I'm also just reading that Bernie got 75,000 fewer votes in NH than he did in 2016, when he got 60% of the vote. Doesn't sound like winning big to me. https://nypost.com/2020/02/12/berni...r-after-barely-squeaking-by-in-new-hampshire/ excerpt: Berni Sanders won in the worst way in New Hampshire. Of course, a victory is far better than a defeat, but Sanders got 75,000 fewer votes in 2020 than he received in the Granite State four years ago — with 26 percent, compared to his 60 percent in 2016. You can attribute all this to the fact that Sanders had only one rival in ’16 and he was able to consolidate the anti-establishment and anti-moderate vote that was repelled by Hillary Clinton. But consider this: If Elizabeth Warren, Bernie’s fellow progressive candidate, had dropped out of the race last week and he had gotten all her voters, Sanders would still have come up 50,000 votes short of his 2016 total. Nor can you point to lower voter participation across the state to explain it, because it appears turnout was up somewhere between 10 and 20 percentage points over last time. You just have to say that in what was arguably his best state in 2016, Sanders underperformed in 2020. He spent a reported $3.5 million in advertising in New Hampshire, while Pete Buttigieg spent a few hundred thousand. The final average of New Hampshire polls had Sanders beating Buttigieg by 7.4 points. He wound up outdistancing Buttigieg by less than 2. So with what appears to have been a tie in Iowa with Buttigieg and a razor-thin victory over Pete in New Hampshire, Bernie moves ahead as the front-runner — but a weak one. Now, weak early front-runners do win their party’s nominations. Mitt Romney was one. It’s better to be one than not to be one. But it’s an interesting portent that Sanders received almost exactly the same percentage of voters in New Hampshire as in Iowa last week. That makes the Sanders challenge going forward reasonably obvious. He has to show he can do better than 26 percent in the Nevada caucuses in 10 days.
No he hasn’t by any means. But 44% of the vote in NH doesn’t win the the nomination either. I get a feeling that Iowa, NH pay a lot more attention to candidates like Amy/Pete then other states will (due to them being the first states) I get a feeling name recognition, and especially enthusiasm for Klobuchar is going to be relatively bad to how hyped up some politically intuned people view her. She’s firmly closer to Steyer then she is Bernie/Biden or even Pete/Warren for that matter. Edit, also count me in the group of people who thinks it’s pretty silly to compare support in a 2 person race from 4 years ago vs a 8+ candidate race now. I think Bernie has a significantly better opportunity to win the nomination this year.
Uhhh that’s one way of looking at it if you are a Trumper who wants to spin a glass half full feel good storyline. The other way of looking at it is that turnout was 18% higher among registered Dems and maybe even higher than the record breaking 08 turnout. It’s a turnout election and if Bernie is winning the turnout vote, then that should strike fear into Trumps campaign. The reason Bernie has less overall votes than in 16 is obviously because of so many Dem choices. In 16 there were like 3. This year there were like 30. Voters who chose Yang, Warren, etc. would have very likely have voted for Bernie had only Hillary been on the ballot vs Bernie. So yeah... it’s the Trump supporting NY Post so I think their partisan vantage point is worth noting. However it’s just New Hampshire and it won’t be just rich white liberals who make Bernie president in November. However we can certainly talk about the increased turnout here which is really the story IMO. South Carolina, Nevada, and Texas are going to be the 3 primary states that’ll tell us pretty much everything we need to know... especially about how we should feel about Bernie as the nominee in November.
stopped reading at 'Trumper' add Biden's 25,000 votes and you have 150,000+ people who voted for Klobubidengieg AKA "not Bernie"
Is the NY Post not supportive of Trump? Yes... Pete and Khlobachar did well. Hillary got 95,000 in 2016 so that number is good news about turnout even for a more moderate candidate. What’s your point? The article was making a glass half full argument for Trump supporters in a night that doesn’t bode well for Trump in November but it’s just New Hampshire so it’s not even a leading indicator. Just an interesting early primary and a case to judge how these candidates do in their ground games.
That’s not how it works though, as odd as it may seem, those candidates don’t split an evenly as you think. Bernie might get most of Biden’s supporters due to pure name recognition or some people wanting a candidate with a lot of experience, Warren might many if Amy’s supporters due to people wanting a women candidate, Pete supporters might not like Biden due to some ad attacks, or they see how he’s kind of off/nutty and might prefer amy/warren/sanders. They don’t just all perfectly stack together for one ideology or another as logical as that would seem. People have very different ways of choosing a candidates to vote for.
During the last primaries, there were only 2 realistic candidates who could win the nomination in Hillary and Bernie. Bernie had no rivals such as Warren who eats up some of the proggresive vote.
If Bernie actually won I would give it 2 yrs before the whole D&D would be begging to have Trump back. It will be too late by then fellas, Game Over!
It's a mixed bag. You can't compare directly to 2016 but winning by 7-8 points in this field would have been much more resounding. I think I and many others underestimated the extent to which people just either disliked/opposed the idea of Hillary walking through the primaries like some kind of coronation in 2016. EDIT: But a win is still a win, beating a field of 9 candidates rather than just 1 still deserves recognition.
