Jump to content

Bernie Wins Big In New Hampshire


Recommended Posts

A double-digit-plus margin of victory for Sanders in New Hampshire shows he has popular appeal and could be gaining momentum elsewhere. It was the widest margin ever in NH primary history. But NH is not representative of the Nation and there's a long way to go.

 

Some significant NH takaways:-- Bernie's support was strongest among low income voters. And Bernie was able to raise more campaign money than Hillary, relying only on small donations. Even with superpacs, Hillary fell second in NH. Democratic turnout was highest in NH primary history. Voter turnout broke the record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the Republican field, I would vote for the Democratic Party's nominee even if it was a retarded field mouse. I'm more motivated by preventing the damage that a Republican would cause, especially to the Supreme Court.

 

I originally wanted O'Malley because at age 53 I felt his relative youth to be an asset (compared to Sanders, 74 and Clinton, 68).

 

Since he's now no longer running, I want the candidate that has the best chance of beating whoever the Republican nominee is.

 

On average:

  • Sanders seems to be motivating the youth vote, as Obama did.
  • Clinton has the black and Hispanic vote so far, as Obama did.
  • Clinton is getting more of the vote of the voters age 55 and up.
  • Clinton has the email server problem. (Which I agree was a big error in judgement.)
  • Sanders has the problem of trying to make the word "socialism" palatable to Americans that have been raised to be afraid of it. The distinction between democratic socialism and state-ownership socialism is something understood mostly by the young and mostly not understood by older voters.

I believe the Republican nominee will end up being Cruz. Trump is also possible, of course.

 

Cruz, I believe, would best Sanders by a slim margin, but would lose by a slim margin to Clinton.

Trump / Sanders would be very close and I couldn't predict, but I think Trump would lose by a wide margin to Clinton.

 

So I should head to the Hil ... why am I feeling the Bern?

 

I definitely don't want to take a Cruz.

And I cringe in revulsion at the thought of Trumpster diving.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The distinction between democratic socialism and state-ownership socialism is something understood mostly by the young and mostly not understood by older voters.

 

It would be interesting to see poll results about this. I'm guessing very few people know about the difference.

 

 

So I should head to the Hil ... why am I feeling the Bern?

 

Heh heh. Sacrifice the flawed possible to the near perfect? I'm doing it.

 

While I agree about Hillary's better chances as of now, I'm impressed by Bernie's progress: His fundraising and campaigning abilities so far. I'm just afraid he'll lose his voice. At 74, his future is surely less certain than a fifty or sixty something. And they will use that against him, should he become the Democratic candidate.

 

 

I definitely don't want to take a Cruz.

And I cringe in revulsion at the thought of Trumpster diving.

 

At least The Donald provides entertainment value. Think of the field day the press would have with him. Cruz has all the charm of a scorpion in a sleeping bag.

Actually, in the general election, I would guess the chances for either of them are slim and none. That's a huge reason the Republican establishment doesn't favor either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, in the general election, I would guess the chances for either of them are slim and none. That's a huge reason the Republican establishment doesn't favor either.

 

It's a mistake to underestimate Cruz. I know some die-hard Republicans who would never vote for any Democrat, that say they'll stay away from the polls if Trump is the nominee; but they like Cruz. Not as a person, you understand, but as a possible president.

 

Most commentators, even those that disagree with him (like his ex-prof Dershowitz) agree that he's brilliant.

 

Beside that, he's about as doctrinally correct for the right as they'd want. Look at this web page, that rates the candidates from a conservative viewpoint: https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates They all have some red dots (bad for conservatives) except Cruz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While no opponent should be underestimated, it's still possible to rank them by probable effectiveness.

 

Despite the fact that Cruz is orthodox Conservative; And although he may be brilliant, I think my original assessment applies:-- Many prominent figures in the Republican establishment are afraid Cruz wouldn't stand a chance in a general election. Many in his party may also be leery of the very orthodoxy and inflexibility shown on the chart.

 

The Ted Cruz pile on: GOP senators warn of revolt should he win nomination

Jan 21, 2016

Washington (CNN)Republican Party leaders and prominent senators are sharpening their knives against Ted Cruz, expressing growing alarm over his candidacy as he continues to mount a serious threat in Iowa.

In interviews with CNN, a growing number of Republicans are beginning to echo remarks made by the likes of former Sen. Bob Dole and Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, warning that the party would suffer deep losses down the ticket and risk electing a Democratic president if the Texas senator wins the nomination.

- snip -

More at:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/ted-cruz-senate-revolt/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many prominent figures in the Republican establishment are afraid Cruz wouldn't stand a chance in a general election. Many in his party may also be leery of the very orthodoxy and inflexibility shown on the chart.

