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%.
It’s pretty simplistic to look at any US primary and conclude that Candidate X was the “winner” because he/she got a slightly higher percentage of the votes than other contenders. LBJ famously won the 1968 New Hampshire primary with 49% of the vote, and then withdrew from the campaign because he considered himself effectively to be a loser.
I think Sanders will be privately quite disappointed with his result in NH. He might have the single largest tally of votes, and is therefore can declare himself the winner at a simplistic level. But the reality is that large numbers of people who voted for him in 2016 have decided either not to show up to vote, or also to choose someone other than Bernie this time. No way is that a good result for him.
a r
“They both have a whopping 19 out of the 2,376 delegates (0.8%) they need to win the nomination.”
Correct
“Clearly there’s no chance that anyone other than Sanders will win. No chance at all.”
I have a preference for Bernie and think he can win, but am under no illusion that it’s a sure thing, with the party machine and the media up against him. I just hope that if someone else does beat him, it’s done so fair and square, since party unity will depend on most Bernie voters not feeling cheated. The outcome from Iowa makes me nervous about this.
Bellwether,
It’s UnAustralian to attack a winner!?! What are you, an American!?! It’s unAmerican to attack a winner, but in Australia we do it all the time. It’s called the Tall Poppy Syndrome. I also have attacked Scott Morrison and the Coalition for their win in 2019, and rightly so.
Gee, the dislike for Sanders from some on here really does bring out the irrational; I had forgotten just how much so until now, but this is bringing back memmories of 2016! But this time it is much better; now winning is considered a “terrible result”, and supporters of the winning candidate are apparently “drowning”. I want more “terrible results” and to experience more “drowning” please!
C@tmomma @ #203 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 4:08 pm
When you said I’ve been a bludger for 2-ups (I don’t know what that means) were you pulling rank?
A Phyrric Victory for Sanders.
But NH has weeded out some noise in Yang, and a few more must be wheezing onto 3 March Super Tuesday.
sprocket_ @ #206 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 4:15 pm
Biden and Warren. Biden putting all his money on South Carolina to win. Though I heard a data scientist say that he has lost 20% of the African American vote in South Carolina since the Iowa Caucuses!
Bellwether @ #205 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 4:13 pm
If I was pulling rank I would have added wtte, ‘and I’ve been here a lot longer than you!’. I didn’t. Purely and simply I was affronted that someone who has only been contributing here for a short time could be so personally abusive! Repeatedly.
Matt31 @ #204 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 4:13 pm
Absolutely, it’s intense. Actually it’s Alice through the looking glass stuff. I’m aware Sanders would have preferred to have done better but nevertheless he did actually win.
matt31
“Gee, the dislike for Sanders from some on here really does bring out the irrational;”
I like Sanders. But I don’t like his chances of beating Trump. I’m a pragmatist.
C@tmomma
How long do you estimate I’ve been here?
“large numbers of people” voted for Bernie in 2016 for no other reason than he was the only non-Hillary candidate. It should surprise no one that many of them are now choosing other candidates when it is no longer a 2 horse race.
Its simply ridiculous comparing apples with oranges.
Bernie just won 2 out of 2, is now surging in the national polls, and is now the favourite amongst bookies. But apparently he is struggling and will be quietly dissapointed. Simply hillarious.
Not that I’m pencilling in a Bernie win at this stage – not by a long shot. But to claim anything other than the bleeding obvious – that he is a) performing fantastically and better than any other candidate and b) almost certainly the front-runner now – is quite simply delusional.
People here flailing around trying to claim the frontrunner is somehow losing and “quietly dissapointed”, and to top it off, accuse Sanders supporters of “clutching at straws” (yes really), just reeks of desparation, and is frankly pathetic.
Moving forward, here are the latest poll results from Real Clear Politics. Nationally, Bernie Sanders has taken the lead for the first time nationally, a funny definition of “drowning”. I also read earlier today that poling is showing that he is improving with voters he had difficulty with in 2016, including African American voters. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html?fbclid=IwAR03MsIFr–H_HPloy5R8OX8mcppf1L9_fr0YLSpyyi3r2LDmEvKhfmMloM
Kakuru @ #210 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 3:23 pm
Yeah, that. Sanders is fine, but if you’re going to pick a favorite I like Mayor Pete. Ticks all the boxes:
1. He supports a carbon tax.
2. He’s not Donald Trump.
3. He brings less baggage than any of the other front-running candidates (aside, perhaps, for Klobuchar; they should team up).