Bernie only winning by 2% a neighboring state and a state he won by double digits in 2016 should be worrisome. The fact that Warren did so bad and he still squeaked by is also troubling for his prospects moving forward. He is not growing his supporters, why is that? He still has good chance for the nomination because Bloomberg, Pete and Klobachar will divide the vote it will be interesting how he does with a more diverse population.
Trump needs to take all of these candidates seriously. Don't make a Hillary-like mistake and discount the field.
"What If It's Bernie?" https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/what-if-its-bernie/ What If It’s Bernie? By Kevin D. Williamson February 12, 2020 11:43 AM It would take a lot to make President Trump seem like the 'normal' candidate in a general election. But Sanders might just pull it off. Senator Bernie Sanders, the professing socialist from Vermont, is not a member of the Democratic Party, but he is at the moment the leading candidate to win that party’s presidential nomination in 2020. He is an ideological outlier who speaks more openly about a particular -ism — socialism, in this case — than many of his allies do or would prefer he do. He has a strange and occasionally embarrassing personal history more befitting a gadfly than a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. He is intellectually unserious and develops his policy positions by simply taking one step in the direction of extremism beyond his rivals, though his extremism relative to the other contenders for the party’s nomination is at least as often rhetorical as substantive. The parallels with Donald Trump in 2016 are obvious enough — he even has an interesting real-estate portfolio. The betting markets currently have Senator Sanders’s chances of winning the nomination at 43.6 percent, well ahead of No. 2 Michael Bloomberg (26.6 percent), Pete Buttigieg (14.6 percent), and Joe Biden (9.1 percent), to say nothing of Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and the rest of the sub–5 percent gang. Sanders leads in most of the national polls. So, what if it’s Bernie? A Sanders nomination would turn the race on its head — and not in the way that Democrats might hope. For one thing, President Trump could reasonably present himself as the moderate in a race against Sanders, who promises “revolution” and seeks to reorganize the U.S. government — we have his own word on this — along Nordic lines. Trump, for all his bombast, proposes nothing comparable. When it comes to the major domestic activity of the U.S. government — entitlement spending — Trump seeks no meaningful change at all, promising only to defend the status quo and current benefits. Sanders seeks to impose a monopoly single-payer health-care system on the United States; Trump has learned that health-care reform is hard (“Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated,” the president says, overgeneralizing just a little), but with unemployment low, wages rising, and the growth in health-care costs slowing down slightly, his administration is under less pressure than it otherwise might be on the issue. Trump has not been successful in reordering American foreign relations or trade relations, but he has not initiated any new major wars — Tehran declined his invitation to the dance — and his trade war has played into populist passions that are shared in the main by those who support Senator Sanders, who is not exactly a free-trade man himself. The most obvious lines of criticism that opponents might direct at President Trump — that he is bumptious and unsteady, that he is as a matter of both character and intellect poorly suited to the office, that he has defective judgment — would sound more than a little preposterous emanating from a batty socialist relic with a heaping dose of creepy on his curriculum vitae. Will Senator Sanders charge Trump with self-enrichment from his lakeside dacha? Will the man who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and who not long ago praised Hugo Chávez’s autocratic Venezuelan regime for having created a place where the “American dream is more apt to be realized” denounce the “extremism” of Donald Trump, who was bosom friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton until the day before yesterday? The Republican Party’s contemporary anti-urbanism is a genuine vulnerability, but the Brooklyn refugee representing the bucolic green hills of Vermont is not especially well-placed to exploit that in a race against a man who is so closely identified with New York City. President Trump might be faulted for his lack of interest in the deficit and for the general fiscal indiscipline of the GOP under his leadership, but not so much by a man who is proposing $97 trillion in new spending — that’s about five times the GDP of the United States today — with no imaginable plan to pay for it. What might President Trump say for himself in a race against Senator Sanders? That, despite his long career in politics, Sanders has not a single major legislative achievement to his name. That on foreign policy, Sanders is a vague Blame America Firster. That wages are growing more quickly today than they did under the Obama administration, and are growing at an especially robust clip for lower-income workers. That unemployment is low and that economic growth is steady if not spectacular. (What the president actually has to do with any of that is not very clear, but that’s how we Americans talk about presidents, for whatever reason.) He could boast that his administration backed down Tehran and reminded Beijing that it needs U.S. markets more than the United States needs Chinese imports. President Trump has a reasonably strong economy to run on, along with what passes for peace in these United States in Anno Domini 2020. Senator Sanders is a quondam Chavista with a shuddersome literary œuvre. It takes a lot — a hell of a lot — to make Donald J. Trump look like the normal one in the race. But Bernie Sanders may be just the ticket.
When the economy once was, businesses have left, unemployment skyrockets and if by chance you have employment you can keep a little of that check then give the rest to Uncle Sam or while you are standing in a soup line waiting to stand in the clinic line you can say “that Bernie is a decent human being”.
There will be Trump supporters voting for Bernie in the primaries. I am strongly considering doing this and I know several others who are also thinking about it. We want a Trump vs. Bernie race.
