Posts
According to the New York Times-- yes, the New York Times-- last night’s biggest loser
in New Hampshire was… Hillary Clinton:
It is
hard to overstate the magnitude of the New Hampshire loss for Mrs. Clinton and
former President Bill Clinton. The state was a political bellwether for Mr.
Clinton, putting him on the path toward the Democratic nomination in 1992 and
backing him in the general elections that year and in 1996.
Voters
again came through in a big way in 2008, when Mrs. Clinton won here and revived
her candidacy after losing the Iowa caucuses to Barack Obama and
John Edwards. But on Tuesday night, Mrs. Clinton lost New Hampshire’s big
cities: Concord, Manchester and Nashua. She lost most of the small towns. She
lost in the north country and the seacoast, along the western border and through
the White Mountains.
She
lost many major demographic groups, performing best among the older and
wealthier, and among people who care about experience and electability in
November. But these voters were small in number compared with Mr. Sanders’s
legions. Mrs. Clinton won 112,404 votes in New Hampshire in 2008 in a tough
race against Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards; on Tuesday, she won about 89,000 to Mr. Sanders’s 139,000.
10 comments:
The reason Hillary did so badly is that the people of New Hampshire are sexist and hate women. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bryce-covert-hillary-victim-sexism-article-1.2525978 When one's campaign depends on the playing of the sex card then one should not be surprised to see it played in almost every situation. Like global warming, sexism is the theory of everything for feminists. One of the nice things about all these race, sex, et al cards is that it means no one has to take responsibility for their own failures It is always somebody else's fault. Though eventually few people believe the cry "Wolf."
When a tired old socialist can beat Hillary 60 to 38 per cent one has to wonder if the shake up needed is a new candidate. There were 2 percent who did not like either of them. One wonders if Biden isn't getting prepared to save the party from Bernie yet?
Jeb Bush spent 38 million dollars for what, a distant fourth maybe. He can thank Chris Christy for damaging himself in order to diminish Rubio. One thing this has proven is that money does not buy elections. If it did both Bush and Clinton would be winning big time, but alas it seems not to have worked that way so farThis is getting to be fun and scary at the same time.
It looks like they're still counting, if every vote counts. It's also interesting to see current the republicans have 33,000 more voters than the democrats, so having lots of choices at least encourages people to show up.
The vote totals with 92% are: Dem 236,573, GOP 269,623
If we imagine all the voters will focus on the party endorsed candidate, those tallies compares favorably to the 2012 general presidential election, at least 64% relative turnout for democrats, and and impressive nearly 82% for the GOP. (And those numbers might go up 8% when all the votes are in!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2012 Popular vote Obama 369,561, Romney 329,918
So I'd say the winner is New Hampshire - for proving they take their second primary position very seriously.
I also notice in 2012 Hillary got 112,000 and won over Obama who had 105,000 among a wider field. So that is a bummer for her.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NH.html
The exit polling is harsh too. Sanders got 66% of the male vote, 83% of the 18-29 vote, 66% of 30-44 vote, and 71% of those who earn less than $30k/year.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-democrat-poll.html
Of course, it also shows 70% of NH-democrats want tax-payer funded healthcare, which is 1000 times more radical than ObamaCare which basically is a subsidized give away to health insurance companies.
So if you want free college, and free healthcare, Bernie is your man. As Romney said, how do we compete with those democrats who pander with free stuff?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6aLpf5OMKw Mitt Romney – If You’re Looking For More Free Stuff, Vote For The Other Guy
Hillary is now "feeling the bern" of free stuff.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/voting-begins-in-nh-as-presidential-hopefuls-make-a-final-sprint/2016/02/08/d56162d6-cecf-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
Democrats (92.0% reporting)
Sanders 141,923 60.0% 13
Clinton 90,672 38.3% 9
Other 3,978 1.7%
TOTAL 236,573
-----------
GOP (92.0% reporting)
Trump 94,821 35.2% 10
Kasich 42,699 15.8% 3
Cruz 31,425 11.7% 2
Bush 29,851 11.1% 2
Rubio 28,353 10.5% 0
Christie 20,152 7.5% 0
Fiorina 11,248 4.2% 0
Carson 6,149 2.3% 0
Gilmore 129 0.0% 0
Other 4,796 1.8% 0
TOTAL 269,623
Who are the 129 morons who voted for Gilmore? What on earth is he doing in the race? If "Other" (whoever that is... a write-in like Mickey Mouse?) gets 4,796 votes, that means "Other" got 37 TIMES more votes than "candidate" Gilmore. What a joke. How much you wanna bet that when he bows out he"suspends" his campaign. -$$$
The Democratic Party is a collection of identity groups who play victim no matter what the results are. Whether they win, conquer or prevail, they're still pissed off. And while they all bitch, moan and complain, the New Hampshire results show that money does not buy an election. So the evils of Citizens United don't matter too much after all? Huh.