 

Well, that's the debate in the Republican party, isn't it? The more moderate wing, as exemplified by McCain and Romney wants a less hard-core candidate, and they say that an extreme conservative would just lose.

 

The base wants a 100% conservative. The theory of the hard-core is that if you give the electorate moderate "Democrat-lite", they'll just vote for the Democrats, and they point to the losses of McCain and Romney as evidence.

 

I think the politics is actually irrelevant to the election. What is relevant is the candidates ability to organize a team that motivates their side and gets the vote out, plus knows how to use the money they have to to win when it's possible to win by a slim margin, wherever that's possible; but not sacrifice sure things. (Let's call that the Plouffe gambit, beautifully used for Obama against Romney in 2012.)

 

Is Cruz that candidate? He's smart enough to recognize the math and hire people to implement a strategy like that. Now that it's been done once (by Plouffe for Obama), it's common knowledge and will be implemented by anyone who understands it.

 

Let's see if he can do that against Trump first. In the Republican primary, being an orthodox conservative is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, that's the debate in the Republican party, isn't it? The more moderate wing, as exemplified by McCain and Romney wants a less hard-core candidate, and they say that an extreme conservative would just lose.

 

The base wants a 100% conservative. The theory of the hard-core is that if you give the electorate moderate "Democrat-lite", they'll just vote for the Democrats, and they point to the losses of McCain and Romney as evidence.

 

I think the politics is actually irrelevant to the election. What is relevant is the candidates ability to organize a team that motivates their side and gets the vote out, plus knows how to use the money they have to to win when it's possible to win by a slim margin, wherever that's possible; but not sacrifice sure things. (Let's call that the Plouffe gambit, beautifully used for Obama against Romney in 2012.)

 

Is Cruz that candidate? He's smart enough to recognize the math and hire people to implement a strategy like that. Now that it's been done once (by Plouffe for Obama), it's common knowledge and will be implemented by anyone who understands it.

 

Let's see if he can do that against Trump first. In the Republican primary, being an orthodox conservative is important.

 

Good points. I'm in the camp that thinks: Being so far Right as Cruz, helps him in the primaries. But it will be very hard or perhaps, impossible for him to move far enough left in the general to gain popular support. He would be seen widely, as an outright liar. And as you said, provided he beats Trump or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sanders has got to reach blacks, Latinos, and older voters to beat Clinton. He will have to be compelling and show blacks and Latinos just how free college and single payer healthcare will save them money. For older voters he will have to convince them that democratic socialism is about fairness and reclaiming their democracy from wealthy elites. Moreover if he wins the nomination it will be hard to convince independents that higher taxes and government healthcare are right and necessary. Cruz or Trump would hit him hard on these things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes kfbvoice,Cruz or Trump will attack Hillary or Bernie with real issues as well as fantasies dreamed up in think tanks. Obviously, Bernie will be attacked for his Democratic Socialism and Hillary has lots of baggage, which they will surely dredge up, depending on focus group reaction.

 

But, if by some miracle, Bernie becomes the Democratic candidate, he will have a fighting chance. His campaigning abilities are becoming more impressive as time goes on. And he has come from a long way behind, to being competitive.

 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Think-Bernie-Sanders-has-no-chance-Think-again-6828141.php

Think Bernie Sanders has no chance? Think again.

by Willie Brown / Feb 12, 2016

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination is turning into one of the most amazing and perplexing contests I’ve ever seen.

At 74, Bernie Sanders has managed to capture the youth movement, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. It’s not a political operation. It’s a pop phenomenon.

Obama motivated youngsters and others who had never participated in politics before. And like Donald Trump on the Republican side, Sanders’ energy and damn-the-establishment posture has tapped right into the Democratic Party’s idealistic core.

The once-presumed nominee, steady-as-she-goes Hillary Clinton, has no answer to the Bern. Her attempts to capture young voters have fallen flat. Her not-so-secret weapon, Big Daddy Bill, is a bust. These kids don’t even know who he is.

I was talking the other day to a professor in Nevada, where the Democrats hold their caucuses Saturday. He told me that 3,000 Sanders supporters had shown up for a rally in downtown Reno. That kind of number is impressive in a place like Nevada, which still leans Republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit perplexed by Hillary's pandering's to the black voter as well as her wrapping Obama's presidency as well as Bills in her lackluster message. Oh boy, yes, we got a fight on our hands and it has to do with getting any progress that is good for the people as a whole done.

