New Hampshire Democratic primary live commentary

Live commentary on today’s New Hampshire primary. Also: Sinn Féin upsets the conservative duopoly at Saturday’s Irish election. Guest post by Adrian Beaumont

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

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%.

610 comments on “New Hampshire Democratic primary live commentary”

  1. Confessions

    And thanks for that one too. Just wondering though, do you ever get your nose out of The Washington Post and read more widely? Because, hypothetically of course, if there is bias at the Post and that was your single source you wouldn’t be aware that it’s biased I guess.

  2. Bernie has already made it very clear that all candidates must unite behind the nominee no matter who it is – he did not do that with Clinton and ungraciously bowed out after drawing out a fight between the two obvious front runners for far too long.
    I hope he means it this time – he is a lone wolf. He is not by nature a uniter, rather a fighter.
    I agree with others regarding his socialist ceiling – he is red meat for Trump whose strongest hand (apart from nurturing a cult) is the economy.
    We need a fighter who can unite everyone who is disgusted by Trump regardless of party affiliation.
    I think there is substance behind Mayor Pete’s words and Senator Klobuchar has a track record of working across the divide. And bloody hell, lets have some youth – time to pass the baton.

  3. Yep, fess, its chilling isn’t it. I reckon we should start a ‘go fund me’ campaign to help Nicholas’s travel to the US to lend a MMT hand in burning the joint to the ground. Feel’n the Bern …

  4. Just wondering though, do you ever get your nose out of The Washington Post and read more widely?

    If you’ve read my comments over the years you’ll not have had to ask this. I note that you choose to question the publication rather than engage with the points the writers make – a common tactic from those who have nothing of substance to contribute.

    And btw I’ve noticed that your comments have declined in tone over the last few weeks, tending towards personal abuse. If this continues with me then I’ll disengage and just ignore you altogether.

  5. Rick Wilson as usual tells it like it is

    Rick Wilson
    @TheRickWilson
    ·
    5h
    6/ Trumpism is not conservative. It is a radical, jumped up form of authoritarian statism. It is nationalism, and corporate socialism.

    History doesn’t repeat but it surely lays down a fat beat and a steady flow.

    5/ You also don’t set precedents of abusing power, wrecking the rule of law, and putting the government to work for the personal financial and political benefit of the candidate.

    Call me crazy but avoiding all those things is the *conservative* position.

    Rick Wilson
    @TheRickWilson
    ·
    5h
    4/ this is because most people who make that case have never actually worked in campaigns or in government. Their point is mostly masturbatory.

    They don’t get that you’ve got to be in for the long march, because putting the work in over decades is what changes the country.

    Rick Wilson
    @TheRickWilson
    ·
    5h
    3/ Is a particularly stupid trope among Trumper’s that Republican consultants and operatives before Trump were all passive losers. (Ignore us winning 2000 seats over 20 years).

    they think that because we didn’t wreck everything that it was somehow a chain of losses.

    Rick Wilson
    @TheRickWilson
    ·
    5h
    2/ Fully Weaponize the DOJ? Just wait.

    Protect your friends and allies by interfering in the course of justice? Just wait.

    encourage your people to engage in actions that range from shady to illegal with the promise of pardons? Just wait.

    Govern by executive orders? Just wait.

    Rick Wilson
    @TheRickWilson
    ·
    5h
    1/ Iwould warn Republicans that every tool they build now to exploit a temporary position of power will be turned back on them later.

    if you break the political homeostasis in this country — boundaries and rules and norms — the other side will justify using the same tactics.

  6. Andrew_Earlwood @ #322 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 5:48 am

    Yep, fess, its chilling isn’t it. I reckon we should start a ‘go fund me’ campaign to help Nicholas’s travel to the US to lend a MMT hand in burning the joint to the ground. Feel’n the Bern …

    I don’t know about Nicholas, but I have long had concern that Democrats will not nominate a candidate who can beat Trump in those states that will decide the election. Already the signs from the two Dem primaries are not encouraging.

  7. Vic:

    The next thing will be a pardon for Stone.

    Kyle Cheney@kyledcheney
    ·
    2h
    BREAKING: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has *denied* a sealed motion by STONE for a new trial.