He’s electable, and will give the racists and misogynists emboldened by Trump a chance to settle down without losing their white-male figurehead. The never-Trumpers will vote for him.
Kakuru @ #210 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 4:23 pm
No, you’re an idealist. If you were a pragmatist you would think more about how to work with Sander’s possible success. As an idealist you’re more ‘speak to the hand’ and uninterested in the reality of what is happening.
Matt31
Maybe he’s drowning in votes?
Well said big a Adrian! Some really irrational stuff here this afternoon. I’m far from pencilling in a Sanders win also, but that he is doing well, leading in national polls and is in a good position going forward is clear.
Big A Adrian
Amen, brother.
a r, surely the so called “never-Trumpers” will vote for whoever the dems put up no?
Bernie Bros contributions bookmarked. 😉
The Never Trumpers will simply stay at home if Sanders is the nominee. Voting is not compulsory in the US.
Big A Adrian @ #219 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 3:34 pm
Not if the dems put up a self-styled “socialist”. At best they’d just not vote in that case. At worst some might decide that even Donald Trump is better than a commie socialist rat.
Because this is US politics, where socialism == communism in the eyes of enough people, and especially in the eyes of traditional GOP voters.
I can’t help thinking that had sanders had the nomination in 2016, he’d have won the presidency in a landslide – and what a different world we’d live in – but now he has little chance of beating Trump. The right wing media and establishment democrats will crucify him, and fear or change and the post WWII indoctrination against ‘socialism’ will win out. The entry of Bloomberg into the next state bout will likely see the moderate/centre-right vote further diluted across candidates, so I expect Sanders to also do comparably well there. Biden is cooked I suspect. It’ll really come down to who drops out first – but as the other moderate/right candidates fall, I expect Buttigeig and Klobuchar’s stars to rise. I think Biden and Warren will hang in there – but if Warren goes then who will her voters go to? I can’t see her endorsing Sanders, but would she favour Buttigeig or Klibuchar? Ditto Biden? Unless Bloomberg does better than I suspect he will, I think Klibuchar or Buttigeig are beginning to look like the likely candidate – will the white angry males in rust belt states that swung it for Trump vote for a gay man or a woman with limited ‘brand recognition’? Is it too late to get Al Gore or John Kerry to run :)? I think we have to resign ourselves to a 2nd term of trump – but hopefully without control of the house or senate. I suspect he will be the first president to be impeached twice – but the senate will again clear him because of the impossibility of getting the 2/3 majority needed (unless Pence forces decide he’s got a better chance of winning in 2024 if he’s the incumbent)It is a bizarre way to choose a candidate – but great circus for political tragics. Meanwhile rome burns.
“Sanders won 60% in the 2016 NH primary. This time he’s won just over 25%. Hmmm…”
***
Last time it was a two horse race and Sanders was the only progressive. This time the party is further to the left (thanks to Sanders) and there’s far more candidates in the race. It was a great win for Bernie tonight and confirms his status as the frontrunner.
sustainable future @ #226 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 4:44 pm
I’m not quite sure I follow how a moderate social democrat could have won in a landslide in 2016 but will be crushed by the right wing in 2020. Maybe you can flesh that out a bit?
🙂
C@tmomma
Oh for Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete Pete’s sake.
Bellwether @ #225 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 3:50 pm
There’s less trepidation amongst the GOP rank-and-file about Trump in 2020. And they’ve had 4 years to dig up dirt about the likely Democratic nominees.
Just look what they tried to do to Biden. And just look at what they’ve done to Biden. Dangerous to think they haven’t put just as much effort into Sanders.
SF
“will the white angry males in rust belt states that swung it for Trump vote for a gay man or a woman with limited ‘brand recognition’?”
Harsh reality, no chance. Worse than that though, many of the key minorities, who actually tend to be quite socially conservative, will stay home in the unlikely event that Buttigieg gets the nomination. That’s the reality some on here want to ignore because of their dislike of Sanders. I don’t like that reality any more than anyone else, but particularly if the nominee is Buttigieg he’d be smashed in those rust belt states you mention.
ar
“Because this is US politics, where socialism == communism in the eyes of enough people, and especially in the eyes of traditional GOP voters.”