 

The ACA was a huge let down, the Democrats who took office in 2008 were more right than left, as all of you do know. There couldn't be a public offering in the ACA because that fight was just too much to get passed they said. What was that fight against, big pharma, all the few medical schools that only allow so few future primary doctors in, the fact that we have too few good nurses and too few people allowed into nursing schools?

Was it a fight where the media let Republicans talk over and over again with their lies / you know, the ACA is being done in the back rooms, they want to make the government decide if you will live or die... They want to take your healthcare away from you, you know the greatest healthcare system in the US is being destroyed by the Democrats they said, in summation to all their stupid lies. They want you to pay if you choose not to pay for healthcare insurance - wouldn't it be better if you were free to choose to go it alone???

So then, the Right took the freedom of not having to be herded into paying for healthcare insurance to court big time, took it all the way to the Supreme Court. Their aim was to make sure it did't work, couldn't work, and then they would make it all go away.

 

Look at people in red states, any state, and the drug issue. Hey, heroin is back big time because it's cheap and if you're addicted to prescription pain killers already, well, why not. I'm sorry, but this lack of leadership is so insane that I am very bothered that a person with a voice that can be heard by the many and has some intelligence cannot stand up and say --- enough!

 

Obama did once or twice - I dug the heck out of it when he did, but the media apparently did not!

 

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes kfbvoice,Cruz or Trump will attack Hillary or Bernie with real issues as well as fantasies dreamed up in think tanks. Obviously, Bernie will be attacked for his Democratic Socialism and Hillary has lots of baggage, which they will surely dredge up, depending on focus group reaction.

 

But, if by some miracle, Bernie becomes the Democratic candidate, he will have a fighting chance. His campaigning abilities are becoming more impressive as time goes on. And he has come from a long way behind, to being competitive.

 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Think-Bernie-Sanders-has-no-chance-Think-again-6828141.php

Real issues coming from the GOP??? I haven't seen them attack on real issues since I can remember. Attacking Hillary because she sent email or Bengazi are fantasy. There are many things they could attack about because she does have baggage, but the GOP doesn't seem to know what those things are. As to attacking Bernie, yes they will, because they don't know what socialism means and they will think it means communism.

 

I am hoping people are tired of voting against their own interests and instead will vote for things that help them instead of continuing to vote against America. My fears are that it won't matter because Diebold, ES&S and others along with the corrupt Supreme court will void any election and appoint the republican. I really wish the democratic party would take up the issue, they can't win without it. Unless they do, there is no reason to vote, nor to accept the results of any fraudulent election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They attack using fake issues and manufactured issues all too often. But they attack on real issues too, like Hillary's excessive speaking fees. They will attack Bernie on his age, which worries many of Bernie's supporters also. You didn't know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They attack using fake issues and manufactured issues all too often. But they attack on real issues too, like Hillary's excessive speaking fees. They will attack Bernie on his age, which worries many of Bernie's supporters also. You didn't know?

Good points. However it is hard for the GOP to complain about excessive speaking fees when they take everything they can get from "speaking" fees, so mostly they will attack on fantasy items.

 

As to attacking Bernie on his age, they probably will, and attack on anything else they can imagine. I would suggest they will attack mostly on made up nonsense. Maybe they will attack Bernie claiming he is too old to know how to use email.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points. However it is hard for the GOP to complain about excessive speaking fees when they take everything they can get from "speaking" fees, so mostly they will attack on fantasy items.

 

Of course the Republican party is made up of mostly total hypocrites and will attack the opposition in areas where themselves are most at blame. They depend on bluster and tribal loyalty, built up by Fox news, et al, to deflect from their own misdeeds. I can't possibly imagine the fantasies their expensive think tanks will invent next, to go on the attack.

 

 

As to attacking Bernie on his age, they probably will, and attack on anything else they can imagine. I would suggest they will attack mostly on made up nonsense. Maybe they will attack Bernie claiming he is too old to know how to use email.

 

Yes. It's admittedly uncommon they get something real to to use as a propaganda weapon..... When they do, they usually add layers of fiction both to make it sound worse and often, confuse the issue, making it harder to counter. But the far right's playbook most often invents a plot meant to appeal to their constituency. Whereas Left Wing politicians, wanting to solve real problems, are at the disadvantage of having to discuss an often less pleasant or less lurid reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders has got to reach blacks, Latinos, and older voters to beat Clinton. He will have to be compelling and show blacks and Latinos just how free college and single payer healthcare will save them money. For older voters he will have to convince them that democratic socialism is about fairness and reclaiming their democracy from wealthy elites. Moreover if he wins the nomination it will be hard to convince independents that higher taxes and government healthcare are right and necessary. Cruz or Trump would hit him hard on these things.

