Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, March 22, 2019

New Hampshire has been tough ground for Hillary Clinton. The former New York senator and secretary of state started this election season with a huge advantage over Bernie Sanders in the Granite State, and then watched for months as Sanders’ popularity with New Hampshire’s Democratic voters grew alongside his name recognition. Hours before the good people in Dixville Notch cast their midnight ballots, the UMass/7News tracking poll had Sanders up 16 points over Clinton. Real Clear Politics’ average of reliable polls had Sanders up by 12.8 points, and the Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald poll has the difference at seven points.

Stumping in Milford on Sunday, Bill Clinton criticized Sanders for excerpting language complimentary of him from newspaper endorsements of Hillary, and said Sanders supporters had gone after journalists like Joan Walsh with sexist attacks for their support of Clinton.

The Clinton camp has sought to downplay expectations, even after Clinton herself rejected advice to leave New Hampshire early to get a head start in Nevada or South Carolina, important primary states with votes on February 20 and 27, respectively.

Surprising as the enthusiasm gap may have been to Clinton, who won New Hampshire’s primary in 2008, Sanders has outspent her 3-to-1 on television ads in recent weeks, fueled by strong fundraising in January.

Still, New Hampshire is known as a “late-deciding” state, where voters take their time and often meet candidates on multiple occasions before finally making their choice. In short: don’t believe the polls.

In 1992, Bill Clinton used an unexpected second place finish in New Hampshire to rev up his struggling campaign, which had been dragged down by scandals and poor polling. Should Hillary place second this time around, no such celebration is in order.

Picture: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign town hall meeting at South Church in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, December 29, 2015.  REUTERS/Brian Snyder

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 58

31 responses to “Hours From New Hampshire Results, Clinton Moves Forward”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    Hillary’s chances will become evident after the Nevada and South Carolina primaries. If she loses either of these states, or has another nail biting victory, like the one in Iowa, she is in trouble.
    The most fascinating political development is the likelihood of Michael Bloomberg entering the race. He used to be a Democrat, became a Republican, and is now registered as an Independent. If he decides to run as a Democrat, I have the feeling that Hillary, and Bernie, will become history. Unlike the other candidates running, including Trump, Bloomberg is a successful businessman, and a person who is not going to engage in immature rhetoric or what passes for political debate nowadays.

    • charleo1 says:

      I agree with your assessment of Hillary’s situation at the present time, as I usually agree, or come to agree with you, after some thought. However, on Bloomberg, while I agree he is a serious person, and an extremely successful businessman. I don’t see the Democrats uniting around a man that once was a Democrat, then became a Republican. I would hope we’ve learned our lesson on that one with Ronald Reagan.

    • RED says:

      I’m no expert, but I’m fairly confident that it is too late for Bloomberg to run as a democrat. Which means he can run as an independent. I’m not terribly familiar with Bloomberg, I know a little and what I know I don’t like. Who will he pull votes from? Democrats or the Cons?

      • Dominick Vila says:

        He can run as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Whether or not such a late bid is successful remains to be seen. The only plus I can see is that he would introduce a level of maturity, pragmatism, and economic knowledge that is conspicuous by its absence at the present time.

    • dpaano says:

      Dom….you honestly think Bloomie has a chance? I personally think he would taint the Democratic choice. It would be the same if Trump decided to change and run as an independent…..that would really cause problems within the GOP ranks.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Bloomberg will probably wait until he finds out the results of the Nevada and South Carolina primaries. If he thinks that Trump and Bernie are going to be the nominees, he will enter the race, probably as an Independent. Bloomberg will not run if Hillary is the front runner.

        • FireBaron says:

          Unfortunately for him, time is running out in a lot of states for “3rd Party Filings”. If he can only get on the ballot in “spoiler states” then that is the only effect his campaign will have.

  2. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    Bloomberg is not popular in his own state where he was mayor. Remember when he tried to push for passage of legislation to ban all soft drinks? That was just one of the instances of Bloomy’s attempts to play dictator.

