2020 New Hampshire Results

Now we can say that the voting in 2020 has actually begun in the first in the country, New Hampshire…..

Results in the vote are as follows……let me start with the results for Trump…….

There were no surprises in the Republican primary in New Hampshire Tuesday as President Trump cruised to victory by a wide margin over challenger Bill Weld. With almost 90% of precincts in, Trump had 85.7% of the vote, Weld had 9.1%, and assorted write-in candidates had 2,5%, the Union-Leader. That gives Trump all 20 delegates and the biggest margin of victory for an incumbent president in the state’s GOP primary since Ronald Reagan, who scored 86.43% in 1984. Trump’s total vote count in the New Hampshire primary is higher than that of any previous incumbent president, reports the AP.

Not much surprise here with the exception that about 12% of Repubs voted against a GOP president…..that should be worth a bit of look….

Now on to the battle for the Dem nomination…..

Bernie Sanders has won the New Hampshire primary, reports the AP, Politico, CNN, and the Washington Post. The final tally isn’t yet in, but it appears Pete Buttigieg will finish in a close second and Amy Klobuchar a strong third. Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden trailed that trio by quite a bit. “This victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump,” Sanders told his supporters. Meanwhile, tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet have dropped from the race. With 93% of results in, CNN has the percentages as:

  • Sanders, 26%
  • Buttigieg, 24.4%
  • Klobuchar, 19.8%
  • Warren, 9.3%
  • Biden, 8.4%.
  • Sanders (who also won New Hampshire in 2016) and Buttigieg had been 1-2 in the final polls. The bigger question was who would finish third, and Klobuchar’s campaign should get a boost out of the night’s results. “We have beaten the odds every step of the way,” she told supporters, reports the Wall Street Journal.
  • Warren and Biden, however, will have serious assessments to make, given that neither will hit the 15% threshold necessary to earn national delegates. Still, both told their supporters Tuesday night that they are very much still in the race. “I am here to get big things done,” said Warren, reports CNN. “We’re just getting started,” said Biden, per NPR.
  • Addressing his own jubilant supporters, Buttigieg declared, “Now our campaign moves on to Nevada and South Carolina and across the country, and we will welcome new allies to our movement at every step,” per the AP.

Two down…..now on to Nevada….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Iowa Clusterf*ck

Appears that the total chaos in Iowa is coming to an end….the numbers are in (sort of)……..

Clouded by doubts on a chaotic day-after, the Iowa Democratic Party began releasing partial results of the state’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucus on Tuesday, the AP reports. The data, made public for the first time nearly 24 hours after voting concluded, reflected the results of 62% of precincts in the state. While campaigns were eager to spin the results to their advantage, there was little immediate indication that the incomplete results eased the confusion and concern that loomed over the opening contest of the Democrats 2020 presidential primary season. It was unclear when Iowa’s full results would be released. CNN currently has Pete Buttigieg with 26.9% of state delegates, Bernie Sanders with 25.1%, Elizabeth Warren with 18.3%, Joe Biden with 15.6%, and Amy Klobuchar with 12.6%; everyone else is at 1.1% or lower.

During a private conference call with campaigns earlier in the day, state party chairman Troy Price declined to answer pointed questions about the specific timeline—even whether it would be a matter of days or weeks. “We have been working day and night to make sure these results are accurate,” Price said at a subsequent press conference. The leading candidates pressed on in next-up New Hampshire, which votes in just seven days, as billionaire Democrat Michael Bloomberg sensed opportunity, vowing to double his already massive advertising campaign and expand his sprawling staff focused on a series of delegate-rich states voting next month.