 

You know these policies, free college, single payer healthcare, no discrimination based on race or gender, etc ... these policies will not only be good for poor and middle class people. In the long run they'll also be good for rich people because by expanding opportunity for everybody, the whole society gets more productive and therefore richer.

 

This is something about which Bill Gates has deep understanding, and Martin Shkreli is totally ignorant.

 

What those policies don't do is to enrich the rich even more quickly at the expense of everybody else. The short term gain for the richest is a poor bargain, even for them, because when opportunity is expanded for everyone, the exponential technological advance of the country ends up making the richer richer than they would have been without it (in the long run). Moreover, "the long run" is a time frame that is shortening, exactly because science and technology advance exponentially. We accomplish in one year today what would taken decades 50 years ago.

 

Another way to say it is: amassing wealth of the world is not a zero-sum game. If a person takes it to be a zero sum game, and gets all the wealth ... then the economy stops and there is no further advance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course the Republican party is made up of mostly total hypocrites and will attack the opposition in areas where themselves are most at blame. They depend on bluster and tribal loyalty, built up by Fox news, et al, to deflect from their own misdeeds. I can't possibly imagine the fantasies their expensive think tanks will invent next, to go on the attack.

 

 

 

Yes. It's admittedly uncommon they get something real to to use as a propaganda weapon..... When they do, they usually add layers of fiction both to make it sound worse and often, confuse the issue, making it harder to counter. But the far right's playbook most often invents a plot meant to appeal to their constituency. Whereas Left Wing politicians, wanting to solve real problems, are at the disadvantage of having to discuss an often less pleasant or less lurid reality.

One of the things the GOP does well is to attack where they are weakest. For example, when it is obvious that they are criminally inclined, they accuse the political opponent of being a criminal. That way when it is pointed out that the republican is a criminal, they claim they are not as bad as that criminal over there. It is worse than hypocritical.

 

Talking reality and discussing real issues is what I want to hear, but the GOP typically presents fantasies to appeal to emotion, not policy. That can make them more interesting, but I get tired of hearing the same old nonsense with no meaning behind it.

 

All too often I hear the same thing from the politicians that I hear in the No Holds Barred section. Mudslinging and nothing else. Name calling with nothing behind it.

 

You know these policies, free college, single payer healthcare, no discrimination based on race or gender, etc ... these policies will not only be good for poor and middle class people. In the long run they'll also be good for rich people because by expanding opportunity for everybody, the whole society gets more productive and therefore richer.

 

...

 

What those policies don't do is to enrich the rich even more quickly at the expense of everybody else. The short term gain for the richest is a poor bargain, even for them, because when opportunity is expanded for everyone, the exponential technological advance of the country ends up making the richer richer than they would have been without it (in the long run). Moreover, "the long run" is a time frame that is shortening, exactly because science and technology advance exponentially. We accomplish in one year today what would taken decades 50 years ago.

 

Another way to say it is: amassing wealth of the world is not a zero-sum game. If a person takes it to be a zero sum game, and gets all the wealth ... then the economy stops and there is no further advance.

Well said. This needs to be repeated over and over till even the rich hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking if Bernie wins I will move to the US. I'm kinda sick of BS in Canada. Something ugly that has popped up in Canada, English/French hate. A few weeks ago, I was called an insult I hadn't heard since the 90s. Today I was called something worse.

 

When I lived in the US before, I enjoyed it.

 

I stay in Canada for the reasons that... well, Bernie Sanders wants to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things the GOP does well is to attack where they are weakest. For example, when it is obvious that they are criminally inclined, they accuse the political opponent of being a criminal. That way when it is pointed out that the republican is a criminal, they claim they are not as bad as that criminal over there. It is worse than hypocritical.

 

Talking reality and discussing real issues is what I want to hear, but the GOP typically presents fantasies to appeal to emotion, not policy. That can make them more interesting, but I get tired of hearing the same old nonsense with no meaning behind it.

 

All too often I hear the same thing from the politicians that I hear in the No Holds Barred section. Mudslinging and nothing else. Name calling with nothing behind it.

 

Much of the "GOP"s support comes from the under-educated and religious. They are accustomed to putting their trust in dramatic emotional appeals which are full of accusations and name-calling but are either unimportant like the many wedge issues or make little sense, like racism. Most Republican rhetoric is not meant for people who base decisions on critical thinking. GOP propaganda doesn't normally convince those who can distinguish reality from primitive appeals to emotion.

 

So long as the "GOP" continues to support that faction of the Plutocracy whose ambition it is to become omnipotent, they need emotionally involving diversions to keep their base occupied. Their supporters must never be permitted to focus on what's truly important - The security and well-being of themselves and those they love. And these Republican political propagandists.... Middle-men between the Plutocracy and the Conservative populace..... Have succeeded in driving much of their electorate to distraction. It is a trick which would have made Goebbels turn green with envy.