    Hillary is doing fine. The other problem for Bloomberg is his multitude of ties to Wall Street. He may as well BE the icon for the Wolf of Wall Street.

    Few Americans today will trust billionaires like Bloomy. And, let’s be honest here, the subliminal push by Jewish Americans is to have the first Jewish president.

    If that must be the case, why choose a billionaire like Bloomy when Senator Schumer is far more qualified to run?

    Sorry but it is long past time for a female president. So far we have had NO representation in the White House that wasn’t coming from men.

    When do men in this country get it? Women earn less because men pay them less but women also pay equal taxes.

    Bloomberg is the darkest of darkest horses yet. We may as well elect Netanyahu.

    • charleo1 says:

      While I agree there nothing so powerful has an idea who’s time has come. That’s it’s long past time for a woman president, and that’s a very powerful idea. The fact is, for Hillary to become that woman, she is going to need to address some very serious issues she has right now within the Progressive Wing of her Party. And she may not only need them to secure the nomination, but perhaps to be successful in the general. And that’s a very big, “perhaps,” to likeminded Progressives such as myself, who see the election of any one of these GOPers as president, as an occurrence the country would come to regret in too many ways to comprehend. And I’m not talking about her e-mails, or Benghazi. Those only matter to the voter that would never vote for her regardless. I’m talking about the perception she is just too beholden to the power of big money politics, that voters like me strongly believe is the central issue of our time. That it’s these same big money interests influencing public policy, that is taking this country, and the middle class down. Now, will I vote for Hillary if she’s the eventual nominee? Absolutely. And I believe most Democrats will. However, this is so important as I say, that some may just stay home. Feeling they have no real choice. That all politicians are bought out, and so all the same. Unless that is, she takes the opportunity and brings them in by speaking directly to their concerns, and calms the doubts they now harbor about where her heart is, on this this deal breaker issue.
      Case in point. Hillary has been repeatedly asked about her appearances before these very Wall Street entities that shape the top down ideology on the Right. Appearances for which she had received some $650,000 dollars for a couple of shows. It bought them nothing she says. Good. So what did you talk about? As we just heard last election what Mitt Romney talks about in front of these guys. Well, she says, if other candidates are willing to release the transcripts of their paid performances, so will I. Well, that’s just not good enough. We’re not considering those other candidates. We can guess what Trump says, what Cruz probably says. We want to know what you said they were willing to pay $650,000 dollars to hear. If I were talking to Hillary I would say, We want to support you. A woman President would be awesome. But first we want a glimpse into the soul of your real self, before we decide to vote to elect you to lead our Country, and set the agenda for our Party. I don’t believe that’s something we shouldn’t expect, or something that Hillary herself cannot deliver. But deliver on this I think she must.

      • meridaest says:

        Interesting and thoughtful comments aside from the comparison of Mittens with Clinton or any other Democrat. What would those transcripts need to say for you to change your vote to Clinton?

        • charleo1 says:

          Please don’t misread what I say. There is no comparison for me between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. Primarily because I wouldn’t have voted for Mitt Romney on a bet. If on the other hand, Hillary wins the nomination of my Party, I’ll support her gladly. No, the secretly recorded tape at Romney’s fund raiser speech answered no questions for me about Mitt’s position when it comes to the privileged elite. It only verified that which I already knew of Romney. On the Right it’s expected that public servants genuflect to the rich. On the left, it’s looked upon as a negative. And Hillary needs to stop acting like this issue is no big deal. That people aren’t wondering, and worried about her even losing the election. That’s the underlying concern. We want a win. A win with as close to a progressive Democrat as we can get. But first, we must win!

      • Paragryne says:

        I don’t believe she must. It’s a double standard and just another hurdle that only Hillary must jump. One of her speeches to Goldman Sachs was about empowering women worldwide as entrepreneurs. It’s available on YouTube. I’m confident that any speech she has ever given is completely benign.

        Hillary was a private citizen at the time and in no position to offer anyone anything. As such, the speeches are really nobody’s business except Hillary and the people who actually paid to hear her speak.

