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%.
The Main Steam (read corporate) Media are really sounding desperate in their coverage of Bernie.
Just like they did in 2016 with Trump. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how that turned out.
A nomination contest for the presidency is by definition winner-take-all because there can only be one nominee. What do you suggest – creating a cyborg who is 40% Bernie, 30% Buttigieg, and 30% Klobuchar so that the nominee is proportionally representative of the pledged delegate results?
If voters got to break the deadlock in the event of no candidate winning a majority of pledged delegates, that would be great. But that isn’t the system in place. The system is that if nobody wins a majority in the first round, delegates are liberated from their pledges in the second and subsequent rounds. My point is that it would not be seen as legitimate for delegates to nominate someone who got fewer delegates and fewer votes than the first-placed candidate. Not in the current age of voter-driven nominations. That is a practical reality that the delegates would have to weigh up, and in my view would ultimately defer to. If one candidate gets a plurality of pledged delegates in addition to a plurality of raw votes in the primaries and caucuses, that candidate will be seen as the most legitimate winner, and will therefore get the nomination, unless the delegates lose their minds and choose to override the wishes of the voters. If one candidate gets the most pledged delegates but another gets the most raw votes, that would be an ambiguous situation where a legitimacy argument could be made for either candidate. But I think what will happen is that Bernie will get at least a plurality of both pledged delegates and raw votes, if not majorities, and centrists will cry into their beers and whine as they are wont to do.
Nicholas
“What do you suggest – creating a cyborg who is 40% Bernie, 30% Buttigieg, and 30% Klobuchar so that the nominee is proportionally representative of the pledged delegate results?”
One of them is a robot? Which one? My money’s on Buttigieg.
How about a Buttigieg not beholden to billionaire donors, that remains consistent on his policy stances
Kakuru @ #299 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 5:51 pm
If you opened your eyes you’ll probably find the world has changed dramatically since 1972.
You want to change the world, you vote Pete (Amy as his VP). All the others are continuation of the status quo.
It is that simple.
Danama Papers @ #301 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 7:54 pm
Pretty good, if you’re a mainstream media company. Got them tons of clicks at the time, and has gotten them tons more since.
Bernie Sanders Is The Front-Runner For Democratic Nomination
MANCHESTER, N.H. ― Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the front-runner for the Democratic Party’s nomination to challenge Republican President Donald Trump in November.
Sanders, with a win Tuesday night in New Hampshire and a contested victory in Iowa under his belt, is in the strongest position to seize the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July, clearly separating himself from former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). He is also the candidate in the field with the second-greatest resources ― in the form of money, staffers and volunteers ― to power his efforts as the campaign continues.
His strongest potential rivals ― Biden and Warren ― are struggling, and the moderate candidates elevated by the nearly universally white electorates in the first two primary states have demonstrated almost no ability to appeal to the more diverse electorates casting ballots in Nevada, South Carolina and in a host of states on Super Tuesday, on March 3.
In a crowded field, Sanders ― a democratic socialist who long declined to officially join the Democratic Party and is running on a platform of Medicare For All, a massive infrastructure program to combat climate change and a $15 minimum wage ― is assembling a diverse coalition beyond his base of the youngest and most liberal Democratic primary voters, according to public polling.
“We are putting together an unprecedented multicultural, multigenerational political movement,” Sanders told a roaring crowd here at the Southern New Hampshire University Fieldhouse.
A Quinnipiac University poll found him leading the field among “somewhat liberal voters” and placing third among Democrats who considered themselves “moderate or conservative.” He is third among Black voters. Among white voters without a college degree, he has a large lead and is essentially tied for the lead among college-educated white voters. Though the poll does not break out Latino voters, other surveys show him as one of the top two candidates competing for their votes.
https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/bernie-sanders-front-runner-democratic-nomination_n_5e435950c5b61b84d341d187?ri18n=true
Trump wins the Republican primary with 85% of the vote. Pretty good effort by Bill Weld considering the Trump cult.
Kakuru @ #299 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 5:51 pm
Sanders 2020 would be McGovern 1972 all over again.
If you opened your eyes you’ll probably find the world has changed dramatically since 1972.
————————————————–
I was around in 1972 and my eyes were very open. I was part of Peter Walsh’s campaign to win the seat of Moore from the Country Party. A close friend was working for McGovern in the USA.
Despite the fact that we all thought we were changing the world, not much has really changed.
