politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to New Hampshire – the first full primary
Comments
-
They are not a trusted pollster. Treat with caution.rcs1000 said:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view
From Change Research:
Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.
Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.0 -
Even on that poll Biden does proportionally best share of vote wise with over 65s, Buttigeg with 50 to 65s, Sanders with under 50srcs1000 said:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view
From Change Research:
Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.
Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.0 -
https://mobile.twitter.com/Taniel/status/1227373535510908929
The later exit polls will have a higher share of young people as they vote latest.1 -
Thanks so on that basis do you agree with my 90% re-election for first term Presidents hypothesis?rcs1000 said:
OK, that makes sense.Philip_Thompson said:
Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.rcs1000 said:You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.
Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.1 -
Bloomberg certainly as he hasn't even bothered with first three or four states.Chameleon said:Dear god, we're not going to come out of state 2 with Bloomberg, Kloch, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren & Biden still running are we.
Biden surely isn't leaving before SC.0 -
Biden is more likely to come in fifth today than firstHYUFD said:
Even on that poll Biden does proportionally best share of vote wise with over 65s, Buttigeg with 50 to 65s, Sanders with under 50srcs1000 said:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view
From Change Research:
Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.
Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.0 -
OGH was right. He's too old. I have argued against this view many times several months ago. I was wrong. Biden needs to drop out.nunu2 said:
He's just a very bad campaigner. I've been following the race very closely.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.TGOHF666 said:
Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire0 -
OK. Here's ARG who is much better rated:nunu2 said:
They are not a trusted pollster. Treat with caution.rcs1000 said:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view
From Change Research:
Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.
Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.
https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2020/primary/dem/nhdem20-02.html
Buttigieg leads (just) among the 45 and older group, while Sanders absolutely smashes it with younger voters.0 -
-
-
You are truly a graduate of the charm school.TGOHF666 said:
Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire1 -
I don't think it will happen either. But I remember that Hillary bounced back very strongly in 2008 in New Hampshire, confounding the polls to beat Obama.Philip_Thompson said:
Could Biden do it here?
(Answer, probably not.)0 -
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.another_richard said:
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.rcs1000 said:
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.another_richard said:
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely!
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.0 -
Why do you always play the poster and not the argument ?Anabobazina said:
You are truly a graduate of the charm school.TGOHF666 said:
Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
Biden is finished - it’s all about a graceful exit. Tell me I’m wrong.0 -
Yeah, I'm just wondering how many ways Super Tuesday can split. Split 1/3rd of the delegates 6 ways and the odds of a contested convention increase a lot.rottenborough said:
Bloomberg certainly as he hasn't even bothered with first three or four states.Chameleon said:Dear god, we're not going to come out of state 2 with Bloomberg, Kloch, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren & Biden still running are we.
Biden surely isn't leaving before SC.0 -
Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.0
-
Yes.Philip_Thompson said:
Thanks so on that basis do you agree with my 90% re-election for first term Presidents hypothesis?rcs1000 said:
OK, that makes sense.Philip_Thompson said:
Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.rcs1000 said:You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.
Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.
They have been re-elected roughly 90% of the time.
But I would add a caveat. I think we may all be a little fooled by randomness, seeing patterns where they don't exist. But I agree with your original premise: 90% of Presidents are re-elected.0 -
She won't.nunu2 said:Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
0 -
Both went LibDem in 2010.Cookie said:
Interestingly, Burnley and Redcar have had exactly the same electoral history since, I think, WW2.another_richard said:
Although Bolsover had been demographically and politically trending away from Labour for over a decade.MarqueeMark said:
YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......FrancisUrquhart said:
I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).dr_spyn said:
returning 3 Tory MPs.TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
The real shockers were Burnley and Redcar with the Conservatives going from fourth in 2015 to first in 2019.0 -
YepStereotomy said:
She won't.nunu2 said:Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
In which case there really is no point in carrying on.0 -
NYT estimates under way - Sanders +6, they think, though not clear why on the votes shown0
-
Well, okay, unles s she overperforms and is extremely lucky with Amy splitting Pete's vote. But even then it'd be a distant second.Stereotomy said:
She won't.nunu2 said:Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
0 -
Ten mins.......0
-
Presumably they have some priors based on other factors. Previous days' polls and/or exit polls, I'd guess.NickPalmer said:NYT estimates under way - Sanders +6, they think, though not clear why on the votes shown
0 -
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1227377656708157442Stereotomy said:
Presumably they have some priors based on other factors. Previous days' polls and/or exit polls, I'd guess.NickPalmer said:NYT estimates under way - Sanders +6, they think, though not clear why on the votes shown
0 -
Why did the counterculture bring about the end of the Democrats? Is your argument that the association of the counterculture with the Democrats - whether the party wanted it or not - alientaed mainstream America?EPG said:
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.another_richard said:
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.rcs1000 said:
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.another_richard said:
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely!
