Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET)

[Adam Griffin]

This looks like an 8-12% win to Sanders.

Which in all likelihood means a 12-12 split in the delegates. Sanders will need more than 56.3% of the vote in one or both of the CDs to win a majority of delegates.

[Adam Griffin]

Decision Desk toplines:

Clinton 36.52%
Sanders 61.98%

!!!!!

[Adam Griffin]

What if we see The Harpy go down by 30 points or more this evening? Surely The Media will put the final nail in her coffin!

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, let me guess: Hillary supporters in here being whiny and antagonistic after being delivered a brutal spanking in her latest underperformance? I'd recommend that everybody else stop engaging them. They've all been bragging and making grand assertions for years now, with a stealthy series of goal-posts being moved every time they fall short.

"But Hillary will win with 70% of the vote!"
"60%!"
"50%!"
"Hillary will destroy Bernie in IA"
"Hillary won* IA and it doesn't matter by how much - suck it"
"Who cares if Bernie wins NH by low double-digits? It's next to his home state!"
"It doesn't matter that Hillary lost by more than 20, there's Nevada!"
etc etc etc.

In other words: sooner or later, they might be right about something, but it won't be because they know any damn thing.

[Adam Griffin]

Was this a record turnout for New Hampshire? Looks like NH had as many people turnout as IA, despite having just a little over half the population.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, let me guess: Hillary supporters in here being whiny and antagonistic after being delivered a brutal spanking in her latest underperformance? I'd recommend that everybody else stop engaging them. They've all been bragging and making grand assertions for years now, with a stealthy series of goal-posts being moved every time they fall short.

"But Hillary will win with 70% of the vote!"
"60%!"
"50%!"
"Hillary will destroy Bernie in IA"
"Hillary won* IA and it doesn't matter by how much - suck it"
"Who cares if Bernie wins NH by low double-digits? It's next to his home state!"
"It doesn't matter that Hillary lost by more than 20, there's Nevada!"
etc etc etc.

In other words: sooner or later, they might be right about something, but it won't be because they know any damn thing.

Actually, Sanders supporters are the ones moving the goalposts. Early on, the intellectually honest admitted that Iowa was a must win state for Sanders. Now suddenly just NH is enough to make him inevitable. lol

Except NOBODY SAID THAT EVER.

At least two people here have. And I'm sure many pundits have as well.

Lord, if we're going to start picking out "one or two people" from the crowd as the barometer, then we need look no further than you and your current, hilarious signature for an indictment and proof of my claims!

[Adam Griffin]

IceSpear was literally the original Hillary hack who was convinced that Hillary would win with >70% of the primary vote, carry every state, would win the general by 20 points and planned on coming back to laugh at everybody else here who doubted that come primary time!

"Inevitable" was always the word, but it's so bad that he must now cling to the word "inevitable" in the context of "hey, she's inevitably going to slide by by the skin of her teeth because one quarter of the Democratic primary electorate doesn't know the name of the other candidate and so she'll run up the board with them" and "she inevitably beat Sanders in Iowa and that's all that matters"!

[Adam Griffin]

The problem with people who seem to think that Hillary will guarantee a victory for the Democrats in November is that they're viewing this election through 2008-tinted glasses rather than 2016 ones.

The gender gap is wider than ever, thanks in large part to incessant, empty Democratic Party pandering to women on a whole host of issues that either we can't actually do anything about or that we can't do anything about until we can actually hold the House again (15 years?). This has the one-two punch of lessening the urgency about turning out for Democrats when we trot out the talking points every two years and do nothing about it, and driving male Democratic support down even further. We've been banking on the whole "well women are 1% more of the electorate and the gender gap doesn't matter if we get them to vote for us 1% more than men vote against us" thing for far too long, and it's only going to make elections (let alone governing) more difficult as we go on. Hillary being a woman is not a net benefit at this point (it might even be a liability). Unfortunately, this aspect of identity politics is wearing out in terms of effectiveness, as it would have sooner or later.

Nobody is enthusiastic about Clinton. I suppose there are a few upper-middle class women between the ages of 45-65 that are rearing to go for Hillary, but short of that, nobody is fired up over the concept. The Democratic Party coalition, and perhaps more importantly, the Obama Coalition, only works with enthusiasm. Take that out of the picture, make it a generic election and suddenly, we lose a percentage point of the PV due to black support regressing to the mean, another percentage point of the PV due to youth support and turnout regressing to the mean, and possibly an additional one-to-two points of the PV from a combination of regressed turnout and support across the rest of the spectrum.

Nobody trusts her. Sixty percent of the country thinks she is not trustworthy, and that fundamental feeling seeps into all of the important character questions and qualities that cost Romney the election in 2012. "Who do you think cares about people like you?", "Who is most in touch with the everyday experiences of your life?", etc. Romney lost because he was an out-of-touch person with a nine-figure net worth that people didn't trust to do the right thing. At best with Clinton as the nominee, we can only hope that the Republicans nominate someone who is equally shifty, wealthy and disliked by the public. That of course will result in a race to the bottom of the barrel, which will depress turnout and result in what I covered in the second paragraph.

"Her time" has passed. What do I mean by that? The time in which she as an individual would have been a great choice for the Party in a national election. It's not fair to her - 2008 was her year, and I cast my first presidential election ballot for her - but this is the reality. I'm not saying she'll lose, but what I am saying is that the whole "sure bet" thing with Clinton is a crock of crap.