My heart is with Bernie but my much battered political head thinks that Buttigieg is the best we can hope for. The alternative is Bloomberg who is just a sane version of Trump.
a r @ #307 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 6:10 pm
And if you’re not?
Peter Stanton @ #310 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 6:14 pm
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs that that is a worthy outcome.
So, with the dust starting to settle on New Hampshire, and with two states down, we can start to make some conclusions on the state of play as the circus heads to Nevada.
WINNERS
Pete Buttigieg – Mayor Pete has out-performed his wildest predictions in both Iowa and NH, and has justifiably donned the mantle of one of the front-runners. On paper, he certainly ticks a lot of boxes: telegenic, moderate, veteran, charismatic – though questions remain about his youth/experience, and (whisper it) his sexuality. Bigger and different challenges await, but he can feel very pleased with his results in the opening skirmishes.
Amy Klobuchar – The Minnesota Senator looked tight be flatlining just a few weeks ago, and looked set to join some other early-hyped contenders like Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Kirsten Gellibrand, and Cory Booker in the exit lounge. But a half-decent showing in Iowa, followed by a debate performance that got rave reviews, saw her surf into the top tier in New Hampshire. There is still some significant hurdles, and she still lacks the ground game of other candidates, but she has certainly dealt her back into the game.
The Democratic Party – After the debacle in Iowa, coming in the same week as Trump’s acquittal in the impeachment trial, the Blue team was running the risk of looking like a joke. A smooth primary in NH with some genuine talking points should put that to rest. The Party will also be pleased that the field is starting to winnow. By early March, my guess is that there will only be 3-4 candidates left.
Bernie Sanders – Bernie’s status needs to come with an asterisk (more on that below), but credit where credit is due – he has finished in the top two in both the opening votes.
LOSERS
Joe Biden – The nomination was his to lose heading into 2020, but his historically bad record as a Presidential candidate (he’s never finished higher than fourth in any primary or caucus in 32 years) has been maintained. He still has a last chance to test his reputed strength with Black voters in South Carolina in a couple of weeks, but without a thumping win there, he is probably done.
Elizabeth Warren – Even more inexplicable than Biden’s decline is that of Warren. In January, she looked the most likely to be the Progressive standard-bearer through the primary season, with a better-than-even chance of getting the nomination. Fast-forward to today, with two very poor results in Iowa and NH, and she needs a miracle to survive past Super Tuesday. Her concession speech in NH sounded awfully like she knows this.
Bernie Sanders – Even though he won (or tied) the early states, it’s becoming clear that while Bernie has a floor of about 25%, he also has a ceiling of 30%. Sure he won, but he looks to be struggling to put away some of those big primary and caucus wins he got in 2016. Furthermore, as the lesser candidates start to peel away, the early indications are that their supporters are starting to coalesce behind anyone but Bernie. He’s still got time to build a larger coalition behind him, but I’m not so sure he’s got it in him. The big question is, if (when?) he doesn’t get the nomination, will his supporters fall in behind the Democrat?
25.8% is the lowest winning total in the modern history of the New Hampshire primary. Bernie won but the number of the votes he got is half of what he got in 2016. What it is showing is that democratic electorate is very divided. There has always been too many major candidates in this race.
I still see Bernie not winning ultimately as he can not get above 30% of the vote and he won’t get close to half of the delegates by the convention. Almost the mainstream side of the party is likely to consolidate behind someone post Super Tuesday.
Plus the rule changes that occurred in 2016 at Sanders supporters demand means that super delegates can not vote in the first. In the past if a candidate was at 40% of the delegates, the super-delegates would force the issue but that now can’t happen. If they get to a contested convention (or at least one in which no candidate has 50%) it will be a political junkies dream.
Danama Paperssays:
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 9:18 pm
Peter Stanton @ #310 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 6:14 pm
The alternative is Bloomberg who is just a sane version of Trump.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs that that is a worthy outcome.
—————————-
I hope I did not imply that I thought Bloomberg was an acceptable outcome. That thought is one of the reasons the tide in my whisky bottle has dropped so far tonight.
I keep trying to find a path forward for a better candidate than Buttegieg but the sums do not work out that way.
USA is a capitalist state, everything is for sale and Bloombreg has a lot of money.
Hugo
“he has finished in the top two in both the opening votes”
That’s a funny way of saying he won both votes
“The big question is, if (when?) he doesn’t get the nomination, will his supporters fall in behind the Democrat?”