The big news was not the voting…..but the future for the first in the nation vote……

If you thought people were fed up with Iowa’s first-in-the-nation voting status before Monday night’s chaos, it’s nothing compared to the sentiment surfacing Tuesday morning. Examples:

  • The overview: “Iowa’s outsize role has faced attacks for decades, along with periodic failed attempts by other states to take the first-in-the-nation slot,” notes Steve Kornacki of NBC and MSNBC. “But criticism has been louder than ever this past year, and now those critics may have the ammunition they need to kill it.”
  • A prediction: From here on out, “Iowa won’t go first,” writes Tim Alberta at Politico. “It can’t go first. Not anymore.” At best, it might keep some “ceremonial capacity” in the early stages of the nominating season, but “Monday night will go down as the self-inflicted knockout punch, and with it, the end of a political era.” He adds that the state’s refusal to use a simpler voting method is one reason it has become a political “punch line.”
  • RIP, I: Responding to a tweet praising esteemed Iowa political journalist David Yepsen for predicting this mess, Yepsen himself replied, “Sorry I was right. RIP caucuses.” Later he added, “This will probably be the last caucus we’ll have to worry about.”
  • RIP, II: The headline of a piece by Eric Levitz at New York has a similar sentiment: “R.I.P. the ‘First-In-the-Nation’ Iowa Caucuses (1972-2020).” The influence of Iowa’s “wildly anti-democratic” nominating process has always been “indefensible,” but not even its biggest critics “dreamed it would subject the country to something like this,” Levitz writes. He’s skeptical Iowa will be able to recover from the damage.
  • Shaky ground: “Iowa has found itself—more this year than ever—in the position of defending its perch,” write Matt Flegenheimer and Sydney Ember in the New York Times. “Why should a state so disproportionately white take such a leading role, especially for a Democratic Party that prides itself on its diversity? Why is a hodgepodge of gatherings in school gymnasiums the pinnacle of American democracy?” Now, the state’s “precarious standing” just took another hit.
  • In defense: The state’s GOP senators, Charles Grassley and Joni Ernst, are standing up for Iowa, saying its caucus system “encourages a grassroots nominating process that empowers everyday Americans,” per a statement cited in the Washington Post. Its first-in-the-nation status “has the full backing of President Trump,” they added. “We look forward to Iowa carrying on its bipartisan legacy of service in the presidential nominating process.” But fellow Sen. Richard Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois and the Senate minority whip, said Tuesday the caucus system is no longer practical for modern voters. “I think the Democratic caucus in Iowa is a quirky, quaint tradition that should come to an end,” he said on MSNBC.

My thought is close them all down and go to a national primary….all this silliness and news coverage would be one day….possibly two….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Coming Democratic Candidates

The long awaited 2020 election is speeding to a conclusion…..each month the events seem to speed up….after 700+ days of Trump all eyes look to the next election.

So far we have 4 announced Democratic candidates for the presidency….and more in the wings waiting for the best time to announce….we are doing good we have 4 women, one Hispanic and counting (as they say…whoever “they” are)……

The fun thing is that the Dems in 2020 will look like the GOP field in 2016…crowded…and some good ideas will be lost in the rush to the front runner position.

But so far the field has many prospects and all have a track record to run on not like the GOP of old.

For fun the site fivethirtyeight.com has a list of the Dems and how they will be broken down…..I know it is early but it will be fun to see just how accurate the site is this time around.

So for the 2020 Democratic nomination, we’ve resolved to entertain multiple hypotheses about the contest simultaneously. Perhaps the party will decide, and so we should be looking at how much support each candidate has from party elites. Perhaps the candidate most dissimilar to Trump will win, and so we should be evaluating the candidates based on that criteria. Perhaps the primary is just so hard to forecast that you might as well look at the polling, crude as it might be. (It has more predictive power than you might think.)

We’ll see. But we nonetheless think that (despite its mixed success in 2016) the coalition-building model is also a useful tool, especially if we make a few tweaks to how we applied it four years ago.

Just as with the Republicans in 2016, the concept this time around involves considering five key groups of Democratic voters. Here are those groups:

  1. Party Loyalists
  2. The Left
  3. Millennials and Friends
  4. Black voters
  5. Hispanic voters (sometimes in combination with Asian voters)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

The field keeps expanding and the diversity of the Party will be brought forward…….but is it really a diversified group?

The country wants “new” candidates….we are tired of the same promises and the same lies and the same inaction….we want “new blood” for DC….