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.0 -
Depends on the state, but "Independent" often means to the left of the Democratic party mainstream, especially if it's people turning out for a Democratic primary.FrancisUrquhart said:I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?
Also, far less "very liberal" voters and way more independents have turned out.0 -
Good news for Buttigieg.rottenborough said:0 -
Right NH prediction:
Bernie 30%
Pete 24%
Warren 15
Klobuchar 15
Biden 100 -
Polling has shown Bill Clinton would have won without Perot anyway as his voters were split between Bush and ClintonEPG said:
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.another_richard said:
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.rcs1000 said:
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.another_richard said:
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely!
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural tion.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.0 -
NPR:
"As of late Tuesday afternoon, a total of 853 presidential campaign events have been held in New Hampshire, nearly 300 fewer than the amount held in Iowa before the caucuses last week.
That said, for the most part, the number of events each candidate held the Granite State doesn’t correspond with their standing in the state’s polls.
The most events were held by businessman Andrew Yang (133) and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (130), but they have gained little traction in the polls."0 -
Surely bad news for Buttigieg since the last few days have seen Klobmentum, which will eat into his votes.Philip_Thompson said:
Good news for Buttigieg.rottenborough said:0 -
She'll prolong for as long as possible. What's the odds of an 80 year old with one heart attack under his belt having a second during such a massively stressful time? She'll want to be in a strong position for the 1-5% chance that a new candidate needs to be found.nunu2 said:Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
0 -
And the first set of polling booths have closed!0
-
The choices were kind of weird:Stereotomy said:
Surely bad news for Buttigieg since the last few days have seen Klobmentum, which will eat into his votes.Philip_Thompson said:
Good news for Buttigieg.rottenborough said:
Last few days, last month, etc.
If you made your mind up last Thursday, which do you choose?0 -
Sounds plausible.nunu2 said:Right NH prediction:
Bernie 30%
Pete 24%
Warren 15
Klobuchar 15
Biden 10
Of course, it's possible for Buttigieg to win the delegate math on those vote shares, because he'll do better in the First Congressional District (where fewer votes will be cast and there'll be fewer viable candidates) than in the Second.0 -
Also in a contested convention scenario she's much more acceptable to moderates than Bernie, and more acceptable to most (not all) of the Bernie delegates than Biden, Buttigieg or Baemy. She could walk in there with 5% of delegates and walk out the nominee.Chameleon said:
She'll prolong for as long as possible. What's the odds of an 80 year old with one heart attack under his belt having a second during such a massively stressful time? She'll want to be in a strong position for the 1-5% chance that a new candidate needs to be found.nunu2 said:Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
0 -
I disagree. If you look at the "Which way did you vote in 2016" question, the Independents break 50:50.brokenwheel said:
Depends on the state, but "Independent" often means to the left of the Democratic party mainstream, especially if it's people turning out for a Democratic primary.FrancisUrquhart said:I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?
Also, far less "very liberal" voters and way more independents have turned out.0 -
Yep, exactly. She just needs to stay in the conversation.edmundintokyo said:
Also in a contested convention scenario she's much more acceptable to moderates than Bernie, and more acceptable to most (not all) of the Bernie delegates than Baemy, Biden, Buttigieg. She could walk in there with 5% of delegates and walk out the nominee.Chameleon said:
She'll prolong for as long as possible. What's the odds of an 80 year old with one heart attack under his belt having a second during such a massively stressful time? She'll want to be in a strong position for the 1-5% chance that a new candidate needs to be found.nunu2 said:Warren really must finish atleast second today, I feel.
0 -
My guess:
Bernie 30
Pete 22
Warren 15
Klobouchar 12
Biden 120 -
It's one opinion.HYUFD said:
Polling has shown Bill Clinton would have won without Perot anyway as his voters were split between Bush and ClintonEPG said:
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.another_richard said:
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.rcs1000 said:
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.another_richard said:
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely!
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural tion.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.0 -
Are we actually expecting any exit poll before all the polls close in an hour?
0 -
NBC just said no, none of the major media outlets will release the actual breakdown.NickPalmer said:Are we actually expecting any exit poll before all the polls close in an hour?
So another hour of hearing how left handed half asian lesbians think healthcare is the most important issue.1 -
Cezanne artistic neophyte.MarqueeMark said:
Dreadful? Well there's no chance of you being crowned Duchamp.....No_Offence_Alan said:
Any more of these dreadful puns and I will send for a Constable.CarlottaVance said:
He's taking the Pissarro.....MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself
"
HOW Manet?0 -
Not before, no.NickPalmer said:Are we actually expecting any exit poll before all the polls close in an hour?
0 -
If Biden is fifth, I really struggle to see how he keeps the money coming in to remain competitive.NickPalmer said:My guess:
Bernie 30
Pete 22
Warren 15
Klobouchar 12
Biden 120 -
The word remain is doing some heavy lifting there.rcs1000 said:
If Biden is fifth, I really struggle to see how he keeps the money coming in to remain competitive.NickPalmer said:My guess:
Bernie 30
Pete 22
Warren 15
Klobouchar 12
Biden 120 -
Warren a longer price than the Klob0
-
Yes, though like LBJ I think the hostile reaction to the African-American civil rights movement was more definitive.Cookie said:
Why did the counterculture bring about the end of the Democrats? Is your argument that the association of the counterculture with the Democrats - whether the party wanted it or not - alientaed mainstream America?EPG said:
Check out all the other outcomes for Democrats on the map between 1968 and 1988. Not just losses, but body blows, and repeatedly. Once the counterculture arrived, only the end of the Cold War, and the arrival of Ross Perot, saved the game for Democrats. The exceptional two are Carter and Obama.another_richard said:
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.0 -
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I'm convinced:
https://twitter.com/docftw33/status/12273804233633546260 -
Someone took the rest of the 310 available on Biden
0 -
CNN: "Biden ally: Former vice president’s path to nomination is "the Clinton model"
From CNN's Eric Bradner
Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, said the former vice president’s path to the Democratic nomination follows “the Clinton model” -- a reference to Bill Clinton’s primary win in 1992.
Of the first 11 primaries, the then-Arkansas governor had won just one -- Georgia. Then, on March 7, he won a dominating victory in South Carolina.
“He won one of the first 11 primaries. And then he won the twelfth one in South Carolina and that launched him to the presidency,” Richmond said.
Biden bailed on a planned New Hampshire primary-night party in Nashua, getting out of the state before suffering another embarrassing result. He hopped on a private flight to Columbia, South Carolina, for an event launching his campaign there.0 -
Philip_Thompson said:
The word remain is doing some heavy lifting there.rcs1000 said:
If Biden is fifth, I really struggle to see how he keeps the money coming in to remain competitive.NickPalmer said:My guess:
Bernie 30
Pete 22
Warren 15
Klobouchar 12
Biden 12
0 -
320 nowrcs1000 said:Someone took the rest of the 310 available on Biden
0 -
There is a fundamental difference: in 1992, the more voters saw of Clinton, the more they liked him. In 2020, the more voters see of Biden...rottenborough said:CNN: "Biden ally: Former vice president’s path to nomination is "the Clinton model"
From CNN's Eric Bradner
Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, said the former vice president’s path to the Democratic nomination follows “the Clinton model” -- a reference to Bill Clinton’s primary win in 1992.
Of the first 11 primaries, the then-Arkansas governor had won just one -- Georgia. Then, on March 7, he won a dominating victory in South Carolina.
“He won one of the first 11 primaries. And then he won the twelfth one in South Carolina and that launched him to the presidency,” Richmond said.
Biden bailed on a planned New Hampshire primary-night party in Nashua, getting out of the state before suffering another embarrassing result. He hopped on a private flight to Columbia, South Carolina, for an event launching his campaign there.0 -
I think they just have their Clintons mixed up.rcs1000 said:
There is a fundamental difference: in 1992, the more voters saw of Clinton, the more they liked him. In 2020, the more voters see of Biden...rottenborough said:CNN: "Biden ally: Former vice president’s path to nomination is "the Clinton model"
From CNN's Eric Bradner
Joe Biden’s campaign co-chairman, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, said the former vice president’s path to the Democratic nomination follows “the Clinton model” -- a reference to Bill Clinton’s primary win in 1992.
Of the first 11 primaries, the then-Arkansas governor had won just one -- Georgia. Then, on March 7, he won a dominating victory in South Carolina.
“He won one of the first 11 primaries. And then he won the twelfth one in South Carolina and that launched him to the presidency,” Richmond said.