Exactly. And also in the eyes of a great many independent and swing voters.
‘In Vanity Fair, Peter Hamby deconstructs the real-world difficulties of beating Trump by building a movement of lightly-informed, intermittent voters based on policy proposals and political ideology. Writes Hamby:
‘On this subject, Hamby relates the experience of former Obama lieutenant Jon Favreau, who recently emerged from conducting focus groups worried about “off-and-on-Democrats who don’t follow the news closely.” Awash in cynicism and distrust, these folks expressed indifference to Biden and Sanders and—inimical to Sanders’ theory of the case—a disdain for government itself. Reported Favreau: “No one could remember the last thing the government had actually done to improve their lives, except one woman in Miami who brought up the Affordable Care Act.”
Hamby’s inescapable conclusion is that Trump enjoys a huge advantage over Democrats among low-information voters. Similarly, Politico quotes a former senior member of the Obama campaign team who challenges Sanders’ fundamental thesis:
‘The path forward seems clear. The best chance for Democrats to win is by working with the electorate they have, not the latent would-be electorate Sanders imagines they might—maybe, possibly—conjure at some point in the future.’
https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/
It’s so funny to see the sheer panic setting in for the establishment because Bernie is the clear frontrunner. Some of the posts here are positively unhinged! They can’t comprehend how he could be coming 1st while their champion, Biden, is 5th with his campaign on life support. Even CNN is starting to soften their tone on Bernie, much like Fox News eventually came around to supporting Trump in 2016 after initially resisting him in favour of the Republican establishment.
“Because this is US politics, where socialism == communism in the eyes of enough people, and especially in the eyes of traditional GOP voters.”
***
Hate to break it to you but the Republicans are going to be voting for Trump, regardless of who the Dems pick. Appeasing them is pointless and completely counterproductive. We do not want or need traditional GOP voters lol.
“I’m not quite sure I follow how a moderate social democrat could have won in a landslide in 2016 but will be crushed by the right wing in 2020. Maybe you can flesh that out a bit?”
In a word – “Incumbency”. In a few more words “Fear of Change” and in a few more “The democrat establishment will white ant him in the hope of getting their guy/gal up in 2024”. I think they will think Trump will boost their chance for victory in 2024, but that Sanders is too great a risk for them.
If sanders was younger, he might have a chance – I’d be voting for him if were there.
Trump is – remarkably – going to be hard to beat. I have lived in the US, and I have seen how even those who are otherwise progressive have been indoctrinated against ‘socialism’ – I had conversations with some unreformed hippies, grade school teachers and social workers there about how medicare, the PBS, and free uni/& then low HECS worked in Australia, and they were mortified – they’ve been told socialised medicine is evil/bad all their lives. The media will go hard against him and it’ll work.
Like shorten, money, fear of the unknown and fear campaigns based on lies will see trump returned against sanders. I hope I am wrong, but to paraphrase PJK quoting Jack Lang “Always put your money on the horse called stupid and self-interested”
Nicholas says:
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 3:18 pm
Bernie has now won the first two contests in the nomination process. Ominously for centrists, there is no single candidate emerging as a clear alternative to Sanders. There are too many centrist vanity projects in this race for any one centrist to win the nomination. It is very likely that no centrist will emerge victorious in any of the four contests in February. And then on Super Tuesday Michael Bloomberg will siphon away votes from other centrists, enabling Sanders to win the bulk of those contests.
——————————
No disputing Sanders is the front runner but both Amy K and Pete B are differently in the race. Warren can’t be discounted but needs to do better in the next few rounds while the rest seem done as Presidential Nominees but one or two could feature as possible running mates.
“Like shorten, money, fear of the unknown and fear campaigns based on lies will see trump returned against sanders.”
***
Bernie is nothing like Shorten. Shorten was a right wing establishment candidate similar to Biden or Clinton. Different issues in play but Shorten didn’t want to fix the broken system like Bernie does. People don’t like candidates like that who’re inauthentic and who try and walk both sides of the fence.
