The New Hampshire Primary results are in, and the winners are Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, who together won 44 percent of the vote, compared to Bernie Sanders winning 25.7 percent, only about 3,700 votes ahead of Buttigieg, who had 24.4 percent of the vote on his own.
Even if you add Elizabeth Warren’s poor showing, 9.2 percent of the vote to Sanders’ total, the moderates clearly won, even not including Joe Biden’s embarrassing 5th place finish, with 8.4 percent of the vote.
It is clear that both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are in free fall, and if they do not do well in Nevada and South Carolina, and on Super Tuesday on March 3, they are done as candidates, and it is likely down to Sanders, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and the likelihood that Michael Bloomberg may do well on Super Tuesday, after spending about $300 million on advertising so far.
Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, and Tulsi Gabbard remain technically in the race, which is down to just nine candidates, after Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet withdrew last night.
No one thought that Buttigieg and Klobuchar would get this far as survivors, and the sense is that one or the other, or both as a team, might very well be the Democratic ticket for 2020, two Midwestern candidates, who could, in theory, accomplish what Hillary Clinton could not do in 2016, win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and potentially, even Ohio and Iowa, enough to win the White House!
Ronaldâ€™s blog title is, â€œNew Hampshire Primary: Moderates Dominateâ€¦.â€
This is false.
The winner of the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary is Bernie Sanders.
Sanders won the popular votes in both of the first two contests of the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire.
In New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders won the votes from both whites (26 percent) and non-whites (32 percent).
That, right there, is carriage of the state.
Sanders also won the stateâ€™s Hispanics, with 42 percent of their vote, which was +28 percentage points above the 14 percent for Amy Klobuchar and +31 percentage points above the 11 percent for Pete Buttigieg. (Andrew Yang, who has since suspended his campaign, received 9 percent from the stateâ€™s Hispanics.)
In New Hampshire, Sanders also carried seven of the stateâ€™s ten counties, including the most populous, Hillsborough (home of both Manchester and Nashua).
D, you are correct, but seriously, I do not see Sanders as able to defeat Trump, and I guess it will be left up to the future to see if you are correct or I am correct that a moderate is needed to win the election, and save us from a Trump Fascist dictatorship.
This is the most urgent and crisis ridden election we have ever had, as I see it, with no room for error!
I’m looking at Bernieâ€™s anemic victory in NH as an epic fail â€” 26.5% in a state he won with 60% last time around? Tells me all but the Bernie diehards think his shtick is played out. Where are all those new voters Bernie is supposed to be inspiring to come to the polls?
Youâ€™re not the only one. Heâ€™s the current front runner and he could certainly win but he doesnâ€™t look strong at all. Most of his electability arguments have gone poof, as you say â€” heâ€™s collapsed from 4 years ago and a kid from nowhere is running neck and neck with him in the first 2 states and might be about to make it a 3rd.
I agree with youâ€”at least in terms of what Bernieâ€™s campaign has claimed it represents. A revolution. A sweeping grassroots movement. A movement that can bring the youth vote and motivate non-voters. If all this were true, he wouldâ€™ve done better than eek out a victory, aided by a fractured field.
Sandersâ€™ lesser vote count is more a reflection of how unpopular HRC was last time than diminished support this time. With more palatable moderates and right leaning Democrats to choose from, those voters are finding acceptable candidates to choose from.
Culinary Union in Nevada is against Sanders M4A.
If the election was held today, and the choices were:
2. Any Democrat
3. None Of These Candidates
Who do You think would win; who would get the most votes?
Not who Should win, but who Would win.
The framing of your question is not realistic.
â€œAny Democratâ€ is not an option.
There is one president of the United States. An individual person. A specific person. Not a political party. Not â€œany.â€
You miss the point, D.
The question is: How many people Do Not Want either Trump or Any current Democrat contender to be President? Interestingly enough, Voters in Nevada have that option ~ None Of These Candidates ~ in the ballet booth on regular elections.
In 2016, how many people voted for Trump only or primarily because they didn’t want Clinton, and not because they supported Trump? And how many voted for Clinton not because they wanted her, but because they didn’t want Trump? That was one question the exit-poll people never asked. It might have revealed just how fed up Americans are with their $ 1 = 1 Vote system of government and governance,
How does one express a categorical rejection of ALL candidates and their platforms and promises, other than by not voting? There are lots of reasons for not voting; and that is just one of them.
Nate Silver is saying the chances of a contested convention are increasing.
This election is about saving our democracy from a tyrant. Do not sit out this election or protest vote for a third party.
There really is no bottom. Now Trump is directing his corrupt Justice Department to investigate and prosecute (persecute) his critics. Meanwhile, he lobbies for light sentences and dangles pardons for his bootlicking sycophantic criminal accomplices. This is not normal. And it demonstrates that Republicans who thought Trump might learn from his impeachment were frighteningly mistaken and/or deluded.
Iâ€™m for the down trodden, for civil rights, for the rule of law, for the sanctity of our Constitution, for fair and free elections, for gun control, definitely for our environment and against anyone who wants to destroy it and deny climate change. Iâ€™m very much for animal abuse rights, for abortion rights if that is what a women chooses-I would not choose that for myself but who am I to tell others what is best in their lives, Iâ€™m not the one to have to live it. I am against any kind of oppression, I canâ€™t stand racist, I hate others who can not just let others practice their own religious beliefs because those people are not secure in what they truly believe in their own religions. What Trump and now Bill Barr are doing right this very minute is trying to get a hold of everything we hold good in this country and rip our Constitution to shreds. That is why I will stand together with whomever is lucky enough to win the Democratic nomination to get Trump out. I encountered a few others on progressive blogs who say they wonâ€™t do that, but I feel if we donâ€™t stick together as one -no matter who you wanted to win in the primaries- Donald J Trump will once again be our President-â€œI mean Dictatorâ€. We all need to stick together as one and vote Blue ,no matter who. Drop your emotions for once everyone about your candidate if they are not the one to win in the primaries and stick together for the good of everyone here in this country. That really matters this time around in our history.
Totally second that, Leia. Four more years of Trump and our country is doomed.
The Professor is correct. In NH, if you divide the candidates into Moderates and Progressives, it appears that the Moderates won by about 53% to 35%. We’ll have to see if that ratio holds as the field dwindles.
Former Republican – I vote for those Republicans being deluded.
Deval Patrick has dropped out.
Tom Steyer is staying in for a while based on him having a surge in the polls in previous polling of Nevada and South Carolina.
I totally agree with you, Princess Leia!
We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and complain, but must fight in the voting booth for our basic civil liberties and the rule of law.
Any Democrat is better than Trump!
We cannot allow Fascism to take hold and destroy our nation!
Former Republican – I also think a brokered convention is the most likely outcome. Buttigieg and Klobuchar are the reasons; they are popular enough now (thanks to the debates) to get votes away from Sanders, Biden, and Warren. Add Bloomberg to the mix, and now nobody has a majority come convention time. Still early though, weâ€™ll know more around Super Tuesday time.
I’m dreading that. It’s going to be a long, drawn out, ugly fight.
And the only ones who will benefit from that long, drawn out ugly fight are Trump and the Republicans. Will the American people benefit from it? Did they benefit from the Impeachment Fiasco?
The Republicans who voted to let Trump get away with abuse of power are traitors to their country and need to be removed from office in November 2020 and other subsequent elections.
Yovanovitch: â€˜The State Department Is in Troubleâ€™
While most of the news is currently focused on the fact that Attorney General William Barr has corrupted the Department of Justice, former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch made her first public remarks since her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. She warned that â€œthe State Department is in trouble,â€ too.
Her remarks were captured by Cristina Cabrera.
[â€œSenior leaders lack policy vision, moral clarity and leadership skills,â€ she continued. â€œThe policy process has been replaced by decisions emanating from the top with little discussion.â€
The diplomat said that as the department is â€œbeing hollowed out from within,â€ its officers â€œare increasingly wondering whether it is safe to express concerns about policy even behind closed doors.â€
â€œThis is no time to undercut our diplomats,â€ she warned.]
Yovanovitch has already testified extensively to the lack of policy vision when it comes to Ukraine. I was therefore struck by her reference to the lack of â€œmoral clarity and leadership skills,â€ especially given that Secretary Pompeo posted his speech to the American Association of Christian Counselors titled, â€œBeing a Christian Leaderâ€ on the front page of the State Departmentâ€™s web site. The leadership Yovanovitch is criticizing has presented itself not just in moral terms, but as Christian.
Pompeoâ€™s speech, along with its appearance on the web site, raised a host of concerns about the constitutional protections against the establishment of religion. But in terms of content, the secretary is suggesting that he is a â€œChristian leader,â€ which sets up a moral compass by which he can be judged.
Pompeo focused his remarks on three â€œdâ€™s.â€
[I want to use my time today to think about what it means to be a Christian leader, a Christian leader in three areas:
First is disposition. How is it that one carries oneself in the world? The second is dialogue, talking. How is it that we engage with others around the world? And third is decisions, decisions that we make. How do we make choices? Upon what basis? What do we use as our bedrock to get to those decisions?]
When it comes to disposition, Pompeo talked about humility and forgiveness. He suggested that dialogue should be about listening and telling the truth. Finally, he said that decisions should always be made based on your priorities.
All of that sounds good. But we donâ€™t have to look any further than the way in which Pompeo treated NPRâ€™s Mary Louise Kelly to see that, when it comes to his actual behavior, he completely fails to walk his talk.
Interestingly enough, it was when Kelly asked Pompeo about his silence in defending Marie Yovanovitch that he went off the railsâ€”ending the interview before summoning Kelly to his office for an expletive-filled tirade. The secretary then sought to humiliate Kelly by suggesting that she couldnâ€™t find Ukraine on a map. In the end, he issued a not-so-veiled threat.
[â€œHe shouted at me for about the same amount of time as the [9-minute] interview itself had lasted,â€ Kelly told Shapiro. â€œHe was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine. He asked, â€˜Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?â€™ He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.â€
Pompeo then had a pop quiz for Kelly, a veteran national security correspondent who has reported from China, Russia and, most recently, Iran.
â€œHe asked if I could find Ukraine on a map; I said yes,â€ she continued. â€œHe called out for his aides to bring him a map of the world with no writing, no countries marked. I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away. He said, â€˜People will hear about this.â€™ â€œ]
After Kelly went public about what happened, Pompeo released a statement in which he lied about her and barred NPR from sending a reporter to cover his trip to Ukraine.
According to people who have worked with Pompeo, this wasnâ€™t an isolated incident. So perhaps we can understand why Yovanovitch referred to a lack of moral clarity and leadership skills at the State Department. It also helps to explain why current employees would be worried about expressing concerns, even behind closed doors. Seeking vengeance against anyone who doesnâ€™t display complete loyalty obviously isnâ€™t limited to the president and his attorney general.
Yovanovitch also referred to the hollowing out of the State Department, something that began with Secretary Tillerson and has obviously continued under Pompeoâ€™s leadership.
The bigger picture we see from these incidents with the Departments of Justice and State is that the entire federal bureaucracy is in the process of being corrupted. Many of us expected that to happen back when Trump began his presidency by announcing members of his Cabinet who had spent their careers advocating against the very mission of the departments they were tasked with leading. It appears that the worst offenders are thoseâ€”like Pompeo, Barr, DeVos, and Perryâ€”who are Christian nationalist ideologues.
Talking about the challenge of cleaning up the mess that Trump has made of the entire federal government isnâ€™t the kind of inspirational message Democratic candidates want to emphasize on the campaign trail. But voters should keep in mind that it will be the most critical task that awaits this presidentâ€™s successor on day one.
I’m a retired nurse and I don’t particularly like that –
Trump Continues to Dismiss the Severity of Traumatic Brain Injuries
While serving as president, Donald Trump has told more than 16,241 lies, according to the Washington Post. But one of them might be somewhat defensible. Thatâ€™s the lie that Iranâ€™s retaliation against the United States for the assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani did not cause any injuries.
Why is this falsehood more excusable than the others? Itâ€™s because there was a risk that if the truth were known about the over 100 troops who suffered traumatic brain injuries from the concussions of the missile attacks, the public would clamor for retaliation. And that could have led to an ill-advised war that cost untold injuries and deaths.
Lying to save lives seems better than lying to cover up misdeeds. The decision to kill Soleimani was impulsive and reckless, and probably a misdeed under international law. But Trump was willing to allow Iran a face-saving gesture rather than using it as a pretext to escalate to full-out war.
So, while I can be a little forgiving of Trump for his desire to downplay the severity of Iranâ€™s response, that doesnâ€™t mean that I can approve of the way he continues to minimize the impact on the wounded soldiers. At first, after he learned that dozens of Americans had suffered traumatic brain injuries, he dismissed this as â€œnot very seriousâ€ and said that some folks were experiencing â€œheadaches.â€ But, even now that the number has exceeded 100 and more than twenty are still getting treatment, Trump continues to act like he doesnâ€™t care.
[In an interview with Fox Business on Monday, the president said he didnâ€™t think the Iranians â€œwere looking to do too much damage, because they knew what the consequences were going to be.â€
â€œI saw the missiles. We saw them going â€¦ They landed in a way that they didnâ€™t hit anybody,â€ Trump told Fox Businessâ€™ Trish Regan.
The president said that he â€œstopped something that would have been very devastating forâ€ the Iranians, an apparent reference to US de-escalation in the aftermath of the attack.
â€œAnd then a couple of weeks later I started hearing about people having to do with trauma, head trauma,â€ he said. â€œThat exists. But itâ€™s, you know, I viewed it a little bit differently than most, and I wonâ€™t be changing my mind on that.â€]
Try to imagine any parent receiving a phone call and getting the news that their child has suffered a traumatic brain injury. Then imagine that the president of the United States continually acted like this was not serious and nothing to be concerned about. How would that parent feel?
When the word â€œbrainâ€ is coupled with the words â€œtraumaticâ€ and â€œinjury,â€ that kind of says it all. But obviously there are negative consequences, often severe and life-long. I think it would be okay now that immediate risk of war with Iran has passed, for Trump to show a little worry about the health of the people he put in harmâ€™s way.
Wow! The Senate actually did something right for once and passed Iran war powers resolution.
Nevada’s Culinary Union has decided not to endorse any candidate.
Speaking of impeachiment –
No, Impeachment Did Not Liberate Trump
It is becoming conventional wisdom in certain centrist and leftist circles that impeaching Trump was a mistake. The leftist argument goes that Democrats wasted time on non-material-needs issues like presidential abuse of power, extorting a foreign government for help with an election and undermining democracy and rule of law, instead of spending even more time talking about healthcare. The centrist argument goes that impeaching Trump was divisive and never a good idea to begin with because it didnâ€™t play well in frontline districts.
This is all hogwash: there are certain principles that are worth defending far more than the politics of a a few weeksâ€™ news cycles. Healthcare gets plenty of time in the press and public eye, and no frontline Democrats are going to lose their seats just because they supported impeaching Trump for extortion. Trump is obliterating the guardrails of democracy that separate a wobbly yet accountable system of government from a dictatorship with only the window dressing of democracy and liberal constitutional government. That is a far bigger issue than any policy platform this side of climate change.
But thereâ€™s another line of argument against impeachment that is cropping up more often: that Trumpâ€™s acquittal in the Senate is giving him unbridled free rein to behave like a dictator:
[Trump appears emboldened by his acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate, ousting individuals from his White House and administration whom he believes crossed him during impeachment. This includes Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who the Army secretary said Friday, was not under investigation after Trump hinted he may face further disciplinary action after he was dismissed from his White House post and sent back to the Pentagon early.
While some Republicans hoped the president would be chastened by the impeachment proceedings, the opposite has proven true.
He has expressed no remorse over his actions, instead seeking to strengthen his hold over the executive branch.]
Itâ€™s certainly true that the president has been attempting to purge all who crossed him during the impeachment proceeding. But he has also desperately tried to do likewise against all who crossed him during the Mueller inquiry, too. Thatâ€™s who he is and what he does. Heâ€™s a shameless bully whose response to being caught in wrongdoing is to double down on his bad conduct and attempt to punish those who held him accountable.
What these narratives leave unspoken is the contrafactual: what sort of lesson would Trump have taken from not being impeached? If it had come out that the president had attempted to bribe and extort a foreign leader by withholding crucial aid unless he announced a fraudulent investigation into the presidentâ€™s chief (at the time) political opponent and Democrats had failed to take the utmost action, what would Trump have done then?
Sure, Lt. Col. Vindman and his brother would still have their jobs, as would Ambassador Sondland. But Trump would have been triply emboldened by the fact that not only would his own political party shamelessly run interference for him, but even the opposition party would be so cowed that it wouldnâ€™t even bother to place the stain of impeachment on his presidency. Could there be any doubt that he would do the same thing again and in even larger fashion?
Trump now knows that if he attempts to solicit foreign interference in an election, the Democratic House will impeach him for it, even in an election year. He knows that if he is caught doing it again, the House may well impeach him again, laying out the evidence for weeks in front of the American people. He knows that he is on notice and that the opposition party will, in fact, take the maximum action it can without actively instigating a Constitutional crisis.
The fact that Trump has been behaving like a raving tyrant since his corrupted acquittal by Senate Republicans does not mean he is unleashed. It simply means he is vindictive. But he is vindictive precisely because the House has dared to constrain him, even if ever so slightly, and Trump cannot stand being told what to do.
Which is why itâ€™s incredibly important to keep telling him what to do, mocking his narcissistic ego and belittling his sense of impunity as often as possible with whatever tools exist in the Democratic arsenal. Let the blowhard explode like a furious teakettle. His furious rages are a show of weakness, not of power. They are the actions of a spoiled child unexpectedly chastened, not a confident adult in control of his destiny.
Pushing him to this point was not a mistake. It was what Democrats were capable of doing under the circumstances. And it was the right thing to do.
2000 former DOJ officials are calling on Barr to resign.