Discussion for article #245768
Correct answer. Our sitting President of the country and still titular head of the Democratic Party must be perceived to be above the fray.
13 Likes
Goodness, what an absurd question to ask the president. The only possible purpose is to catch him making a prediction that is wrong just so the media can use it as another excuse to put down the Presidentā¦again.
5 Likes
Iām sure heās hoping itās Hillary. She will protect his legacy.
2 Likes
I have recently been told that in a way there is no āwinnerā in NH, it is not a winner take all state. Delegates who get above 15% of the vote in each of the congressional districts, which have 8 delegates apiece. So unless there is a massive wipe out of one or the other candidate, each will be receiving some delegates in proportion to their votes.
So all of this ātakingā NH is a bit of nonsense, isnāt it?
1 Like
Hillary has already proposed repealing one of the taxes that make Obamacare viable, without proposing an alternative source of revenue, so no.
Or maybe sheāll continue Obamaās legacy on Social Security ā an empty promise about protecting it on the campaign trail, then after the election a āpanelā stacked with people who want to find funds for another tax cut for the rich while āfixingā Social Security; or a āgrand bargainā where Social Security is just one of those things we can trade away for things Democrats āreallyā want, like that budget Obama proposed with the Social Security benefit cut that he, Pelosi, and Hoyer all swore wasnāt a benefit cut. On that legacy, Hillary just might deliver. For now Hillary talks of improving benefits for women, but where will the money for those benefits come from? Reduced benefits for others? Just add the costs to the national credit card like a Republican would? That would make Social Security less secure, and with friends on Wall Street who could use the business, maybe privatization will be back on the table. But not until after the election, of course.
2 Likes
as per my conversations here with HRC supporters after IA even a 0.2% win is still a win. regardless of proportional allocation of delegates and how far behind Bernie was in the preceding weeks/months.
I made the same case you are making and I was dismissed out of hand.
3 Likes
Well, yeah. Itās because no one likes you. [Iād add a winky face here to let you know Iām kidding, but I gave them up for Lent]. In seriousness, I think your average voter is going to call a win a win, regardless of delegate count. Even if itās just for show, the optics are huge and can help a candidate. I think if Hillary had lost in New Hampshire in 2008 she would have had to face the fact that she lost the nomination a lot sooner than she did.
I donāt think a win for Bernie is as big a deal as that 2008 win though, because itās expected. But it could help Bernie gain some momentum going into SC. Who knows. As a Hillary supporter, Iām hoping the loss will be less than 10% but I suspect itās going to be more like somewhere between 15 and 20%. Iām really not looking forward to the media hyperventilation starting just a few short hours from now. I have logged out of Facebook and have my Jameson handy for what could be a painful night for me.
2 Likes
Moronic question. Sane answer.
1 Like
agreed on most pointsā¦
1st, doesnāt lent start tomorrow?
2nd, I hope Bernie wins (not a surprise)
3rd, I think the spread will hover 10%. (my guess 8%) there is always a good bit of movement betwixt IA & NH. And NH has saved a Clinton more than once. (and VT/NH proximity angle is overplayed)
if you are thinking a 15% spread, my guess is you can drink to beating expectationsā¦ At least if you enjoy making lemonadeā¦
1 Like
Iām guessing between 10 and 15 points. Given that the media will probably spin it as a ābeating expectationsā / āmomentumā win for Hillary as long as she can keep the gap in the single digits, it will be pretty funny if the final numbers are 9.8% or 10.2% ā might be time for another Larry David bit!
2 Likes
Maybe if you pray a few novenas God will hear you. You did go to confession last Saturday night, right?
āSo all of this ātakingā NH is a bit of nonsense, isnāt it?ā
Nice try MyMy but you know tomorrow will be all about the winner and loser optics, the media-driven āhorse raceā, and 300,000 young people donating $27 ea by the end of the month. And new volunteers, lots and lots of new volunteers.
So hang on!
By the way, not that it really matters, but as NY Magazine puts it āSince our nation was founded on the principle of 'no taxation without an insanely convoluted process of electing representation,ā the bizarre delegate-apportionment rules in New Hampshire mean that Bernie would have to win 56% to achieve more than a tie in delegates.
Apparently to be one of the first two states you not only have to be overwhelmingly white and largely rural, you also have to have some cockamamie formula for assigning delegates that obfuscates the candidatesā true levels of support. Of course Iowa is still the hands-down winner in both convolutedness and opaqueness, but itās not for lack of trying on New Hampshireās part.
4 Likes
YOu lie as often as Ted Cruz does, and with less effectiveness.
1 Like
You have a vivid imagination of all sorts of coming doom, condew.
1 Like
Well, Obamaās rightly being coy, but, just to play political science for fun, letās hypothesize that if someone from New England is on the Democratic* primary ballot in New Hampshire, heās going to win New Hampshire and then see whether past primaries that had a New Englander in the race support that hypothesis:
2004 - John Kerry* (38.4%) Howard Dean (26.4%) Wesley K Clark (12.4%) John Edwards (12.0%) Joseph Lieberman (8.6%) Dennis Kucinich (1.4%) Al Sharpton (0.2%)
1992 - Paul E. Tsongas 33.2% Bill Clinton* (24.8%) Bob Kerrey (11.1%) Tom Harkin (10.2%) Jerry Brown ( 8.0%)
1988 - Michael Dukakis ( 36.4%) Dick Gephardt (20.3%) Paul Simon (17.4%) Jesse Jackson (8.0%) Al Gore (6.9%) Bruce Babbitt (4.7%) Gary Hart (4.0%)
1980 - Jimmy Carter* (47.1%) Edward M. Kennedy (37.3%) Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (9.6%)
1976 - Jimmy Carter* (28.4%) Morris K. Udall (22.7%) Birch Bayh (15.2%) Fred R. Harris (10.8%) R. Sargent Shriver (8.2%) Hubert Humphrey (5.6%) Henry M. Jackson (2.3%) George Wallace (1.3%)
(Iām putting this one in because someone will undoubtedly claim that the guy from Maryland who never won an election is a āNew Englanderā because he married into the Kennedy family. Which, of course, he was not.).
1972 - Edmund S. Muskie (46.4%) George McGovern* (37.1%) Sam Yorty (6.1%) Wilbur Mills (4%) Vance Hartke (2.7%)
1960 - John F. Kennedy (85.2%) All others (14.8%)
So, unless the New Englander is running against an incumbent Democratic president or splitting the vote with another New Englander, Iād say the we canāt reject the null hypothesis and the smart moneyās on Sanders.
(*Interestingly, the rare New England Republicans who were on the ballot got their nuts crushed in the New Hampshire primary.)
2 Likes
I havenāt gone to confession in this century. I stopped being a practicing Catholic when I realized I couldnāt belong to a church where I couldnāt one day be the boss. I mean I think weāve established what a bossypants I am!
1 Like
not sure we have largely rural in this country without overwhelmingly whiteā¦
this surely underscores the non-representative nature of our early contests.
that said, the small state aspect is purposeful and to some degree useful.
if California was first, candidates like Bernie or even Obama couldnāt get off the ground. Money and name recognition would rule the day. this imho would be worse than the existing system.
for the record Iām in NH, but that doesnāt mean I think NH should have the power all the time, and man, does it get old after a while.
so if we were to rotate and put states like Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico and Connecticut in rotation we could mitigate some of the rural and whiteness.
1 Like
True, yes we do. No doubt about that.
I survived Catholic school. How do you think I feel.
Lost my belief system in Vietnam, my God in Catholic school.
Yeah, still crazy after all these years.
1 Like