Reminder that statistically, more Hillary voters voted McCain in 2008 than Bernie voters voted Trump in 2016
Peter Stanton @ #315 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 6:27 pm
No, that’s not how I interpreted it at all. What I meant was that it’s a pretty sad state of affairs that a saner version of Trump is still a lot better outcome than the real thing. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
I was going to post this poll but there’s way too much in it to copy and paste it here. It’s a couple of days old, so before NH, but pretty interesting. Very detailed.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655
And totally off topic but I’ve just got to say gee it must be hell being stuck on that cruise ship with coronavirus. So many of them are catching it on there and they won’t let anyone off. You think you’re going on a nice cruise and end up like that. What a nightmare.
Firefoxsays:
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 9:41 pm
I agree totally. Confining all those people on the confined space of a cruise ship was a sure way to ensure infection. The bottom feeding sharks of personal injury law will be salivating.
Danama Paperssays:
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 9:41 pm
No, that’s not how I interpreted it at all. What I meant was that it’s a pretty sad state of affairs that a saner version of Trump is still a lot better outcome than the real thing. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
——————-
As much my misunderstanding your comment as anything, no need to apologies. Yes is is a sad stae of affairs but the USA is a sad state of affairs. What frightens me is we seem to be going down the same sad track. Truth and integrity seem to have no place in our current federal government.
Danama Papers @ #311 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 8:17 pm
Don’t give them your clicks.
Bonza @ #316 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 8:36 pm
Is being tied for first place the same thing as winning?
Bonza – Whether or not Sanders won in Iowa is open to interpretation, and given the debacle of that vote, difficult to prove conclusively either way, which is why I hedged my bets.
I’d like to see the data on your “statistically speaking” comment, but I guess the risk is less the Bernie crowd voting for Trump than not voting at all.
Hugoaugogo
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/hillary-clinton-blames-bernie-sanders-but-not-reason-lost-2016-2020-1?r=US&IR=T
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/
While there is a real question about what Sanders and Warren could achieve the problem with Amy, Pete and Crazy Joe is they don’t even really want to do anything that will attack the real problems facing the US.
And while beating Trump is important, not losing to a much smarter, much smoother Trump in 4 years time, when the really, really significant group of the center left and far left stay home in droves or run a third candidate based on the ‘wtaf happened you fixed precisely nothing’.
I’m at the point where I think their democracy and their republic is done. In many respects our institutions are a lot weaker and Dutton and Morrison a lot more corrupt, but a bit cunning as well, so frankly I think things here are probably worse corruption wise and what flows from that is our democracy might be done too.
Was it Murphy in the Guardian concerned? I can’t remember, but I’m all but certain we are seeing not the leading indicators that things could go wrong but the trailing indicators it already has.
The other day I surmised exactly this in relation to Bernie’s attacks on Bloomberg buying the election, presumably statements his supporters endorse.
Imagine that Bloomberg is the Dem candidate. Do Bernie supporters vote Democrat in contradiction to previously held convictions, or do they sit it out (or vote Green or Tulsi), refusing to vote for a candidate who bought his nomination?
“or Tulsi”
Come on now
Well I’m assuming Tulsi will run as an independent (spoiler) candidate.
Bonza – interesting articles to be sure, but I think you kinda missed the point of my hypothetical (not to mention getting hung up on a relatively minor element of my analysis). My point was not that Sanders voters voted for Trump in 2016 or that they will this year, but rather that they might stay home or vote for a candidate other than the Democrat.
Confessions, she’s ruled out doing that, unless she’s lying…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVhaPX18I8
Hugo, my point was that I think concern over Bernie voter loyalty is overblown
Bonza, yes, you are probably right about that, which is why I posed it as a hypothetical.
WeWantPaul @ #324 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 9:15 pm
Well if people don’t vote because in their opinion getting rid of Trump “fixes precisely nothing” then yes, yes it is.
WeWantPaul:
This.
But some here clearly feel that’s a bridge too far; Americans should be satisfied with more-of-the-same that was before Trump. Because that could never lead to a Trump 2.0 being elected down the track should a ‘moderate’ Democrat win this election…
kirky @ #269 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 7:03 pm
Cardiac doctors will tell you that, down the line there is a second heart attack.
Mr Newbie @ #332 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 11:25 pm
As has been noted by just about every Moderate Democrat, they are more to the left of the party than has historically been the case if you have been considered a Moderate Democrat. They are advocating positions that used to be considered, ‘liberal’.
Bloomberg is second favourite (3.50) to be Dem nominee after Bernie (2.50). Pete 6. Biden 10. The rest will drop out soon as their financial backers flee.
