4:05pm Thursday With all precincts reporting, there were almost 297,000 votes in this year’s Democratic primary, up from just over 253,000 in 2016. So Democratic turnout in New Hampshire was well up on 2016, but this is partly explained by having an uncontested Republican race.
The final outcome is Sanders 25.7%, Buttigieg 24.4%, Klobuchar 19.8%, Warren 9.2% and Biden 8.4%.
8:18pm Conversation article up. I argue that Klobuchar has a good case for being electable. She won her three Minnesota Senate races by at least 20 points, far exceeding the presidential lean of Minnesota. She’s 59, so she doesn’t fall into the 70+ category.
Also, the FiveThirtyEight forecast has the chance that nobody wins a pledged delegate majority up to 33% (one in three). We could be heading for the first contested convention since 1952. The next two contests are the Feb 22 Nevada caucus and Feb 29 South Carolina primary. Then it’s Super Tuesday on March 3.
3:05pm Two US TV networks have CALLED the New Hampshire primary for Bernie Sanders.
2:50pm With 82% in, Sanders’ lead over Buttigieg down to 1.7%. The NY Times Needle gives him a 68% chance to win. Hardly a convincing victory in a state where he crushed Clinton 60-38 in 2016.
2:22pm Sanders’ lead over Buttigieg down to 2.1% with 69% in. The NY Times Needle gives Sanders a 59% chance to win.
2:07pm Took a break for lunch, but didn’t miss much. Sanders 2.5% ahead of Buttigieg with 64% in (26.4% to 23.9%). Klobuchar has 20.1%, and both Biden and Warren have less than 10%, and will both miss the 15% threshold to win any NH delegates.
1:02pm CNN has Sanders still ahead in NH by 4.4% over Buttigieg with 41% in.
1pm The NY Times needle is now giving Sanders just a 53% chance to win, with 33% for Buttigieg and 14% Klobuchar. However, Wasserman on Twitter is projecting Klobuchar will finish third.
12:47pm The NY Times needle is giving Sanders a 59% chance of winning, with Buttigieg a 33% chance and Klobuchar 8%. But for some reason, CNN’s results are more up to date than the NY Times.
12:37pm With 32% in in the Dem primary, 27.8% Sanders, 23.5% Buttigieg, 20.0% Klobuchar. Gap opening up between Buttigieg and Klobuchar for 2nd place. Warren and Biden still at less than 10%.
12:35pm In the Republican primary, Trump has 85%.
12:25pm Dave Wasserman on Twitter
The three major center/left candidates so far (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden): 53%
Sanders/Warren: 36%
But, the first group's failure to consolidate is the best thing going for Bernie Sanders.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) February 12, 2020
12:17pm 28% Sanders, 23% Buttigieg, 21% Klobuchar with 20% in on the CNN results.
12:12pm 28% Sanders, 22.5% Buttigieg, 20.5% Klobuchar, less than 10% for both Warren and Biden in CNN results with 17% in.
12:05pm CNN is back ahead of the NY Times, and has 28% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 20% Klobuchar, 9% Warren, 9% Biden with 14% in.
12pm With 7% in, 28% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 20% Klobuchar, 12% Warren, 7.5% Biden. US election analysts on Twitter are saying Sanders should win.
11:50am With 5% reporting, the NY Times has 30% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 18% Klobuchar, 12% Warren and just 7% Biden.
11:40am The CNN New Hampshire results give Sanders 27%, Klobuchar 22%, Buttigieg 21%, Warren just 11% and Biden 8%. That’s with an estimated 3% in. So Klobuchar has had a massive surge in New Hampshire.
Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at the University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
The final RealClearPolitics poll average for today’s New Hampshire Democratic primary gives Bernie Sanders 28.7%, Pete Buttigieg 21.3%, Amy Klobuchar 11.7%, and Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren both 11.0%. Most polls close at 11am AEDT, with some staying open until 12pm. Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire is a primary, not a caucus. Primaries are administered by the state’s election authorities, not by a party. Counting is slow in New Hampshire.