  8. Danama Papers

    Murdoch and Bezos are also similar in that they are both known to claim an editorial hands-off approach while in reality they are able to control output through hiring and firing and corporate ethos. I have a sense that there are those that won’t go near The Australian with a barge pole, for example, but are lapping up the offerings of The Washington Post.

  9. I know this is the US thread, but this pleases me. I can’t stand this fascist either

    Eric Garland
    @ericgarland
    ·
    1h
    Russian Mobsters and their minions are starting to look sloppy as hell.

    Learn to run some Ops, guys.

    Italy’s Salvini denies his League party took money from Russians
    Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini on Wednesday denied a media report that his far-right League party had sought millions of euros from Russian investors via a secret oil deal.
    reuters.com
    6
    56
    120
    Show this thread

    Eric Garland
    @ericgarland
    ·
    1h
    Ooh, you mean the Salvini from scandal about letting Russia finance campaigns through that oil deal?
    Quote Tweet

    AFP news agency
    @AFP
    · 4h
    #UPDATE Italian far-right leader Matteo Salvini is to stand trial on charges of illegally detaining migrants at sea, after senators voted to strip him of his parliamentary immunity http://u.afp.com/33wy
    Show this thread

  10. Bellwether
    That’s because I don’t have any strong opinion on who I want to win. I just want Trump gone. I want whoever is most likely to beat him to win and I don’t know who that is.

  11. “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?”

    ***

    Well, surely you agree that he is buying his way in to this election late. All the other candidates have been out there doing the hard yards and campaigning while he’s just sitting on his backside throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at advertising.

    If Bloomberg is the candidate, I will still hope he wins. Why? Because Trump is exactly the same as him in that respect (he spent at least $60 million of his own money in 2016 to influence the election: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00023864). So in Donald’s case, he deserves to have the kitchen sink thrown at him, and if the Dems are to buy the election off him then you could say that turn about is fair play. I certainly wouldn’t feel sorry for him if that happens. So much for the “world’s greatest democracy” though. What a joke.

    Make no mistake, Bloomberg would be a terrible president if he were to win and wouldn’t fix any of the major problems that America or the world faces. As a hard-right winger, economically speaking, Bloomberg would almost certainly do nothing to fix inequality, in fact it will just keep getting worse. You can bet that the rich will keep getting richer, the poor will keep getting poorer, while he spends four years droning on about how great trickle down economics is.

    Bernie on the other hand is the people’s candidate. He represents democracy’s last chance in this election, and maybe ever in America. If the cycle of big money buying elections isn’t broken now, then when will it be?

    I bet you one thing too – Bernie cannot wait to take on two billionaires. Bring. It. On.

  12. whatgoesaround
    “I think there is substance behind Mayor Pete’s words”
    I’d be interested to hear you elaborate on this. All we seem to hear from Pete is platitudes

  13. caf @ #367 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 6:53 am

    Say what you like about Bezos, he and Trump fucking hate each other so I’m confident in his sincerity in wanting to get rid of that goon.

    The Democratic Party should regard people like Bezos, Bloomberg and in particular ALL the Never-Trump Republicans (Wilson, Schmidt, Kristol, etc.) in the same way that Churchill and Roosevelt regarded Stalin in WWII. Purely as useful allies in the fight against a common enemy, but never as friends.

  14. Danama Papers @ #371 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 10:07 am

    caf @ #367 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 6:53 am

    Say what you like about Bezos, he and Trump fucking hate each other so I’m confident in his sincerity in wanting to get rid of that goon.

    The Democratic Party should regard people like Bezos, Bloomberg and in particular ALL the Never-Trump Republicans (Wilson, Schmidt, Kristol, etc.) in the same way that Churchill and Roosevelt regarded Stalin in WWII. Purely as useful allies in the fight against a common enemy, but never as friends.

    Perfectly put.

  15. The Democratic Party should regard people like Bezos, Bloomberg and in particular ALL the Never-Trump Republicans (Wilson, Schmidt, Kristol, etc.

    If only the Democratic party were listening to people like Rick Wilson!