“ Cardiac doctors will tell you that, down the line there is a second heart attack.”
In general, there is about a 25% chance of having another heart attack within 4-5 years of the first.
It’s not great but it’s not terrible.
I don’t know about yours, but my state-of-affairs gauge has been hovering between “sad” and “dismal” for a few years now.
Bloomberg is completely unbackable at odds of 3.50. What a waste of money.
caf @ #337 Wednesday, February 12th, 2020 – 9:28 pm
Mine’s gone beyond that and is now somewhere between dismal and tragic.
We’re now discussing Bernie having another heart attack? Of course, Trump isn’t at risk for one at all…
Anyone at any age can have a heart attack, even if you’re seemingly ‘fit’, young and ‘healthy’. I survived a stroke in my late 20s (the same type as what Hillary had in 2012, mind you, just in a different blood vessel), nearly 15 years ago. Shit can happen to anyone, at any age. Yes, Bernie’s at an increased risk given his recent history and his age, and I’m sure his doctors probably think he’s crazy to pursue this, given his health issues, but… so what.
Similar ‘concerns’ were raised over Hillary’s health throughout 2016, and she hasn’t died yet. It’s funny how such issues are selectively applied onto our non-favoured candidate(s).
If Buttigieg is the only hope, than seriously, progressives may as well just abandon the field. He’s just another neo liberal dressed in sheep’s clothing. Oh but wait he’s gay… So what? I’m just waiting for Andrew Earlwoood to post that Biden and the other right wingers should now withdraw so as to afford Sanders clean air between now and the presidential election, you know as he always does with real leftists when they are up against his preferred neo liberal candidates.
It amuses me to see the weak kneed amongst us clutching at any straw that might justify a real left candidate not being elected, you can palpably feel their desperation to have another doing nothing, Tory lite nominee.
Cheney has his first heart attack in his thirties. He had at least two more before becoming VP. Admittedly he is only alive now because of a heart transplant.
LBJ had a major heart attack 8 years before becoming president.
Eisenhower had a heart attack, bowel resection for Crohns and a stroke all in one year when he was president.
Diogenes
What is with all this truth and honesty and statistics from you? Don’t you realise that if Sanders became President, which he obviously can’t do because of his massive statistical losses in Iowa and New Hampshire and the fact that only a handful of deranged cultists actually support him, but hypothetically if he did he would die from a massive myocardial infarction at the podium during the inauguration.I’m done with your truth, honesty and stupid statistics.
“ I’m just waiting for Andrew Earlwoood to post that Biden and the other right wingers should now withdraw so as to afford Sanders clean air between now and the presidential election”
Close. I’ve been calling for sleepy joe to drop out, in fact not run at all for over 2 years. He’s only sucked oxygen out of everybody but Bernie’s campaign because he has, until very recently dominated only recognition alone. Bernie had his own established brand so sleepy joe hasn’t damaged his campaign at all.
Ideally after Super Tuesday all those candidates who have tanked drop out and it quickly becomes a race between a maximum of 3 or 4 candidates, with the field further winnowing down to the final 2 by the end of March. That would present the best chance for a decisive winner to emerge (decisive as in one that has secured a majority of pledged delegates and not just a plurality) for the party to unite and rally around before the convention. If that candidate turns out to be Bernie, then I say well played. How about you come? If someone other than Bernie accumulates support over the next two months, should the party unite behind him or her? Should the berniebros unite behind the candidate or spoil and split?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-is-risk-we-cant-run-this-moment-national-peril/
Firefox says:
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 7:02 pm
“They are both part of the establishment.”
***
Uhh Sanders is a senator too. Being a senator doesn’t make you establishment, your values and policies do.
Warren hates the establishment. Check out her policies and you’ll see she’s closer to Sanders than the others. Big on ending the corruption in Washington and taxing the rich etc…
—————————————
There are differing opinions on what constitutes the establishment, the elite or top end of town but if someone is in congress then they sit at the top of the US government. Sanders is an independent so is more an outsider than someone being a member of the major political parties but in Vermont he is at the top of the political establishment.
Confessions
Thanks for posting the article from the Bezos rag.
Confessions
Here’s another fine effort from the crew at Bezos’ rag. Goes back a way!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/22/dont-trust-a-single-forecast-the-consensus-all-year-has-been-that-clinton-will-win/
You’re welcome, Bellwether. Here’s another.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-has-some-problems/