Sinn Féin comes first in Irish election
Irish politics has been dominated by two conservative parties: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. But at Saturday’s election, the far-left Sinn Féin upset this order by coming first on first preferences with 24.5% (up a massive 10.7% since the 2016 election). Fianna Fáil was second with 22.2% (down 2.1%) and the governing Fine Gael third with 20.9% (down 4.7%). The Greens won 7.1% (up 4.4%). Irish Labour has never been a strong party, and won just 4.4% (down 2.2%).
While Sinn Féin advocates a united Ireland, its success at this election appears to be the result of a campaign focused on homelessness and hospital waiting lists.
Despite winning the popular vote, Sinn Féin was second in lower house seats with 37 of the 160 (up 14). Fianna Fáil won 38 (down six), Fine Gael 35 (down 14), the Greens 12 (up ten), other left-wing parties 17 (up one) and independents 19 (steady). There were two more total seats than in 2016. A Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael grand coalition would have 73 seats, short of the 81 needed for a majority. Government formation is likely to be difficult.
In Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system, which is used in Ireland, leakage from within parties has occasionally cost seats. In Ireland, leakage is a bigger problem, as the ballot paper lists candidates alphabetically, not by party grouping (see Antony Green). To reduce leakage, Sinn Féin only nominated 42 candidates, and were unable to benefit as much as they should have from their late campaign surge.
Previous Irish elections have been held during the working week, but this one was on Saturday. Turnout was expected to increase, but it actually fell 2.2% to 62.9%.
I guess you could say the voters least worried about Bernie’s health are the ones most worried about their own
“Bernie’s advocating for a “pretty radical” program, but he doesn’t appeal to minorities.”
***
Bernie is very popular with Latinos and also polls quite well with African Americans. It is Klobuchar and Buttigieg who are struggling to appeal to those communities.
Analysis: Sanders ran the table with Latinos in Iowa
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won big among Latino voters in this week’s Iowa caucuses, according to previously unreleased data from the UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Initiative.
In the state’s four Spanish-language caucus sites, Sanders won almost unanimously, obtaining 428 votes against a combined 14 divided between former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.
This is the first presidential election in which Iowa Democrats have made Spanish-language satellite caucus sites available.
“All of them [voted for Sanders]. It’s amazing what you do when you go to the community to listen to them and then hire them,” said Sanders senior adviser Chuck Rocha, the architect of the campaign’s Latino strategy.
https://thehill.com/latino/482030-analysis-sanders-ran-the-table-with-latinos-in-iowa
Firefox and Mr Newbie – Funnily enough, it’s not people like me that you need to convince. I’m not a big Bernie fan, obviously (though I kinda like him in a personal sense), but in the end I know what side I’m on, and I would support whoever the Democratic nominee is. Anybody would be an improvement on the incumbent.
However, by refusing to acknowledge even the slightest flaw in Sanders, you are failing to engage with real doubts that people on the fence might have about him. Not everyone is going to just turn up and vote for anyone with a (D) next to their name. The fact that you’ve both been a bit defensive in your responses kinda proves my point, for whatever that’s worth.
For my own part, I hold no candle for any of the remaining candidates, and I think they all come with significant risks (which I have laid out previously), and in the end, there’s no way to be sure of which candidate will work until they are there at the pointy end. It’s true that Sanders probably worries me more as a possible nominee than some of the others, but that doesn’t mean he’s a certain dud.
Hugoaugogo @ #445 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 3:39 pm
Bros, boosters, fans, bloody whinging, hero, paranoid……… A virtual A-Z of how to win friends and influence people there, Hugoaugogo.
Hugoaugogo
But the ‘flaws’ you mention, such as being too old, really aren’t that big a flaw in the context of 3 of Bernie’s ‘peers’, including the incumbent President, being in the same age bracket. If people peddling that line were also stating that Trump is too old and needs to not contest this election (because of his age), maybe I’d buy that it was a genuinely-held belief.
Being “too radical” didn’t hinder Trump in winning the 2016 election. One could easily argue that he is the most “radical” candidate there has ever been.