    Seriously though, I think there does seem to be a slight majority in the party who as Jennifer Rubin puts it, don’t want “to enter a political suicide pact with a self-described socialist promising a revolution”.

  16. “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’.”

    ***

    They may be “more to the left” than candidates like Clinton were previously, but they certainly aren’t left wingers by any stretch of the imagination. They still support the broken economic system.

  17. Firefox @ #375 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 10:17 am

    “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’.”

    ***

    They may be “more to the left” than candidates like Clinton were previously, but they certainly aren’t left wingers by any stretch of the imagination. They still support the broken economic system.

    This is an ideological war. Do Americans fight it out or just come back in ten years time and say “oh look, now the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90%, how did that happen?”.

  18. It’s this talk about “Bernie is the people’s candidate” and the like that I struggle with. Sanders has some decent ideas on some things, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s perfect, or that he’ll win, or that he’ll be able to put anything into practice if he does win. I find the feeling around “Saint Bernie” a bit concerning, as it implies that his supporters don’t think he can do anything wrong. There was much the same vibe around Corbyn in the UK, and we saw how that worked out. Sanders fans would be better served by taking a more detached view of their hero. It would certainly do more to make us non-believers buy in to what otherwise looks a bit like a personality cult.

    If Sanders does in fact end up being the candidate, of course I will support him (like I supported Corbyn), and I will urge anyone I know with a vote to vote for him. But I will remain dubious that he can pull it off. I regard myself as quite Left-wing as far as policies and principles go, but I am also pragmatic. Politics is an imperfect vehicle, and I’d rather see someone I don’t necessarily like implement some of what I believe in, than someone I like a lot implement nothing. There are elements on the Left that find the business of winning elections a bit beneath them, as it inevitably involves too much compromise. But in societies which encompass a wide range of opinions, successful candidates need to bend a little to win. I’m not so sure Sanders can do that.

  19. It’s hard to see how this benefits moderates like Klobuchar and Buttigieg. Surely it’ll just split that vote further?

    The 12th richest person in the world decided to bet more than $500 million late last year on the long-shot notion that Democrats would defy history and fail to elevate a front-runner after Iowa and New Hampshire’s nominating contests.

    Three months later, Mike Bloomberg’s jackpot is about to come due, as the former New York mayor, who has yet to appear on a ballot, emerges from the chaos of early February as a legitimate contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Bloomberg has benefited from a cascade of good luck — a botched and inconclusive Iowa caucuses process, the collapse of the former vice president Joe Biden’s polling dominance and the Democratic Party chairman’s decision to provide the mayor a path to the next debate. His potential to reshape the race has led his Democratic opponents, as well as President Trump, to begin focusing on him in earnest, even though he is not contesting Nevada and South Carolina, the next two states to vote.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mike-bloomberg-wins-the-democratic-spotlight-and-the-derision-of-his-rivals/2020/02/12/267b6740-4cd8-11ea-b721-9f4cdc90bc1c_story.html

  20. “The Democratic Party should regard people like Bezos, Bloomberg and in particular ALL the Never-Trump Republicans (Wilson, Schmidt, Kristol, etc.) in the same way that Churchill and Roosevelt regarded Stalin in WWII. Purely as useful allies in the fight against a common enemy, but never as friends.”

    ***

    Yes, quite a good way of putting it. Trump deserves to have EVERYTHING thrown at him. Fuck him. He doesn’t play fair so why should we?

    Although, having said that, we don’t need the billionaires nearly as much as the world needed the Soviets to take out the Nazis. We can do it without them. Bernie is a fundraising machine.

  21. Hugoaugogo
    “It’s this talk about “Bernie is the people’s candidate” and the like that I struggle with.”

    So do I. In fact, I’d go so far as to call it bullshit.

    The parallels between Sanders and Corbyn are obvious. Neither the UK or the US are ready for socialism – I don’t blame them.

  22. Re Bloomberg: as new opinion poll results are released, his numbers are definitely on the increase in some important states: eg, a one-off 17% in Florida and a 19.6% in Arkansas. I would assume that this, along with bedazzlement at Bloomberg’s massive wealth, is driving the sharp tightening of the odds on him in the betting markets.