A new USA Today national poll shockingly showed that Democratic voters and Democratic leaning independents overwhelmingly prefer “someone entirely new” to any of the current field of potential presidential candidates. This cannot be for lack of choices; there are potentially four times the number of candidates lining up at the starting gate as the most recent Democratic presidential primary.

Yes, this is one poll, but maybe we should refuse to dismiss voter feedback too easily.

Lots of woman announced and some waiting…..but what will this uptick in gender equality could mean to politics…..

Advocates for gender equality are reckoning with what one called a “wonderful challenge”—four or more women running for president in 2020, the AP reports. To many activists, that means a field more reflective of a party that counts women as a crucial voting bloc. But the prospect of multiple women in the race also presents obstacles, with no single candidate holding a claim to women’s votes to the degree Hillary Clinton did in 2016. The women’s vote, and groups that provide financial and grassroots support, could split. Looming over it all is persistent gender bias and the question of whether Americans are ready to elect a female president. “We do realize there’s still sexism in this country, and what we’re trying to do is change minds,” says EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock, whose group aids the campaigns of Democratic women supporting abortion rights.

In the early days of the Democratic primary, leaders of many advocacy organizations are thrilled that so many women are seeking the presidency, but are not backing any particular candidate. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren last month became the first woman to launch a presidential exploratory effort, joined shortly afterward by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also are considering running. Among those candidates, Gillibrand is particularly vocal in invoking her gender as a driver of her campaign, while Warren’s campaign has emphasized economic inequity. So is gender still a problem for candidates? “Because there are so many women running, it doesn’t totally inoculate women from sexism, but it does provide some guardrails,” says a gender-equality activist.

Questions Asked….Waiting For Answers!

Learn Stuff!

Will They Or Won’t They?

For months upon months we have been bombarded with election stuff…..predictions and speculation will not stop until the votes are counted…..

There is one group in this election that all pundits are concerned with that they may not go to the polls…..and they just cannot understand why Millennials would not vote.

But why would they not want to be part of the process?  The same reason that many do not want to be part of the process.  The process is broken and money plays too big in elections…..but the Millennials are a group, a generation. that could well make a difference…..

In what people are calling — accurately, in my opinion — the most important American midterm election in our lifetimes, there’s been a lot of things we’ve never seen before: like, for example. a president sending thousands of troops to the U.S. southern border or erasing the existence of more than a million transgender people, all to boost GOP voter turnout a point or two.
And then there’s this: non-voter porn.
If you read the news, you know the kind of political smut I’m talking about. Full-frontal exposures of mostly attractive 20-somethings, revealing their often lame-sounding excuses why they’re joining the more than 60 percent of eligible Americans who typically don’t vote in midterm elections.
We’re talking about 20-somethings who’ve never used the U.S. mail and are traumatized by the idea of finding a postage stamp for a registration form, or so don’t see how a small president in search of a balcony is any different than any other politician.
Tomorrow will these voters go to the polls or will they stay home and let the old farts pick their leaders….and then they bitch…..
Shut up and go vote!

 

Populism And The World

The catch word that was batted around during the 2016 elections was populism and according to the MSM  the win by Trump meant that it was on the rise in the US……and tide that could not be stopped….well according to the d/bag Bannon.

Then there is Europe and the rising tide of populism or of right wing politics…some even see that the rise of it in Hungary and Italy among others could signal the end of the EU…..

The newly-installed US ambassador to Germany, Richard (Ric) Grenell, is at the center of a Trumped-up “controversy,” after having given an interview to Breitbart saying that he’s looking forward to encouraging beleaguered European conservatives. The NeverTrumpers went wild: neocon Anne Applebaum accused him of being part of a conspiracy on the part of the Trump administration to back “nativist, pro-Russia and anti-pluralist” forces – as opposed to the globalist, neo-liberal, cravenly pro-Washington (as opposed to pro-American) sock puppets we’ve been backing previously. Applebaum was joined by German Communist leader Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader of the far-left wing of the far-left “Die Linke” Party, who demanded that Grenell be expelled from Germany.