Bernie has already shown how he will counter Trump’s fear campaigns on socialism. He’ll expose Trump for the fraud he is and explain to the American people how Donald is a corporate socialist. He’ll also be able to explain to people, unfiltered, what his platform actually is, instead of them being fed lies by the right wing establishment media.
“Not if the dems put up a self-styled “socialist”. At best they’d just not vote in that case. At worst some might decide that even Donald Trump is better than a commie socialist rat.”
In which case they are quite obviously, by definition, not “never Trumpers”
Klobuchar has two big problems. Biden fighting it out to the end, and Bloomberg (and his money) entering the race. It is too crowded a space (especially adding Buttigieg) for her to get enough votes and campaign funding to compete for much longer.
However, if Warren drops out and supports her…… it makes it possible to stick it out longer. Always been curious about a Klobuchar/Warren ticket.
PBS Newshour analysis of the New Hampshire Primary:
https://youtu.be/KHAS7HMVTDA
Latest odds for the election. Sanders has shortened by an entire dollar. He was 6 after Iowa and is now down to 5.
Simon Katich @ #238 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 5:39 pm
SK,
I heard today that Klobuchar, as a result of her strong showing in NH, has unlocked some big donors for her campaign and is off to New York tomorrow for a fundraiser. It was said that she’ll have to do some big time scaling up of her campaign if she wants to continue being successful. For example, Elizabeth Warren is in 30 states, as would be most of the other top tier candidates.
A Buttigieg/Klobuchar ticket looks the best option.
The best thing for democrats to come out of New Hampshire is this:
“ With 90% of the estimated vote reporting, the vote tally had already surpassed 2016’s 250,983, according to NBC News, and was approaching 2008’s record of 288,672 voters.”
Let’s hope that is repeated on Super Tuesday.
“Always been curious about a Klobuchar/Warren ticket.”
***
Can’t see Warren teaming up with any of the establishment candidates. It would be selling out her values if she did and she doesn’t seem like that kind of person to me.
ABC is getting excited over the consequences of Sanders’ narrow win in New Hampshire.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-12/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-results-explained/11958396
If Bloomberg tanks, whoever is on top in the ‘moderate/centrists’ lane should really benefit from his commitment to keep throwing in resources to defeat Trump. That means his excellent Trump attacks ad should continue. This could really help folk like Amy or Pete if they also see off Biden (which shouldn’t be a problem).
Buggered if I know how Bernie goes from 25% support to securing a majority of the delegates needed though. It’s not like can can expect Biden’s people, Bloomberg’s people or any of the other centrist supporters to simply transfer across. Gabbard, Yang and even Warren don’t have much support to gift Bernie either. I reckon he tanks at less than 40% as the field continues to thin out. There is a big caveat to that prediction. Back in late 2015 I also said that Trump was going to find it hard to get more than his then 25% support as the other republican candidates pulled out. I was wrong. Even Jeb Bush’s supporters largely went across to his campaign in the end.
Bernie will need the same thing to happen this time: lots of Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg or Klobuchar supporters have to have a road to Damascus like experience and go from supporting the centrist-moderate lane to the radical-insurgent left wing lane that he occupies.
Whilst I can see Tulusi and Yang supporters doing just that, even a majority of Warren supporters climbing on board I struggle to see many democrat folk who currently support one of the centrists going over in the primaries to Bernie. Maybe Nicholas could explain that to me …
“Firefox says:
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 5:44 pm
Latest odds for the election. Sanders has shortened by an entire dollar. He was 6 after Iowa and is now down to 5.”
Without even contesting Iowa or New Hampshire, Bloomberg is already second favourite Democrat at $8.
“Without even contesting Iowa or New Hampshire, Bloomberg is already second favourite Democrat at $8.”
***
Yep which is an ominous sign for the other establishment candidates. Big chance he’s going to suck a lot of their momentum away. Kind of feel sorry for them as they’ve done the hard yards, not sat at home throwing hundreds of millions at advertising.
C@tmomma
The usual excellent and unbiased reporting and analysis from the PBS Newshour team! Won’t have to watch the show tomorrow now.
Is there anyone that really wants Bloomberg to succeed other than his fellow billionaires who are probably more than happy with Trump anyway?