    I think Bloomberg’s rise is particularly bad news for Buttigieg, who has so far been particularly adept at attracting the votes of those Dems who are primarily concerned with finding the candidate most likely to defeat Trump. As Biden’s campaign continues to tank, a lot of those votes are likely to be freed up, but Bloomberg is going attract a lot of them to him, denying them to Mayor Pete.

    I’d like to think that Klobuchar’s “klomentum” is a result of voters actually seeing her perform and realising that she is clearly the most intelligent and capable person running for the nomination. I’m hoping against hope that there are a lot of these voters out there in primaries land, and that they will eventually prevail over those who are naively looking for a messiah in the form of a Buttigieg as some sort of whiteface Obama, or Bloomberg as someone who can buy Trump out of office.

    Alas, if Bloomberg’s momentum keeps going he might blast everyone away on Super Tuesday.

    As for Bernie, I’m with those who see a fall from 60 per cent to 25 per cent of the NH votes as a bad result. Perhaps I’m wrong: we’ll soon find out.

  23. Turnout in New Hampshire did not significantly increase from 2016 to 2020, even though there was no competitive Republican primary to draw independent voters. Sanders has twice now failed to produce a promised wave of voters.

    That’s a bizarre assessment on several points:

    – Turnout for the Democratic primary increased by at least 15% over 2016; surely that’s “significant”
    – Turnout was higher in 2020 than in 2008, when Obama won the presidency easily
    – In point of fact, the 2020 turnout set a new record for the Dems
    – Crediting/blaming Sanders for high/low turnout is dubious at best, given that Trump is likely a far greater influence (not to mention the other Democratic candidates, too!)

    Seems like the WaPo is doing fake news. I thought they were better than that.

  24. meher baba
    “As for Bernie, I’m with those who see a fall from 60 per cent to 25 per cent of the NH votes as a bad result. ”

    That was my interpretation too.

    The majority of voters who voted for Bernie in 2016 voted for someone else in 2020. As the primary process lurches on, these voters may Come Back To Bernie. Or they may not. Time will tell.

  25. “If Sanders does in fact end up being the candidate, of course I will support him (like I supported Corbyn), and I will urge anyone I know with a vote to vote for him. But I will remain dubious that he can pull it off.”

    ***

    Mate, we have to be honest. No matter who the Dems pick, Trump is odds on to win re-election. Most US presidents get a second term. The end of a president’s first term is usually not a “change election”. That’s why we have to make it one. It’s our only chance. People need something and someone to get behind. And gee whiz if we’re going to go down, then hell lets go down fighting like all buggery.

    If this is to be our end, then I would have them make such an end, as to be worthy of remembrance!

  26. Hugoaugogo @ #377 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 10:21 am

    It’s this talk about “Bernie is the people’s candidate” and the like that I struggle with. Sanders has some decent ideas on some things, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s perfect, or that he’ll win, or that he’ll be able to put anything into practice if he does win. I find the feeling around “Saint Bernie” a bit concerning, as it implies that his supporters don’t think he can do anything wrong. There was much the same vibe around Corbyn in the UK, and we saw how that worked out. Sanders fans would be better served by taking a more detached view of their hero. It would certainly do more to make us non-believers buy in to what otherwise looks a bit like a personality cult.

    If Sanders does in fact end up being the candidate, of course I will support him (like I supported Corbyn), and I will urge anyone I know with a vote to vote for him. But I will remain dubious that he can pull it off. I regard myself as quite Left-wing as far as policies and principles go, but I am also pragmatic. Politics is an imperfect vehicle, and I’d rather see someone I don’t necessarily like implement some of what I believe in, than someone I like a lot implement nothing. There are elements on the Left that find the business of winning elections a bit beneath them, as it inevitably involves too much compromise. But in societies which encompass a wide range of opinions, successful candidates need to bend a little to win. I’m not so sure Sanders can do that.

    I would be dubious that anyone can pull it off. Someone has stolen the pragma from left-wing pragmatism to the extent that it’s become almost an oxymoron I’m afraid.