https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2018/06/06/populism-and-the-end-of-the-european-union/

Okay Europe is not the only region that has seen a rise in populism…..Iraq and its latest election…..the leader that gave the US so much trouble in the early years of the occupation has now been elected as the new Prime Minister of Iraq……

The worldwide populist revolt toppling conventional politicians in the United States, Europe and even the Philippines has now reached Iraq. Most Westerners still following Iraqi politics assumed that incumbent Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s Dawa Party would handily win the parliamentary election, but nope. Dawa came in third. Firebrand cleric Moqtada al Sadr’s Sairun party came in first.

You remember Moqtada al Sadr. He’s the guy who mounted an Iranian-backed Shia insurgency against the United States, the Iraqi government and his Sunni civilian neighbors between 2003 and 2008. He’s a very different person today. He still raises and shakes his fist in the air but today he’s shaking it at crooked elites, and he’s shaking it at his former Iranian patrons.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/populist-revolt-reaches-iraq

The rest of this story is waiting to be written…..and it is being written in DC as we speak….but what will it be?

Let’s Go To The Speculation

For decades I have bitched about the endless speculation by the media when our elections roll around…..their predictions have been really wrong in the past….the last couple of elections have proven just how wrong they can be…..I Have witnessed it first hand and so have most Americans yet they allow the MSM to dictate to them or better yet they allow the confusion to keep them from exercising their right to vote…..

The WaPo has decided to cover this tactic in a recent article…..

Where were you on the night of Nov. 8, 2016? If you’re like many political junkies, you were watching election night coverage and wondering not whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would win but might Clinton do so well that she’d win in places like Texas and Arizona.

When she lost, many on both sides of the aisle were shocked. After all, forecasters gave her odds of winning that ranged from 70 to 99 percent. These statistical win-forecasts are increasingly prominent and widely shared — thanks in part to the work of sites like FiveThirtyEight, the Huffington Post, the New York Times Upshot and the Princeton Election Consortium.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/22/how-election-forecasts-confuse-americans-and-may-lead-them-not-to-vote-at-all/

We are only a few short months from the mid-terms and the MSM has been bombarding the airways already…all in prep work for the vote….I agree that all this speculation is turning off people from voting……I mean think about it…..about 49% of the voting public actually votes anymore…that is a sad stat….DO NOT let the endless speculation turn you off from voting…..exercise your right and maybe then we can get a government that we can be proud of…we have seen what happens when we allow crap to be elected.  DO NOT allow it to happen again!

Please do not depend on the media and its speculation when you vote…you see what we got this last general election….weak minds produce candidates like Trump…..

It Is Not A Democracy

You know that there is always someone going to point out the US is not  democracy but rather a republic…..usually it is someone that is trying to make a point but have nothing to add to the conversation…..

It is true we are a republic…meaning that we cannot elect the president directly….instead it has to go through the whole electoral college thing.

Personally, I have stated many times that the EC has run its course and it is time to get rid of that dinosaur from our early days.

It will not be eliminated simple because our country can only support the 2 party system……according to some government would collapse if we ever rid ourselves of the EC….that the US would slide into anarchy.

I disagree.

The wealthy elite that are our founders did not want a democracy……..

I’ve already confessed my bad attitude about the Electoral College system. And I’ve listed 10 of the potentially serious ways it can screw up our choice of national leaders. The trouble with such a list is that it implies that we have somehow been saddled with the worst system possible. It needs to be said that no system for choosing a national leader would be perfect (although I do believe that considering the anachronistic elements of our system, we could definitely do better).

All this system-bashing could also begin to imply that I have no respect or appreciation for the Framers. That’s not so. Although I don’t seem to have the normal allotment of reverence for the Constitution or its authors, I see them as very smart guys, many of them heroes of the War for Independence, who came to Philadelphia in the summer 1787 hoping to — and trying hard to — make things better.

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/why-constitution-s-framers-didn-t-want-us-directly-elect-president

One in a series of articles. You can read the whole series here.