US elections are a different ball-game to our elections. Winning over Joe Average who never engages with politics is not as critical to your campaign when 100 million of your country’s citizens don’t even bother showing up to vote.
“However, by refusing to acknowledge even the slightest flaw in Sanders, you are failing to engage with real doubts that people on the fence might have about him. Not everyone is going to just turn up and vote for anyone with a (D) next to their name. The fact that you’ve both been a bit defensive in your responses kinda proves my point, for whatever that’s worth.”
***
I’m not going to acknowledge things that have no merit and are simply part of a scare campaign against the left. What is telling is how desperate the establishment and their supporters are increasingly getting. They’re feeling the Bern and the panic is setting in.
No, everyone is not going to turn up and just vote for anyone with a D next to their name. That is correct and is exactly why we can’t just whack some uninspiring right wing establishment clone like Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar. That is asking for a replay of 2016.
OK, you’ve convinced me, The Great Radical is perfect. How could I ever have thought otherwise?
A perfect person doesn’t exist and would be suspicious of anyone that came across as perfect.
I just don’t think you’ve noticed it for some reason. Here’s CNN, in July last year: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/politics/joe-biden-age-2020-debate/index.html
Or The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/joe-biden-age-2020/593350/
Perhaps the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/us/politics/joe-biden-age.html
New York Magazine in August: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/biden-age-democratic-primaries.html
Politico in August: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-age-media-227499
The Washington Post in September: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/13/bidens-age-is-real-issue-that-doesnt-mean-its-easy-talk-about/
CNN is back again in September: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/07/politics/joe-biden-age-2020-race/index.html
Here’s AP in October on both Biden and Sanders: https://apnews.com/8d03bf803438476c8b72ac6035248659
I don’t think you can sustain the idea that the MSM has been harping on Sanders’ age but ignoring Biden’s.
So a centrist is annoyed that Bernie’s supporters are not helping them to highlight Bernie’s flaws? This is not a reasonable thing to be annoyed about. The centrist media is biased against Bernie – this is reflected in their relative lack of coverage of his campaign over a period of many months, and their habit of marginalising him and his supporters with right-wing talking points. For many months the centrist media’s line about Bernie was that his campaign was going nowhere and was not worthy of coverage. Now, suddenly, their line is that Bernie is failing because he is only winning by slim margins when he should be winning in landslides. At no point in between these two diametrically opposed narratives did they cover him as a frontrunner. It is very clear that the people who work in the corporate-controlled media simply don’t identify with the issues that Bernie’s candidacy highlights, don’t identify with his supporters, perpetuate myths about his supporters, cannot understand why he is a significant political figure, and end up reinforcing narratives that help their corporate owners retain power and wealth.
Bernie Sanders Has an MSNBC Problem
After last Friday’s Democratic debate, Chris Matthews waxed apoplectic about what electing a socialist could mean for America. “I have an attitude towards [Fidel] Castro,” he said. “I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park, and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering, OK?” Matthews’s colleagues pointed out that Sanders was more of a Danish type of socialist than a Castro type of socialist, but to little avail.
Two days later, James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former campaign guru, went on Morning Joe to rant about how a Sanders nomination would bring about the apocalypse. Literally. “The only thing between the United States and the abyss is the Democratic Party,” he said. “That’s it. If we go the way of the British Labour Party, if we nominate Jeremy Corbyn, it’s going to be the end of days.” The same day, Chuck Todd, who also hosts NBC’s Meet the Press, read from an article from the right-wing website The Bulwark comparing supporters of Sanders, who is Jewish, to “brownshirts.”
And in the lead-up to Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, Lawrence O’Donnell argued that the real story was that Bernie was losing momentum because his poll numbers were down from the last Democratic primary—even though he is now facing more than a half-dozen opponents, compared to 2016, when he faced one. “The story of the Sanders campaign so far this year is how much ground he’s lost from four years ago,” O’Donnell said. He also ignored the fact that Sanders is leading nationally, which wasn’t the case in 2016.