  27. While Biden, Klobucher, and especially Bloomberg are a bit to far to the right for my tastes (though any of them would still be exponentially better than Trump), Buttigeig seems progressive enough to me. He advocates for renewables and a carbon tax, supports the green new deal, wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 and strengthen union power, has a “Medicare for All” plan which won’t turn off those that want to keep their private insurance, is very socially progressive, and a whole number of other things. Yes, he’s more centrist economically, but not excessively so by any means – he’s spoken at length about the fighting the predatory and corrupting influence of unfettered capitalism.

    I still have some big reservations about his chances in November, but that’s mostly due to “vibe” factors (his youth, his sexuality, his blatant style-over-substance approach, his lack of support from African Americans) rather than his platform, which on paper ticks most of the boxes in my eyes. But, I dunno, maybe I’m just an evil neo-liberal, as I really don’t have a problem with “civilised capitalism”, with strong safety nets, government oversight, and public funding for essential services, rather than totally overhauling the system.

  28. Firefox – Oh, I wouldn’t say that Trump is “odds on” to be re-elected at all. To the contrary, I’d say he is an historically vulnerable President. His approval ratings have been underwater for much of the last three years, and there does appear to be a solid 50% of people who want him gone. Of course, he has strong economy (for now) on his side, and he has probably 40% of people who think he can do no wrong, so in the final wash-up it will probably come down to turn-out. Can Trump win? Sure. Is he likely to win? At this stage I’d say he is a 50-50 bet at best.

    FUN FACT: We’ve now had three two-term Presidencies in succession (Clinton-Bush-Obama), for the first time in 200 years (Jefferson-Madison-Monroe from 1800-24). Historically, it’s actually not the norm for Presidents to get two terms, and I thought even back in 2016 that whoever won that year might end up being “one and done”.

  29. a r @ #382 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 10:26 am

    Turnout in New Hampshire did not significantly increase from 2016 to 2020, even though there was no competitive Republican primary to draw independent voters. Sanders has twice now failed to produce a promised wave of voters.

    That’s a bizarre assessment on several points:

    – Turnout for the Democratic primary increased by at least 15% over 2016; surely that’s “significant”
    – Turnout was higher in 2020 than in 2008, when Obama won the presidency easily
    – In point of fact, the 2020 turnout set a new record for the Dems
    – Crediting/blaming Sanders for high/low turnout is dubious at best, given that Trump is likely a far greater influence (not to mention the other Democratic candidates, too!)

    Seems like the WaPo is doing fake news. I thought they were better than that.

    I didn’t.

  30. Hugo:

    I agree.

    Trump is certainly looking much safer than he should be, given, well, everything he’s said and done since taking office – in a just world he’d be facing a historic landslide loss and be struggling just to be renominated. But he’s far from untouchable, and has consistently had disapproval ratings that make up of well over half the population, as well as either losing or being neck-and-neck in most general election polls (I realize both measures are notoriously unreliable, but they give a rough benchmark at least.) It’ll likely be closer than any of us would be comfortable with, but I think the election is still the Democrats’ to lose.

  31. No matter who the Dems pick, Trump is odds on to win re-election. Most US presidents get a second term.

    Trump is not ‘most US Presidents’. We have seen that he can turn a winning week into a bad one – he has no self control, is an utterly corrupted narcissist, operates without any moral base, a megalomaniac, a psychopath. The US public generally abhor him. Some of the 40% who vote for him can be won over if he continues on his course to despotism he neither can nor wants to change.

    And expect defections leading up to the election. If it looks like he could win again there are some who will find their conscience and desert The White House, revealing more of the dangerous insanity and stupidity that defines this man.

  32. Confessions @ #374 Thursday, February 13th, 2020 – 7:17 am

    The Democratic Party should regard people like Bezos, Bloomberg and in particular ALL the Never-Trump Republicans (Wilson, Schmidt, Kristol, etc.

    If only the Democratic party were listening to people like Rick Wilson!

    Seriously though, I think there does seem to be a slight majority in the party who as Jennifer Rubin puts it, don’t want “to enter a political suicide pact with a self-described socialist promising a revolution”.

    FMD.

