And just to put a pin in that one, I note that Ted Cruz is a very close third having really spent hardly anything in NH at all, and it looks like he's polling at a likely second place finish in SC. State by state, I don't see how there's going to be any consensus on an "anti-Trump" for some time.
And wow--Clinton took a shellacking from Sanders--as the poll numbers pretty much said she would. And other states are not New Hampshire. This really feels like the start of a long primary season, right?
This is probably very good news for Mike Bloomberg. (I'm kidding. I think.)
5 comments:
How are you, Vivacious?
The only things that seem slightly interesting are that 1) Trump's support cuts across all NH demographics and includes a large number of people with advanced degrees. Hillary's support apparently came from those over 65 and limousine liberals (people making over $200,000).
This somewhat confirms what I've been reading that suggests millennial women do not like Hillary. And this includes Democratic women. It's possible that Hillary's time has come and passed. I could say a lot of pejorative things about her, but I'll simply say that it appears she is campaigning on issues that would have been better received in the past. She has been called down because of the inclusion of Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright. Steinem's remarks would once have carried weight, but now turn off younger women who have moved beyond her.
I would suggest that this could be seen as a symptom of success of feminism rather than the rejection of it. Younger women are now so much a part of possibility and upward mobility they reject the idea that they are hopeless and requiring special protection. Feminism may be one of those subjects where success is measured when it is no longer needed.
Incidentally, sometimes you refer to yourself as an “old lefty.” I entirely appreciate your using a shorthand signal to clue people in on your basic feelings. I very respectfully have to suggest that the only “old lefty” in this race was Jim Webb. His sentiments were those of John Kennedy, and if you wish to go further back, Adlai Stevenson. You might say they were liberals, not leftists. The new sentiment arises almost entirely from the new left which was often financed by communist front groups in an an attempt (successful) to destabilize the United States. John Kasich is probably more in this older mold than Bernie Sanders.
There were a dozen reasons, historical, ideological, political, economic and demographic why Sanders should have won New Hampshire by 35-40%. In real terms, he grossly underperformed.
South Carolina (about 2 weeks away), a much more representative state with 64% white voters and much fewer who identify as 'independent', will tell us a great deal more than New Hampshire. And 538 has Clinton with a 95% chance of winning. It will be interesting to see how the people who keep repeating the same Clinton bashing nonsense they've been spouting since Whitewater spin that outcome. They seem to be having trouble coming to grips with her ongoing national lead in the poll aggregates too.
Kasich can't win. The right wing rabble wants blood, and they've seen what happens to 'moderate' candidates like McCain and Romney. They're not going to roll over again this year. And once Trump starts picking up Cruz voters this thing will be over, and America will have done the utterly unthinkable...
The NH Dem primary had 40% "Independent" voters. I feel like, in a state where a Trump win was a foregone conclusion for the GOP, the other "alternative" candidate was an attractive vote.
I will say that I don't like the way "voting gender" has been discussed, whether Gloria Steinem does it or Susan Sarandon does it. I think the gap Clinton really has to surmount is the generation gap and it's not really about "winning over women". I think women are people primarily and make decisions for personal criteria running the gamut of issues. I have some thoughts about younger voters that are not altogether positive--they can be really loyal--but they flaked for Dems in the midterms. It doesn't matter what they support: a Sanders revolution or Clintonian pragmatism; they will get the same nothing if they don't work on changing congress too. Also, I think that hero-worship is a set-up for disappointment--with the right press, Mother Theresa is a grasping nihilist who pals around with dictators and war criminals. Nobody is a saint in politics.
I have a hard time with labels--I like a government big enough to do things like national security, public education, and general welfare (FEMA, CDC, etc) effectively--not so big that individuals can't work effectively. I think that civil rights is a long-game struggle that has to be aware of how gains on one front can be met with challenges on different fronts.
I agree about this "vote your gender" crap; I don't like it one bit, and Steinem's "where the boys are" excuse was incredibly patronizing. The real divide is age, not gender. Young people coming up now realize they have been royally and completely screwed in the US over job prospects and college debt; the latter being something every other western country has figured out that cheap higher ed is a huge benefit for society. Kids getting out now are faced with such large debt loads that the rate of household formation has dropped; why would they even consider buying a house or car, or even starting a family when they are under such a debt load that none of these things are possible on the crap salaries they are getting?
My most fervent hope is that all dems, young or old, realize that the Supreme Court for the next generation hangs on this election, and the damage a supermajority of SC wingers would do to the rest of every kid's life is enormous. Once the primary is done, support the winner period. My happiest dream is that as soon as the nomination is decided, whoever wins immediately offers the VP slot to the other. Wouldn't the mass explosion of FOX bot heads alone be worth it?
My view is a little different. After watching more elections than I care to admit, I have come to a conclusion. The country requires both periods of liberalism and periods of conservatism in order for our politics to be self-correcting.
For example, after periods of very low debt, a very strong military establishment, high employment with good jobs, a strong degree of border sovereignty, you need a dose of liberalism. This is the time when needed changes can be made to society that may cause a little trouble, but not at the cost of destabilization of our culture.
Likewise when we have huge debt, a shrinking military, insecure sovereignty, and low employment with a lot of make-work jobs rather than careers, then you need a dose of conservatism.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but right now some politicians are talking about initiatives that would have enormous costs. It has been estimated that when President Obama leaves office, our debt will be around $24 trillion. It should be obvious to those who understand the consequences of staggering debt that now is a period when we need to shrink spending and drastically cut back the debt. We cannot allow ourselves to go down the same rabbit hole as some European countries, because we do not have an EU to bail us out (and the way they are going, they may not have an EU to bail them out either.)
In other words, sometimes you need the Mommy Party, and sometimes you need the Daddy Party.
Post a Comment