This is not a new phenomenon. An analysis by In These Times found that Sanders “received not only the least total coverage (less than one-third of Biden’s), but the most negative” coverage on MSNBC’s prime-time programming. MSNBC’s hostility to Sanders presents a sharp contrast to Fox News’s treatment of Trump. “Fox sycophancy dominates its prime-time hours, as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity praise Dear Leader, and the morning shift, when the hosts of Fox & Friends supply him with ample supplication,” Jack Shafer wrote in 2017. “Trump completes this unvirtuous circle by tweeting back his approval. The ensuing feedback loop serves both the man and the network, making both seem larger than they really are.”
That is not to say that MSNBC, or any journalistic entity, should attempt to replicate Fox’s propagandistic approach to “news” programming. But the antipathy toward Sanders points to larger issues at the network.
While other media outlets, particularly in print, have grappled with the rise of leftists such as Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in recent years, MSNBC’s prime-time shows have invested heavily in coverage of the president’s war with the “deep state” and his ties to Russia. MSNBC has become increasingly filled with talking heads with national security experience—not exactly the type of people who can speak to the rise of democratic socialism in the Democratic Party. With some exceptions, such as All In With Chris Hayes, MSNBC has been obsessed with unraveling Dan Brown-ish ties between Trump and foreign leaders, often letting the issues that Sanders talks about, like health care and income inequality, fall by the wayside.
MSNBC is also a prominent stage for the Democratic elites that Sanders has bashed for his entire political career. His primary strategy is built around ignoring more traditional paths to the nomination, snubbing party mandarins who appear on Morning Joe in favor of turning out new voters. Indeed there is some anecdotal evidence that MSNBC’s distaste for him is helping—a New Hampshire voter told the network on Tuesday that she was voting for Sanders because of the network’s negative coverage of the candidate. “It made me angry, and I said, ‘OK, Bernie has my vote,’” she said.
https://newrepublic.com/article/156545/bernie-sanders-msnbc-problem
“I don’t think you can sustain the idea that the MSM has been harping on Sanders’ age but ignoring Biden’s.”
***
You’ve produced a handful of articles over the span of months.
The funny thing is that the establishment were running the line that Sanders was too old all the way back in 2016 when he was running against Clinton! He was 75 then, younger than Biden and Bloomberg are now. So yes, they certainly have been going after Bernie unfairly.
Bernie Sanders is too old
FEB 05, 2016
In Thursday’s Democratic town hall, Anderson Cooper [CNN presenter] raised an issue about Bernie Sanders that Hillary Clinton, for obvious reasons, has not: his age. The Vermont senator will be 75 this year, which means he would be the oldest person ever to enter the White House. Ronald Reagan, who currently holds the record, was inaugurated his first time at age 69.
Young people don’t seem to care that Sanders was born before Pearl Harbor. But they should. By any sensible standard, Sanders is way past his presidential sell date.
Clinton has avoided the issue, probably because she’ll be 69 this year in October. But not only is she six years younger than her opponent, she’s a woman. The average additional life expectancy for a 69-year-old white woman in this country is 17 years. The average 75-year-old white male can expect less than 11 more years.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-bernie-sanders-is-too-old-20160205-story.html
We dealt with this same nonsense four years ago. It’s a disgraceful distraction.
It’s not “disgraceful” to raise Sanders’ age as an issue. He’s a good decade older than pretty much any one else ever elected President, and he had a heart attack just last year. Seems to be it’s pretty pertinent, and it’s also not an issue that he’s really addressed yet. Of course, he’s not the only OAP running, with Biden and Bloomberg also at discount bus fare age. To my mind, they are too old too. Klobuchar is probably the only remaining candidate in the age seer spot (she’s 59), though despite her recent surge, she’s still got a ways to go to get the nomination, and of course she has her own flaws.
Firefox
MSNBC are absolutely beyond hope. I remember a few months ago one of their panelists, Mimi Rocah, thinking it was ok to say (in full high school junior bitch mode) “Sanders makes my skin crawl”. What a snakepit of hate.