I am thinking if Bernie wins I will move to the US. I'm kinda sick of BS in Canada. Something ugly that has popped up in Canada, English/French hate. A few weeks ago, I was called an insult I hadn't heard since the 90s. Today I was called something worse.

 

When I lived in the US before, I enjoyed it.

 

I stay in Canada for the reasons that... well, Bernie Sanders wants to change.

 

Keep your fingers crossed, but don't hold your breath. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking if Bernie wins I will move to the US. I'm kinda sick of BS in Canada. Something ugly that has popped up in Canada, English/French hate. A few weeks ago, I was called an insult I hadn't heard since the 90s. Today I was called something worse.

When I lived in the US before, I enjoyed it.

I stay in Canada for the reasons that... well, Bernie Sanders wants to change.

We moved to Canada in 1997, but we had made up our minds to leave Quebec after the 1995 referendum on secession. You might remember the turnout was around 98%, and the "no" side won 50.1% to 49.9%. In his concession speech, premier Parizeau blamed the loss on "l'argent et la vote ethnique", i.e. money and the ethnic vote. Well, my wife is German (still has an accent) and I'm Jewish. We were the ethnic vote. There had been vandalism against immigrant businesses, and a mail box had been blown up. We decided that a German and a Jew should be able to learn something from history, and when the opportunity arose for me to take a job in Florida, I took it. We're still happy here. :D
Link to post
Share on other sites

We moved to Canada in 1997, but we had made up our minds to leave Quebec after the 1995 referendum on secession. You might remember the turnout was around 98%, and the "no" side won 50.1% to 49.9%. In his concession speech, premier Parizeau blamed the loss on "l'argent et la vote ethnique", i.e. money and the ethnic vote. Well, my wife is German (still has an accent) and I'm Jewish. We were the ethnic vote. There had been vandalism against immigrant businesses, and a mail box had been blown up. We decided that a German and a Jew should be able to learn something from history, and when the opportunity arose for me to take a job in Florida, I took it. We're still happy here. :D

I am from Nova Scotia and am French. That speech you refer to is often used as anti-francophone propaganda to incite violence against francophones outside of Quebec by Anglophones on the right side of political spectrum (but also on the left too). I got attacked last night and was called a mutt who they couldn't wait to kick out of Confederation.

 

This kind of stuff I hadn't experienced for years. Actually the last time, we'll it was the last time oil was this low. Maybe it's economic. But also, English right wingers get their knickers in a knot when they don't like the government and blame it on the French, minorities, women, poor people, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from Nova Scotia and am French. That speech you refer to is often used as anti-francophone propaganda to incite violence against francophones outside of Quebec by Anglophones on the right side of political spectrum (but also on the left too). I got attacked last night and was called a mutt who they couldn't wait to kick out of Confederation.

 

This kind of stuff I hadn't experienced for years. Actually the last time, we'll it was the last time oil was this low. Maybe it's economic. But also, English right wingers get their knickers in a knot when they don't like the government and blame it on the French, minorities, women, poor people, etc.

 

I'm sorry to hear that. I've known Franco-Ontarians who said the same. In fact, I was having this kind of discussion in 1995 with some Quebecois a work who said they would never believe that there was discrimination against non-"de souche" Quebecers. (I even mentioned that where my wife had worked, at Siemens, the HR department just threw out any resume without a Quebecois name). Anyway, the Franco-Ontarian guy said, "Quand quelqu'un se sent violé, il est violé." He knew, because he'd experienced the same thing in Ontario.

 

My wife had heard the same kind of thing from a Quebecois manager at Siemens in Montreal: "We don't you immigrants, we never wanted you immigrants, so get out and good riddance." And HR had gotten paperwork for her promotion form her manager and the VP, then did nothing for a year. She found out one month before we came to Tampa, and didn't have the stomach to raise hell. If it were me, I'd have demanded it and made a fuss for back pay. or at least raised it with Quebec's Commission des normes du travail.

 

Isn't it a shame that people will ruin a perfectly good country with these kinds of petty squabbles?

 

Plus ça change ....

 

On a happier note, have you ever heard Richard Desjardin's Le Chant du Bum? I've translated it into English, not word for word, but as a song, with rhymes, and the punch line works in English too: "Finally someone who understands, I think I'll take the money, man!"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest divide and conquer applies everywhere. When we can't get along with our neighbors because of some petty difference, we don't notice being robbed by those who push propaganda trying to keep us divided.

 

Maybe half the Country, more or less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...