    Wilson is one of the “strategists” who turned the Republican Party into the fetid swamp that enabled Trump. He’s not the only one of course, but nevertheless he bears some of the responsibility. If Jeb Bush was POTUS, Wilson would see McConnell’s current shenanigans in the Senate as being brilliant strategy. He did just that on the Jan 26, 2016 edition of Real Time. Pissed himself laughing at the way McConnell refused to even hold hearings over the nomination of Merrick Garland to the USSC. He thought it was absolutely brilliant. He is one of the Frankensteins who helped create a monster that they couldn’t control.

    And as for Jennifer Rubin, this is all you need to know about her:

    Jennifer Rubin is an American conservative columnist who writes the “Right Turn” blog for The Washington Post.

    Say no more.

  33. “Firefox – Oh, I wouldn’t say that Trump is “odds on” to be re-elected at all. To the contrary, I’d say he is an historically vulnerable President. His approval ratings have been underwater for much of the last three years, and there does appear to be a solid 50% of people who want him gone. Of course, he has strong economy (for now) on his side, and he has probably 40% of people who think he can do no wrong, so in the final wash-up it will probably come down to turn-out. Can Trump win? Sure. Is he likely to win? At this stage I’d say he is a 50-50 bet at best.”

    ***

    By odds on, I mean he is the heavy favourite to win the election in the betting markets, especially against anyone who isn’t Sanders or Bloomberg.

    Totally agree that he’s vulnerable but his vulnerabilities must be attacked and exposed. Sanders is the only one who has been able to do that. So far the Dem establishment has played right into his hands and shows no signs of learning the lessons of the last four years.

  34. It will be interesting to see if Trump goes with the ‘Keep America Great’ slogan into the election. If he does, the strugglers who previously voted for him out of economic anxiety may question at what point it became ‘great again’ over the last 4 years.

  35. While Biden, Klobucher, and especially Bloomberg are a bit to far to the right for my tastes

    Klobuchar is more progressive than Buttigieg in some areas. This is a very useful website…
    https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/amy-klobuchar/
    Klobuchar is more left than people assume. Perhaps because she is more tolerant of other views. She believes in a ‘big tent’ Democrat party… eg, welcoming pro-lifers while arguing for pro-choice policies.

  36. “Trump is not ‘most US Presidents’. We have seen that he can turn a winning week into a bad one – he has no self control, is an utterly corrupted narcissist, operates without any moral base, a megalomaniac, a psychopath. The US public generally abhor him. Some of the 40% who vote for him can be won over if he continues on his course to despotism he neither can nor wants to change.”

    ***

    No, no he is not. But you must understand that all those negative qualities you’ve listed are actually why his base of MAGA nutters love him so much. And it was less than 30% who voted for him. And yes, some of them – those who just voted for him because they wanted change, not the far-right MAGA fascists – can indeed be won over, but certainly not by the Democratic establishment…

  37. Mayor Pete ticks a lot of the boxes. He knows when to take his jacket off, when to leave it on, when to loosen his tie, when to take it off, when to roll his sleeves up. But I heard a rumour (maybe even here) that he wears his pin in his right lapel. Is that true because, in all honesty, I couldn’t support a candidate that doesn’t place his pin over his heart. 😉

  38. Hugoaugogo
    “FUN FACT: We’ve now had three two-term Presidencies in succession (Clinton-Bush-Obama), for the first time in 200 years (Jefferson-Madison-Monroe from 1800-24)”

    Within that 200 years, the ability of certain Presidents to achieve two consecutive terms was prevented by death while in office, through illness or assassination.

  39. The “strong economy” moniker is applied by people who are out of touch with how the economy actually affects people. You can’t just look at the headline unemployment rate and conclude that the economy is strong. The headline rate does not reveal the more consequential facts for people’s lived experiences: that many of the jobs are of poor quality, that there is a massive amount of under-employment and hidden unemployment, that real wage rises are stagnant for all but a sliver of the population, while prices rise significantly for health care, education, housing, and energy.

    To think that the US economy is strong you have to be insulated from the effects of bad economy policy. This is the case for all of the centrist media pundits who keep saying that the economy is strong. Their word is not going to override voters’ lived experiences of how insecure, hard, and precarious their lives are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *