New Hampshire Primary Thread (polls close at 6-7 CT)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1227258274854195200?s=20

As long as this person ended up voting for Pete, I won't complain about how they reached that decision

Even if he doesn't win today, Pete has run a great campaign.

A year ago, nobody knew this guy.

Now, he's at the top of the nomination polls against a former VP, a Senator who almost won the nomination in 2016, 2 female sitting Senators and a billionaire with a media empire who can spend 500 Mio. $ alone for the primary.

You sound nervous

Wouldn't you be if Pete and Bernie's polling were reversed?  Iowa taught me not to count out Pete and or the possibility of late deciders breaking hard toward a single moderate candidate out of nowhere, but anyone with eyes can see Pete's the underdog.  I also think it'll be pretty close (2-3% either way) and that folks have been waaaaaaay too quick to count out Pete.  I've always been skeptical of Clownbachar's supposed surge, especially since she didn't do that well in Iowa even with Biden imploding (something that will definitely happen here and almost certainly benefit Pete).  However, I think we can all agree we'd rather our candidate have Bernie's polling in NH going into the election than Pete's. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Pete winning NH would certainly be an upset.

Not really. NH is basically the ideal Pete state. It is almost all white, fairly high median income, and is full of contented suburban yuppie women, it is socially liberal, and has an open primary. So if Pete can't win in NH, he can't win anywhere.

He already won Iowa, but thanks for playing

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Pete winning NH would certainly be an upset.

Not really. NH is basically the ideal Pete state. It is almost all white, fairly high median income, and is full of contented suburban yuppie women, it is socially liberal, and has an open primary. So if Pete can't win in NH, he can't win anywhere.

Except Iowa. Which is just white.

So are the majority of Berne's supporters.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

He already won lost Iowa, but thanks for playing

Denial isn't a river in Africa.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Denial isn't a river in Africa.

True. Which is why you should snap out of denial and rally behind the nominee. The longer this drags on, the better for Trump.

"True.  Which is why Bernie should snap out of denial and rally behind Hillary.  The longer this drags on, the better for Trump." - Every Hillary supporter during the 2016 primaries

"Why should I have to settle for someone I think would make an awful President just to appease a candidate whose supporters have spent the whole primary season going out of their way to crap on people like me every chance they get?  If the guy I support wants to drag it out all the way to the last primaries, then more power to him!" - Every Bernie supporter during the 2016 primaries

EDIT:

Denial isn't a river in Africa.

True. Which is why you should snap out of denial and rally behind the nominee. The longer this drags on, the better for Trump.

- edit - I don't actually believe that (extended primaries are actually good, I think), but I do find it deliciously ironic to say so.

I don't know how ironic it is since I was a staunch Bernie supporter in 2016, but at least you're self-aware

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So if we divide the current vote into factions...

Joe + Pete + Amy (Moderates): 53%

Bernie + Warren (Progressives): 35%

If it wasn't for the split in the moderate vote, Bernie wouldn't even be competitive.

This is a ridiculous & nonsensical analysis given that a majority of voters in exit polls expressed support for Medicare for all & free college.

I agree that the analysis isn’t a great one, however many people can express support for M4A without actually agreeing with Bernies path to getting there. That explains the drop in support that happens in polling when you mention M4A eliminating private health insurance. Additionally, even if one may support Bernie’s approach to M4A, it does not mean that they support him. My mother, for example, supports Bernie’s M4A, but not his plan for the Green New Deal, Federal jobs guarantee, student loan cancellation, or  free college. She supports the concepts behind all these policies, but not the extreme amount of spending that they require. That’s why she supports Biden. She’s not a super informed voter either, but the “free everything” approach is a big turn off for her.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Bernie's healthcare plan has nothing that he supports universal healthcare (something I've supported for about 15 years or so).  Instead, it's that it completely eliminates private health insurance without giving folks who can afford it and prefer it to public healthcare the option to choose for themselves.  I think everyone (especially the wealthy) should have to pay higher taxes to fund a public option regardless of whether they choose private or public healthcare.  

However, the idea of depriving folks who can afford a higher quality private healthcare plan of the right to choose that over a government plan is a non-starter for me and the only reason it doesn't make me a diehard #NeverBernie voter in the primary season is because there's no way he'd ever be able to get such a thing through Congress.  If a hypothetical President Sanders tried to do so, I'd certainly call and write every Democratic representative from my state to express my opposition to the proposal, as well as seriously consider donating to anyone with a real shot at successfully primarying any congressional Democrat who voted for it.  

Side note: Pete's line about how the meaning of M4A has changed is actually pretty spot on.  It used to be that people used it as a stand in for universal healthcare and recognized that there were tons of ways to potentially achieve that goal.  However, now many folks thing M4A means "eliminate all private healthcare and replace it with a mandatory government program" (i.e. the average person's perception of Bernie's healthcare plan).  As such, there's nothing inconsistent about having supported M4A four years ago and opposing what it has come to mean.  In fact, many Democrats have done just that.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So if we divide the current vote into factions...

Joe + Pete + Amy (Moderates): 53%

Bernie + Warren (Progressives): 35%

If it wasn't for the split in the moderate vote, Bernie wouldn't even be competitive.

This is a ridiculous & nonsensical analysis given that a majority of voters in exit polls expressed support for Medicare for all & free college.

I agree that the analysis isn’t a great one, however many people can express support for M4A without actually agreeing with Bernies path to getting there. That explains the drop in support that happens in polling when you mention M4A eliminating private health insurance. Additionally, even if one may support Bernie’s approach to M4A, it does not mean that they support him. My mother, for example, supports Bernie’s M4A, but not his plan for the Green New Deal, Federal jobs guarantee, student loan cancellation, or  free college. She supports the concepts behind all these policies, but not the extreme amount of spending that they require. That’s why she supports Biden. She’s not a super informed voter either, but the “free everything” approach is a big turn off for her.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Bernie's healthcare plan has nothing that he supports universal healthcare (something I've supported for about 15 years or so).  Instead, it's that it completely eliminates private health insurance without giving folks who can afford it and prefer it to public healthcare the option to choose for themselves.  I think everyone (especially the wealthy) should have to pay higher taxes to fund a public option regardless of whether they choose private or public healthcare.  

However, the idea of depriving folks who can afford a higher quality private healthcare plan of the right to choose that over a government plan is a non-starter for me and the only reason it doesn't make me a diehard #NeverBernie voter in the primary season is because there's no way he'd ever be able to get such a thing through Congress.  If a hypothetical President Sanders tried to do so, I'd certainly call and write every Democratic representative from my state to express my opposition to the proposal, as well as seriously consider donating to anyone with a real shot at successfully primarying any congressional Democrat who voted for it.  

Side note: Pete's line about how the meaning of M4A has changed is actually pretty spot on.  It used to be that people used it as a stand in for universal healthcare and recognized that there were tons of ways to potentially achieve that goal.  However, now many folks thing M4A means "eliminate all private healthcare and replace it with a mandatory government program" (i.e. the average person's perception of Bernie's healthcare plan).  As such, there's nothing inconsistent about having supported M4A four years ago and opposing what it has come to mean.  In fact, many Democrats have done just that.

My views on M4A almost verbatim.

Ditto under the condition that enrolling in a government run health plan would have little out of pocket costs. I don't want a two tiered health care system with a government plan becoming more of a high risk pool than it already is.

Of course, that goes without saying.

So, so far, out of two states Sanders was supposed to win, he's come second in one, but sort of, but not really, but actually; and won the other with an underwhelming margin to say the least. Even if being the only candidate to compete for every state (Biden hasn't yet, Klobuchar and Buttigieg almost certainly won't) means he ends up with a plurality of delegates, surely his path to the nomination is incredibly narrow, if it even still exists?

The takeaway right now is that 538's model has 'Nobody getting 50%+1 delegates' at 33% outcome right now. I tend to think that vastly understating the potential. If this was the GOP side with WTA, then Sanders would 100% be the prospective nominee. Things however are proportional over here. The rules can easily sustain 3-4 serious candidates going all the way, especially if 2 of those are Bloomberg and Bernie.

Already I'm seeing some Bernie people saying that he who gets the most delegates should be the nominee. People are waking up and recognizing that we could go forward with most states getting cut 35-30-25 or 30-25-20-20 depending on the number of survivors.

Who actually wants a contested convention though? Could that lead to a rally behind Bernie affect at a certain point in the primary, probably somewhere between the end of March and late April?

TBH, I think a "rally around the most viable #NotBernie" effect is far more likely.  I think folks on Atlas underestimate how many rank-and-file Democrats like Bernie himself well enough, but are scared absolutely sh!tless by thought of him being President (to say nothing of the party establishment which absolutely despises him).  

I wouldn't be surprised if you started seeing something like Obama endorsing the leading #NotBernie and doing a couple of campaign events for him [it won't be Klobachar] in heavily African-American areas, the DNC leaking its own opposition research files on Bernie en masse, etc, etc.  Right now, folks still hope Bernie will collapse on his own without the sort of onslaught that could lead to some of his supporters sitting things out and as such he's been treated with kid gloves so far relative to what we'd see if the party establishment truly thought he was en route to being the Democratic nominee.