Hugoaugogo @ #457 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 4:38 pm
Now now, this is not the time for petulance.
Hugoaugogo:
When you’re at the ballot box, do you think to yourself ‘hmmm… I’d like to vote for (X Party) candidate, as I think their policies are really good. Except… they’re just too old to be doing this’ and preference Y Party, who are running a younger candidate, but whose policies aren’t quite as good, first instead?
If so, what are you doing on a psephology blog? Surely Who Weekly have a Facebook page or a Twitter account that might be better suited to your desire to rank candidates according to their physical attributes.
Sander’s decrepitude problem is solved when you consider that around 40% of milleniels believe that the Second World War occurred during their lifetime.
Couple this with Sander’s being born during the Second World War and Bernie’s Your Uncle.
Mr Newbie – how I choose to vote is actually pretty irrelevant. I’m highly engaged with politics, like pretty much everyone else on this site. However, the overwhelming bulk of the voting public are not particularly engaged with politics, and they are the people candidates need to convince to vote for them. I vote Left every single time, and so, no, personally it wouldn’t bother me about Sanders’ age if I liked everything else about him. And as I’ve said numerous times, if Sanders is indeed the nominee (and I was eligible to vote in the US), of course I’d vote for him. But don’t kid yourself that there aren’t voters out there for whom his age will be an issue.
The responses to Hugo read like a parody of Sanders’ supporters. Honestly. I’d think it was a send-up if I didn’t know it was real.
My question about Sanders in the primary still stands. In the primary, at least 80,000 people in NH who voted for Sanders in 2016 did not do so yesterday. Do you think this has any bearing on how Sanders may perform in states he did not win in 2016? Do you think he will perform better in states like SC where he did poorly in 2016 while doing worse in states like NH where he did well in 2016?
Before anyone starts further parodying themselves:
– I have no idea what the answers to these questions might be
– I am only interested in how yesterday’s results might translate to the rest of the primary
– I am not suggesting thay Sanders is any more or less electable in the Presidential election than any other candidate
– I honest to Christmas don’t care who it is as long as it isn’t Trump
– I am not, to the best of my knowledge, part of a shady billionaire / lamestream media / DNC / Russian cabal that’s out to get Sanders at all costs
Lets face it, Biden and Bloomberg – and even Trump don’t “look” really old like Bernie does.
Bernie with a bit of a hunch back, wily white hair and a raw passion that none of the other Septuagenerians have makes him the ultimate ‘mad old uncle’ caricature.
Thats why, in my opinion, Biden and Bloomberg don’t get the ‘too old’ treatment like Bernie does.
Not that its an issue at all for me, mind.
“It’s not “disgraceful” to raise Sanders’ age as an issue”
***
Yes it is. It’s called being ageist and is a form of discrimination. Sanders has the same right as anyone else his age to run for president. It has been used as a smear campaign against him for years.
And please don’t make up false nonsense. Sanders has not only addressed his heart attack, he went much further…
Sanders releases letters from 3 doctors attesting to good health
The physicians said the 78-year-old’s recent heart attack isn’t an impediment to his pursuit of the presidency.
Bernie Sanders on Monday released letters from three physicians detailing the health of the 78-year-old Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate, and attesting to his fitness to ascend to the Oval Office.
Although the state of Sanders’ physical well-being has come under greater scrutiny since he suffered a heart attack in October, the senator’s primary-care physician concluded in a note dated Saturday that he is “in good health currently.”
Brian Monahan, the attending physician of the U.S. Congress, whose office has treated Sanders for 29 years, also wrote that the senator has been “engaging vigorously in the rigors of your campaign, travel, and other scheduled activities without any limitation.”
Philip Ades, director of cardiac rehabilitation at the University of Vermont Medical Center, wrote that Sanders is “more than fit enough to pursue vigorous activities and an occupation that requires stamina and an ability to handle a great deal of stress.”