Biden bailed on a planned New Hampshire primary-night party in Nashua, getting out of the state before suffering another embarrassing result. He hopped on a private flight to Columbia, South Carolina, for an event launching his campaign there.0 -
Holy moly CNN, Klob in second from that, Biden complete collapse.0
-
-
1
-
Trump is going to lose New Hampshire in November looking at the turnout numbers.0
-
Klob. now 150
-
Well, she made a big show of turning up in Hart's Location last week to meet all the voters personally. I don't doubt it affected results from there, but who knows if the performance there will have an impact on the rest of the state.Chameleon said:0 -
Are we about to see an absolute shocker?0
-
The Agenda free news broadcast on youtube is providing pretty decent info0
-
Now 3%rcs1000 said:0 -
Klobuchar to win New Hampshire?rottenborough said:Are we about to see an absolute shocker?
My book would love that.0 -
This seems to be a site with a non-trivial number of votes counted:
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/new-hampshire?xid=ec_crm_nh_d
0 -
3% of precincts, I think, not 3% of votes.rottenborough said:
Now 3%rcs1000 said:
What's your source?0 -
That's not where I'm talking about, CNN had a ward in Concorde that Klob had won, with her being competitive with Sanders in a couple others.rcs1000 said:
Well, she made a big show of turning up in Hart's Location last week to meet all the voters personally. I don't doubt it affected results from there, but who knows if the performance there will have an impact on the rest of the state.Chameleon said:
Sanders 2.1k
Klob 1.8k
Buttigeg 1.8k
Warren 0.8k
Biden 0.7k0 -
CNN. To be honest I am not sure what the 3% is.rcs1000 said:
3% of precincts, I think, not 3% of votes.rottenborough said:
Now 3%rcs1000 said:
What's your source?0 -
New York Times site having a shocker0
-
Exit Poll snipps:
What the last debate important to your vote? Yes 50%.
Biden not Liberal enough 39%
Warren too Liberal 44%0 -
I don't see anythingNickPalmer said:This seems to be a site with a non-trivial number of votes counted:
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/new-hampshire?xid=ec_crm_nh_d0 -
rcs1000 said:
Klobuchar to win New Hampshire?rottenborough said:Are we about to see an absolute shocker?
My book would love that. I had a nibble on her in NH thanks to Mike.
May have to stay up for this one!0 -
3% in - Sanders 26.9 Klouchbar 22.0 Buttgieg 21.3 Warren 11.2 Biden 8.4 Steyer 3.2
1 -
Klobmania on the Dem nom market on Betfair0
-
Wow. Those are interesting numbers. Could be really really close this evening. Warren and Biden are being hammered.Chameleon said:
That's not where I'm talking about, CNN had a ward in Concorde that Klob had won, with her being competitive with Sanders in a couple others.rcs1000 said:
Well, she made a big show of turning up in Hart's Location last week to meet all the voters personally. I don't doubt it affected results from there, but who knows if the performance there will have an impact on the rest of the state.Chameleon said:
Sanders 2.1k
Klob 1.8k
Buttigeg 1.8k
Warren 0.8k
Biden 0.7k0 -
Biden now 18s for the nomination0
-
3% counted. Sanders 1985 Klob 1623 Butt 1568 Warren 823rcs1000 said:
I don't see anythingNickPalmer said:This seems to be a site with a non-trivial number of votes counted:
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/new-hampshire?xid=ec_crm_nh_d0 -
Exit Poll snipps.
Support Free College Tuition 67%
Women 55%
Gun Control Yes 80%0 -
off topic another big bump in infected on the cruise liner off Japan
0 -
5% on CBS:
Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 22%
Klobuchar 21%
0 -
-
Klo now third0
-
Election analyst says "too early to say winners but losers clear - Warren /Biden"0
-
6% in now on CBS
Sanders 27%
Buttigieg 22%
Klobuchar 21%
0 -
The situation is tragic but its an ironic sort of control group to see how the infection spreads.Floater said:off topic another big bump in infected on the cruise liner off Japan
0 -
Exit Poll snipps
Very Liberal 21%
Conservative 39%
Over 100k income 27%
This looks like a very Conservative primary electorate, if Sanders wins it will be because Klobuchar and Buttigieg split the Conservative vote.0 -
-
Am I mad? The combined Klo and Buttigieg figure is way way more than Sanders.
Get a grip Dems.0 -
Will Biden be present by then?HYUFD said:0 -
The primary electorate is 39% Conservative and 47% Independent and Republican.rottenborough said:Am I mad? The combined Klo and Buttigieg figure is way way more than Sanders.
Get a grip Dems.
So what do you expect ?
It looks like Republicans have heavily voted in the Democratic Primary.0