Whiny voters win elections. Stir the pot, take stands on combustible issues, and voila! -- you win. So why do moderate, establishment candidates speak so plain vanilla? They think they can wait this out. Perhaps. But Hillary and Jeb proved one thing coming out of New Hampshire and Iowa: few people are voting for them, despite their money, pedigree and "inevitability." A vagina doesn't win you an election, nor does a last name. Back to the drawing board. Maybe Hillary will reinvent herself for the 31st time... always a charm. Maybe Jeb will continue to lament how bad Mr. Trump is. It hasn't worked so far. Any bets on whether it will work going forward?
Question: Why is securing the United States border a "controversial" issue? Someone please explain that to me. Why can't we limit immigration? Why must we take in Syrian refugees? Who says we can or cannot? I'm not clear where all this nonsense is coming from. Last time I checked, we were a sovereign nation.
The real barometer in this election is "racism." There are lots of people out here who are sick of hearing that word thrown around so loosely. People are tired of being called bigots for questioning the insanity going on in this country. It's used as a conversation-stopper. It's time for people to grow a pair and stand up to the race peddlers. Enough is enough.
So yes, Dennis... "The reason Hillary did so badly is that the people of New Hampshire are sexist and hate women." There is so much hate in America. People hate everyone for everything. Hate, hate, hate... everywhere. Can't you tell? But Bernie Sanders is a loving, cuddly guy who wants to respect everyone. And Hillary is a crocheting grandma who wants to bring people together.
Give me a break.
If she's the biggest loser, why is she beating him by 352 delegates?
Hillary Clinton -- November 10, 2000: "We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president. I hope no one is ever in doubt again about whether their vote counts."
This is the same woman who walked away from New Hampshire yesterday with 15 delegates, compared to Sanders' 13 delegates... even though he crushed her by 20 points.
Is it not amusing that the equality-obsessed Democratic Party has "super delegates"? Sounds a bit like Animal Farm.
So Hillary doesn't like the Electoral College when it is inconvenient. And super delegates are convenient for her now, aren't they?
What a joke.
The biggest winner.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2015/November/39/11/magazine/article/10829676/
IAC, @6:46pm - Indeed, the New Hampshire democratic delegate split is certainly trouble, assuming the superdelegates actually vote as they claim.
On the other hand, people love an underdog, and Sanders can take in MILLIONS of donations on the PROOF he's not the "establishment" and also encourage more young people to come out and primary for him in the next states, to help block the "establishment" from crowning Clinton on their antidemocratic delegates.
I also heard that Republicans had record turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire, while the Democrats are still below Obama's "Yes we can" youth coalition.
So if young people want their free stuff, they're going to have to show up, and prove centrist Status Quo Clinton isn't good enough for their attention.
I still keep wondering if when Trump becomes President, he's going to be the "biggest spender" this country has ever seen. That's what dictators do, they take other people's money, and the redistribute it to the masses, to prove how much they are loved.
I don't think Sanders Socialism could do half the harm as Trump's appetite for glory and self-admiration.
I'll take my chances with the proven executive business man v. the Socialist wack-job from Burlington (love the fact he got his first REAL job as a mayor in 1985) he was 18 in 1959. What the hell was he doing for 26 years?
Hey Scully, "What the hell was he [Sanders]] doing for 26 years?"
That's a good question. Let's see. Looks like the University of Chicago helps explain his socialism, and it is nice to have a 21 year post-graduate educational period before his first "real job", but he had to find some income since he had a child when he was 29 at least. It's probably harder to raise a kids these days on "bounding around".
Apparently like Paul Simon, he went traveling with real estate in his bag, searching for America. Being a socialist hippy is hard work, whether you inhale or not.
You can real more here, but I assume it won't impress you.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927
--------
Sanders had grown up in Brooklyn, in Flatbush, in a three-and-a-half-room walkup. He was lower middle class, the son of a housewife and a Polish immigrant who sold paint. He was Jewish. He was, he once said, “very conscious as a kid that my father’s whole family was killed by Hitler.”
After he graduated from James Madison High School in 1959, he went to Brooklyn College for a year before transferring to the University of Chicago, where he joined the Congress of Racial Equality, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Student Peace Union and the Young People’s Socialist League.
In 1964 he graduated with a degree in political science and got married in Baltimore. That summer, not quite 23, he and his wife, Deborah Sanders, bought for $2,500 some property in Vermont, near Montpelier in the town of Middlesex off Shady Rill Road, according to property records. He wanted to live in the country, he has said, and had some inheritance money from his father, who had died in 1963. They spent parts of the next few summers on the property, living in what had been a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor. The marriage ended only two years after it began, in 1966.
He bounced around for a few years, working stints in New York as an aide at a psychiatric hospital and teaching preschoolers for Head Start, and in Vermont researching property taxation for the Vermont Department of Taxes and registering people for food stamps for a nonprofit called the Bread and Law Task Force.
By 1968, he was living in Vermont full time. On March 17, 1969, according to records, Sanders bought another property, in out-of-the-way Stannard, with a population of fewer than 200 people, in the rural area of Vermont called the Northeast Kingdom. Four days later, Levi Noah Sanders was born, at Brightlook Hospital in St. Johnsbury, Vermont; according to his birth certificate, his mother was a woman named Susan Campbell Mott.
...
-----
Post a Comment