Martin LeWinter, Sanders’ personal cardiologist and an attending cardiologist at UVM, wrote that the senator “has made an uneventful recovery” from his heart attack and concluded: “I am confident he has the mental and physical stamina to fully undertake the rigors of the Presidency.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/30/sanders-releases-letters-doctors-health-091263
“I vote Left every single time”
***
I hope so 🙂
https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2019
Hugoaugogo:
Again, the overwhelming bulk of the American public do not need to be won over, as they do not even vote. Unlike here, the disengaged can just not bother to show up.
So that leaves people who are interested enough to get out and vote, despite the inconvenience. Who ‘wins over’ such people? The bland, let’s-keep-things-as-they-are-for-eternity-because-real-change-is-not-possible candidate, or the ‘radical’ candidate who inspires passion in their followers and makes them believe that necessary change is possible? As the 2016 election showed, it ain’t the former.
It’s amazing that people need to be informed how having more candidates in the race than last time splits the vote. Would have thought most people could’ve figured that out for themselves…
“In the primary, at least 80,000 people in NH who voted for Sanders in 2016 did not do so yesterday. Do you think this has any bearing on how Sanders may perform in states he did not win in 2016? ”
Short answer, no.
Look at it logically 3z, in 2016 there were literally 2 candidates. The third guy dropped out after getting less than 1% at Iowa. This fact obviously has to be factored in. It means that Bernie represented the only non-Hillary alternative, which means, obviously, that for any voting democrat who didn’t want to vote for Hillary (and God knows there were a lot), they had but one option.
This time round the field is full, and the number of viable candidates is around 6. It means those 80 thousand voters who never really liked Bernie in the first place, and would have voted for an alternative to both Bernie and Hillary had there been one – now have that luxury. ‘Thank God’ they say – I’m not forced to vote for that old socialist loon. Point being, it doesn’t mean that Bernie is any more or less popular than he was in 2016. just consider those 80 thousand votes as a vote *against* Hillary, not a vote for Bernie.
And so in a crowded field, which includes a whole bunch of so called ‘moderate’ viable candidates, the votes are split. Obviously that means that no one candidate is going to get anywhere near what either Hillary or Bernie were getting in 2016. You then need to look at the prospects of each candidate from this starting position. And when we do that, what do we see? Who won the first primary? Who is surging in the national polls in the wake of this primary, such that he is now the clear frontrunner? We all know the answer to these questions, even if some here can’t bear to acknowledge it.
Now 3z, if you are still determined to fall back to 2016 and look at Bernie’s incomparable primary figures to somehow “prove” that he is doing worse now – I merely ask that you consider just this: think of that key question I asked just now about the 2020 democratic primary race – ie who is the clear frontrunner in the race based on current polling and early results – and now think about what the answer to the question would have been at this same stage in 2016 – Hillary or Bernie? I expect you know, but just in case, I’ll give you a hint: Hillary smashed Bernie in just about all the polls – all the way through the primaries- from February to June – and frequently by a margin by as much as 20%
Mr Newbie – you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that people who post on sites like this are somehow representative. We are not. Of course there will be millions of unengaged Americans who could vote, but won’t. But equally there will be millions of Americans who aren’t obsessed with the entrails of politics like we are, but who still take an interest, and, if New Hampshire and Iowa are any guide, three quarters of them aren’t buying what Sanders is selling. That might change, of course, but it won’t be due to blind partisans who refuse to acknowledge even the smallest chink in their hero’s armour.
Hugoaugogo – you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that if people don’t accept that the flaws you assert Bernie has are actually flaws then they are idiots.
Further, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the more frequently and more vitriolically you tell people that they are idiots the more likely it is that they will come to agree with you.
AngoraFish – nice piece of projection, but I actually think I’ve been pretty measured. All I’ve done is point out some pretty self-evident flaws in Bernie Sanders as a Presidential candidate, as I’ve done with pretty much everyone else in the race. I actually think it’s great that Bernie gets people engaged and active, and I would expect them to push back on criticism of him. All I’m seeking to do is to introduce a bit of perspective that may or may not end up being highly relevant. I personally find the Bernie love a bit much, but I don’t actually think less of people who do feel that way. I’m not so sure that respect is always reciprocated, but in the final analysis, it’s of no great consequence to me what the views of anonymous posters on a psephology site have to say about US politics, and nor should it be to anyone else. But it’s all good fun, and personally, I quite like engaging with people who think differently to me. Happy to apologise to anyone who feels offended, but I really can’t see how I could have.
Big A Adrian
Nice job of pointing out the evident differences between the 2016 and 2020 New Hampshire primaries. It’s like comparing apples and oranges although I’m sure Sanders wouldn’t have minded winding up with a bigger margin. And who wouldn’t!
Listen to the hyperbole against Sanders coming from the right. They are rabid. the same thing happened to Corbyn. The elite are petrified that someone will actually change things and restore worker’s rights and aspirations. Not on their watch.
C@tmomma,
As one who survived a heart attack 5 years ago at the age of 53, I’m fully aware that at some point in the future I will suffer another one – be it within 5 years, 10 years or perhaps 25 years. The thing is, it is going to happen and to be in charge of the no 1 nation on earth, is a risk that will be fore front should he win the Democrat nomination. Nothing surer.
This is for Andrew_Earlwood. It’s his Dream Team:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/greetings-from-the-alternate-universe-where-oprah-and-michelle-obama-are-running-for-president/2020/02/12/54d05d18-4ba1-11ea-b721-9f4cdc90bc1c_story.html
Age and illness does affect people’s performance if you look at a large group. It might be a positive or negative on average though. Obviously it’s much more reliable to judge an individual based on their performance though.
Thanks Big A Adrian. Your considered repsonse is welcome, particualrly in comparison to the contribution of Firefox, whose sneering condescension is so representative of the caricatures of the worst of Sanders supporters, or more locally, the absolute defintion of a Green.
I accept that you’d expect to see Sanders’ vote fall in a bigger field. But not by more than half. If the argument is he was an anti-Hillary in 2016, that’s not really an argument for him being the all but anointed candidate. Particularly so when his opponents (with the possible exception of Warren) are indefatiguably derided by Sanders supporters as being exactly the same kind of dreaded establishment, centrists as Clinton.
But we’ll see eventually and possibly soon. I’m not willing to even attempt to predict the outcome given the lunacy of the American primary system.
kirky
There is a good chance you won’t have another heart attack esp if risk factors are controlled.
I do have a question for all the Bernie Sanders fans. If your man doesn’t end up getting the nomination, which of the other remaining candidates might at least partially float your boat? I get that you are pretty dismissive of Bloomberg and Biden (and I pretty much agree with you on those two), but what of the others? I’m guessing you’d prefer Warren (and she’s long been my choice), but it looks like she’s fading. Do either Klobuchar or Buttigieg do anything for you? Would you campaign for them (or even vote for them) in the general against Trump if you had a vote? Note, I’m asking you to have a go at you, I’m just generally curious what your preferred fall-back option(s) are.
“ This is for Andrew_Earlwood. It’s his Dream Team“
Oh yeah …
I’m no great medical aficionado but wouldn’t it be better to have had a mild heart attack, to get a stent fitted, to attend to diet and physical activity than to go on guzzling Maccas and believing exercise just drains your finite tank of energy like that walking cardiac time-bomb Trump?
Hugoaugogo @ #486 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 11:18 pm
Obviously Warren and at least Klobuchar doesn’t seem to be a lapdog of the establishment.
clem attlee says:
Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 10:11 pm
Listen to the hyperbole against Sanders coming from the right. They are rabid. the same thing happened to Corbyn. The elite are petrified that someone will actually change things and restore worker’s rights and aspirations. Not on their watch.
——————————
Corbyn lost a swag of traditionally safe Labour areas that were held for decades and you blame the elite. The more i read your comments the more i am seeing the left’s problem. Maybe the critics actually want the Democrats to win but they see problems with Sanders.
Bellwether
If I was booking both for surgery, I wouldn’t be concerned by either having an anaesthetic now that Bernie is 6 months post stent and symptom free. I would even ring my anaesthetist to warn then. They could both be seen on the day. I’d be a bit worried Trump had undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea.
