to Hillary; most people in this country simply do not like intelligent and articulate women who have strong personalities.

Okay, I can't resist. While I am talking about last night's primary, I wanted to point out a couple random observations of the NH primary coverage, for example; did you notice that Ron Paul's slice of the CNN pie chart did not have his name next to it, whereas Rudy Giuliani's identically-sized slice did? Did you notice that Hillary had a group of young voters behind her when she made her victory speech last night, instead of Madeleine Albright? I was just wondering what you thought of all that and if you noticed anything other oddities regarding the news coverage that I didn't see?

grrlscientist Wed, 01/09/2008 - 08:24

Tags

Politics

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton