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

[Leinad]

Someone who sweeps the independents & young vote is not electable & but someone who gets 10-20% of the independent & youth vote is electable?

Hillary's votes are the committed Democrat vote. You can put a mad person & he will still get those votes in a general

I didn't say Bernie was unelectable, per se, but that Hillary is more electable. Bernie would beat Trump easily, I think. And maybe Cruz.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Hillary's gender, last name, establishment loyalists, and the fact she doesn't call herself a "socialist" makes her more electable than Bernie. She'd do much better with moderates and probably a bit better with women.

Here is my argument? Which support will come to the Democrat party regardless of whoever is the candidate? Hillary's base - The establishment, African American, Hispanics - They will come to the Dems regardless of whoever is the candidate.

Bernie's base of huge independents & young people(who don't vote) is a new addition for the Dems making a winning coalition. Hillary's base IMO any Dem Candidate will get. I think this is why Sanders is doing much better vs GOP in all polls.

Maybe I am wrong, this is my line of thinking - Cheers! Ron Paul was my GOP guy in 08 & 12 even if I think his economic policies are wrong. Rand IMO is not as big a libertarian as Ron & I don't like his Economic policies even more but by far my favourite candidate in the GOP -

Sad he quit. His views of anti-War, Audit the fed, against Racism, for legalizing Marijuana, protecting  IP rights & individual freedom was similar to Bernie. We are getting a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

Are you going to vote Cruz?

Nope, not voting for Cruz. I'm already on the Gary Johnson 2016 Hype Train!

I agree that Bernie will bring in some voters that Hillary won't--sure. But so will Hillary--lots of moderate Democrats would probably vote for someone named Clinton, but not a self-identified socialist.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see slightly higher female turnout for The First Female President^TM. I wish I lived in a country where this wasn't the case, but to lots of people that's a big selling point. A female president would be nice, but we need a good president. I guess it's a generation gap, though--I mean, people my age will certainly see multiple female presidents, more minority presidents, probably even a gay president! Which is why younger women, and younger people in general, tend to support Sanders. But I think this matters to the older women. Not that they wouldn't turn out for Bernie, but they'll probably turn out for Hillary better.


Oh, and...

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

Dear Adults-Losing-Their-Crap-Over-Presidential-Candidates-On-The-Internet,

PLEASE stop telling others to "get a life" or calling people "losers."

I'm not better than you--probably worse, actually--but I'm not as hypocritical about it.

Thanks.

[madelka]

As for the gloating, enjoy it while you can. I sincerely mean that. Things are gonna get pretty ugly for Bernie soon, so it's nice he could have his moment in the sun.

^EXACTLY!^ See you on Feb. 27 and on Super Tuesday, Berniebots!

[MaxQue]

As for the gloating, enjoy it while you can. I sincerely mean that. Things are gonna get pretty ugly for Bernie soon, so it's nice he could have his moment in the sun.

^EXACTLY!^ See you on Feb. 27 and on Super Tuesday, Berniebots!

You have already wrote off Nevada?

[Shadows]

Someone who sweeps the independents & young vote is not electable & but someone who gets 10-20% of the independent & youth vote is electable?

Hillary's votes are the committed Democrat vote. You can put a mad person & he will still get those votes in a general

I didn't say Bernie was unelectable, per se, but that Hillary is more electable. Bernie would beat Trump easily, I think. And maybe Cruz.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Hillary's gender, last name, establishment loyalists, and the fact she doesn't call herself a "socialist" makes her more electable than Bernie. She'd do much better with moderates and probably a bit better with women.

Here is my argument? Which support will come to the Democrat party regardless of whoever is the candidate? Hillary's base - The establishment, African American, Hispanics - They will come to the Dems regardless of whoever is the candidate.

Bernie's base of huge independents & young people(who don't vote) is a new addition for the Dems making a winning coalition. Hillary's base IMO any Dem Candidate will get. I think this is why Sanders is doing much better vs GOP in all polls.

Maybe I am wrong, this is my line of thinking - Cheers! Ron Paul was my GOP guy in 08 & 12 even if I think his economic policies are wrong. Rand IMO is not as big a libertarian as Ron & I don't like his Economic policies even more but by far my favourite candidate in the GOP -

Sad he quit. His views of anti-War, Audit the fed, against Racism, for legalizing Marijuana, protecting  IP rights & individual freedom was similar to Bernie. We are getting a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

Are you going to vote Cruz?

Nope, not voting for Cruz. I'm already on the Gary Johnson 2016 Hype Train!

I agree that Bernie will bring in some voters that Hillary won't--sure. But so will Hillary--lots of moderate Democrats would probably vote for someone named Clinton, but not a self-identified socialist.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see slightly higher female turnout for The First Female President^TM. I wish I lived in a country where this wasn't the case, but to lots of people that's a big selling point. A female president would be nice, but we need a good president. I guess it's a generation gap, though--I mean, people my age will certainly see multiple female presidents, more minority presidents, probably even a gay president! Which is why younger women, and younger people in general, tend to support Sanders. But I think this matters to the older women. Not that they wouldn't turn out for Bernie, but they'll probably turn out for Hillary better.


Oh, and...

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

Dear Adults-Losing-Their-Crap-Over-Presidential-Candidates-On-The-Internet,

PLEASE stop telling others to "get a life" or calling people "losers."

I'm not better than you--probably worse, actually--but I'm not as hypocritical about it.

Thanks.

Yea I know a lot of Paul supporters are going for Johnson.

See the deal is the people who are moderate Democrats & who want a female president, etc - These  are the people who always vote, most Democrats. So I see any Dummy Democrat candidate getting these votes. I am not sure they won't vote for a socialist against this GOP group.

But the people who can bring that huge turnout for a female President, young men, women, Independents are very less likely to vote. They consider her dishonest & incompetent. This is my line of thought.

You can see how Sanders is helping boost turnout. He did the same in Vermont, doubled it or so.

Anyways cheers - I like the Green Party over Hillary, same case like you!

[Eraserhead]

Sanders even won among voters who picked "terrorism" as their top issue.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Sanders even won among voters who picked "terrorism" as their top issue.

I think his 40 pt win with gun owners might actually explain that one.

[Shadows]

I wonder what will be the reaction of Hillaryhacks if Sanders wins Nevada or comes very close like Iowa? We have been hearing how he can not connect with the hispanics!!!!

Only 10 days & 1 Debate & 1 Townhall meeting before that!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, and...

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

Dear Adults-Losing-Their-Crap-Over-Presidential-Candidates-On-The-Internet,

PLEASE stop telling others to "get a life" or calling people "losers."

I'm not better than you--probably worse, actually--but I'm not as hypocritical about it.

Thanks.

That's very good advice for both sides here.

[indysaff]

He's officially at 60.0 and Hillary drops below 39.

[Antonio the Sixth]

He's officially at 60.0 and Hillary drops below 39.

[ag]

The Hillbots in this thread are.... not taking it well, that's for sure.  What Stage are they in at this point?  

Get a life, Berniebot.

Why is it so hard to understand that I don't want my party to nominate an unelectable loon when we are guaranteed to retake the White House for another 8 years with Hillary? Look, the Republican party has become a joke. No matter what happens, Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to win at least 270 electoral votes against Trump and Cruz:

Let's not put states like PA and VA into play by nominating an angry old man who talks about a political revolution that's not going to happen anyway.

Last general election PA polls:

Trump 45, Hillary 43
Rubio 45, Hillary 42

Virginia:
Clinton leads by 17 over Trump, 4 over Cruz, 3 over Rubio
Sanders leads by 22 over Trump, 12 over Cruz, 10 over Rubio

So, what is your point now, Lief?

We don't need current polls.  Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are not set-in-stone Democratic states.  Especially for a candidate like Hillary who is simply not very popular with swing voters in a national election and doesn't do much to energize constituencies that propelled Obama.  

Sanders would be even less popular among the swing voters, and constituencies he energises are not very numerous in the general election. He might (might, but not necessarily will) win against Trump or Cruz, given their deficiencies, but if the Republicans nominate anybody else, his chances would be pretty dubious.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Has counting stopped? The reporting count has been stuck at 92% for a while now...

[ag]

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.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

[The Other Castro]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/WPJohnWagner/status/697301721903710212

[BM]

His time in the spotlight will be a little more fruitful than that catastrophic Rubio's, but he'll ultimately be just as irrelevant in the long run.

[IceSpear]

Adam, I notice you didn't respond to my invitation to prove your claims were BS. I took that as a yes and did some digging anyway.

Hillary wins by a bigger margin in the PV than Obama 2012, but falls slightly in the electoral college due to Jeb's home state advantage in Florida giving him a narrow win there. Third parties get a slightly higher percentage of the vote than they normally do due to "dynasty backlash".

Clinton/Kaine - 319, 51.3%
Bush/Ayotte - 219, 45.7%

Close states (within 5%):

Missouri - 0.3%
New Hampshire - 1.0%
Colorado - 1.1%
North Carolina - 1.3%
Florida - 2.3%
Iowa - 3.2%
Ohio - 4.5%
Indiana - 4.8%

Yeah, totes insisted she'd win by 20+ points!

Junk poll!

#itrustgravis
#hillaryisdoomed

Anyway...>Including Warren. O'Malley and Webb both at 0...lol. Looks like the Dem primary very well may end up as Hillary vs. Sanders.

But my predictions are so dumb! I never thought Sanders would be anything but a fringe 1% candidate!

I'll say just Vermont. But other potential targets could be IA/CO/MN/ME (all caucuses in states where it seems he'd play well) and NH.

WHAT! IMPOSSIBLE! I thought I INSISTED Sanders had NO CHANCE to win any state but Vermont!!!!?!?!?!?!

Perhaps an apology is in order?

[MaxQue]

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.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

If the primary is long, we will get a candidate AFTER the filling date to run as an independent in most states.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

If the primary is long, we will get a candidate AFTER the filling date to run as an independent in most states.

The whole Bloomberg thing is really just an idle threat. "Vote Hillary or else!"

[ag]

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.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

If the primary is long, we will get a candidate AFTER the filling date to run as an independent in most states.

Well, all that means is that a long primary is making Bloomberg much more likely to enter.

[ag]

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.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

If the primary is long, we will get a candidate AFTER the filling date to run as an independent in most states.

The whole Bloomberg thing is really just an idle threat. "Vote Hillary or else!"

Well, I guess reality is, indeed, threatening.

But even if Bloomberg does not enter, Sanders makes the most unpleasant Republicans, such as Trump and Cruz, that much more electable. Nominating a radical is rarely a good idea.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Has counting stopped? The reporting count has been stuck at 92% for a while now...

[MaxQue]

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.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

If the primary is long, we will get a candidate AFTER the filling date to run as an independent in most states.

Well, all that means is that a long primary is making Bloomberg much more likely to enter.

Then, Sanders should make clear than party loyalty is important and make float the idea of a primary challenge to every Democrat office-holder backing someone else than the official candidate.

Hillary will have no choice, but to follow suit, given the pressure.

[Bigby]

I expected Sanders to win, but not my 20 points. Besides the whole superdelegate thing, this has been a good primary for him so far.

[The Other Castro]

If Bloomberg does get in, it'd be a few days after Super Tuesday if Sanders wins 6 states. 5 or fewer and he'll have to think about it.