Bernies anticoagulants would be a bit of a pain to manage.
3z, I would respond by saying that Bernie has consolidated and even expanded his popularity since 2016. Back then he was merely a “anyone but Hillary” candidate for probably most of the people who voted for him. Now over a quarter of democrat voters are voting for him because he is their favourite candidate from a large field. My feeling is he didn’t have those kind of numbers in 2016. But surely the most important consideration here is that he currently has the largest vote share. Of course that may change, but if you had to bet on who the nominee would be based only on who is doing the best at the moment – then Bernie undeniably is odds on favourite.
On another note, for those talking up the chances of the 2 new moderate hopefulls – Buttigieg and Klobuchar (honestly, was there an eligibility criteria to be the hardest name to pronounce??) – its worth putting things in perspective by looking at their standing in the current national polls:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
From the most recent averages, we have Buttigieg on just over 10% and Klobuchar on 4.6%. Biden, the guy everyone seems to have written off, is still on 19% and a clear 2nd place.
Hugoaugogo
Have you asked that same question of the fanbase for any other candidate? Seems you’re convinced the typical Bernie fan is the caricature you’ve been shown on twitter.
Reminder that the term ‘Bernie bro’ is nothing more than a MSM concoction
“I do have a question for all the Bernie Sanders fans. If your man doesn’t end up getting the nomination, which of the other remaining candidates might at least partially float your boat?”
Its a moot point as Bernie will almost certainly be in the final two. I suppose there’s a remote chance that Bloomberg might charge through and put him in 3rd, but its just as likely that by that stage it will be between him and Bernie.
So the answer is obviously, whoever beats Bernie.
“Thanks Big A Adrian. Your considered repsonse is welcome, particualrly in comparison to the contribution of Firefox, whose sneering condescension is so representative of the caricatures of the worst of Sanders supporters, or more locally, the absolute defintion of a Green.”
***
Oh please. You’re the one that barged your way into this thread and started trolling me and my party (Greens) straight away, while pretty much everyone else was trying to have a reasonable discussion about US politics. So don’t have a sook when I push back against your nonsense. Maybe try and contribute something worthwhile to the discussion next time instead of attacking Greens supporters because of your prejudice against us.
Bernie’s base seems to extend far beyond the local university campus, he polls particularly well in low qualified counties which are the same counties that went to Trump.
Mexican Beemer – yes, that’s true to some extent. The exit polls out of NH suggest that Sanders’ coalition is made up of young voters (18-30), where he creamed the rest, and lower income people.
Here’s an interesting breakdown:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/exit-polls-2020-new-hampshire-primary/
“I do have a question for all the Bernie Sanders fans. If your man doesn’t end up getting the nomination, which of the other remaining candidates might at least partially float your boat?”
***
Warren would be my next preference for sure. Think it’s becoming pretty obvious that she will drop out far sooner than Bernie though.
After that? Hmm probably Buttigieg? But I fear he has the most difficult road to the presidency of any of them. And I do think that’s terrible. It shouldn’t be that way, especially in 2020.
I guess what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger:
https://www.gq.com/story/mainstream-media-vs-bernie-sanders
I have a question for those proponents of the ‘coalescence’ theory – that is that eventually all the moderates will ‘coalesce’ around one of the moderate candidates to defeat Bernie.
Exactly how will moderates decide who is *the* chosen moderate candidate? On current polling, Biden is still the best chance – yet everyone seems to have written him off already. Seems that there are a lot of democrat voters who haven’t got the memo that Biden is toast. Or are democrats expected to jump on the Buttigieg bandwagon purely on the success of two rather unrepresentative (too white) caucus/primary? What happens when some democrats start turning to Buttigieg because of what the media is telling them (he has “momentum” dontcha know!) – and then meanwhile Biden starts winning in the states he was always expected to do well in?
Sooo.. isn’t it likely that in an attempt to ‘coalesce’, as people term it, the moderate vote will just become even more split than it already is?
Meanwhile, Bernie will just keep quietly winning…