      • dpaano says:

        I agree somewhat with what you say, but I don’t think Hillary will cater to Wall Street as much as people think she will. As for speaking engagements, ALL ex-presidents and Secretaries of State attend speaking engagements when requested and they get paid for them….this doesn’t mean that they are beholden to these groups. I think that’s a big misconception on everyone’s part. Hillary has spoke out many times against Wall Street and hedge fund players….I think she’ll be very straightforward and fair when handling these people… least a heck of a lot better than any of the GOP nominees!!! As for Bernie…I understand what he’s saying and what he truly believes he will do, but I don’t think he has the wherewithal to accomplish some of his goals.

        • charleo1 says:

          “dpanno,”I always read your posts, respect, and most always agree them. As I believe most Democrats do generally agree with each other, at least on principle. And that’s very important.
          But, I do believe Hillary may have a serious problem here on this issue, and I would like to see her address it. In much in the same way it was necessary for candidate Obama to address his political problem stemming from his close relationship with the radically outspoken Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Directly, without backing down, or apologizing. But with a clear understanding of why some of her supporters might have these concerns, and more importantly, why they needn’t worry.
          It’s not fair to compare her with her husband, who’s record of Wall Street deregulation that led to the financial crisis, is in the minds of many on the Left. Yet as we know, in politics, the perception of a narrative is sometimes everything, as it may come to define the candidate, and by that, become reality. Fair or not. as you are as fully aware as anyone, the stakes are just too high to leave this to chance.

          • dpaano says:

            Thank you for reading my posts….usually I just get BS from the trolls. In response to your post above, I don’t know how much more Hillary can explain except that the speaking engagements for Wall Street firms were paid engagements. From what I understand, the subjects of her speeches were not aimed at anything financial as pertains to Wall Street. I tend to believe her when she says that she will be “hard” on Wall Street when necessary, and I think she’ll be a lot harder than Sanders. She has worked with Wall Street and has a rapport with them. She may be able to get things done based on that relationship. Again, not sure how much she can explain that won’t just fall on deaf ears (GOPers). Those that don’t believe her now are not going to change their minds, especially when they listen constantly to the rightwing nutjobs who use their usual lies and scare tactics to manipulate their base. She HAS offered to provide copies of her speeches, I believe.

          • mike says:

            Simple, release all her transcripts of these speeches.
            Look at the polls 52% of voters think she is untrustworthy.
            Look at exit polls yesterday from democratic voters only 5% believed she is honest.

        • mike says:

          No one believes she won’t go against Wall Street banks.They don’t believe she is honest. duh!
          Your two candidates are flawed. One untrustworhy and the other a socialist. As to Clinton just this week after weeks of silence the FBI is saying she is under investigation, not an inquiry as Hillary states.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Wrong…she’s already said 5 times she intends to further advance Obama’s 2009 banking and insurance reforms. Duh

            I hear Gowdy, Rand Paul and even Chris Christie are all under investigation for their inability to play with a straight hand.

          • mike says:

            Only you would believe a serial liar. Bernie has pulled her so far to the left that she has to say things she doesn’t believe or do.
            FBI has now stated she is under investigation, far from an inquiry as Hillary likes to say.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        Hillary has NO Issues that MEN have not blown totally out of proportion ..Men already did that with Geraldine Ferrara getting to her through her husband…Men did it with Madeline Albright, Sandra Day O’Connor and even Ruth Bader Ginsberg..Admit it..SAnders has many friends in Wall Street covering his investments. You think he has his own DOW or NASDAQ?

        Hillary is a woman. Women are notoriously capable of identifying crooks and corruption. Women are also totally capable of leading the charge to insure our children are not screwed by men and their games.

        • charleo1 says:

          Since you decided to dismiss my concerns as nothing more than unfair misogynistic bias. I agree, if it wasn’t for men we’d have had a woman president years ago.

    • CrankyToo says:

      “Remember when (Bloomberg) tried to push for passage of legislation to ban all soft drinks?”

      My recollection is that the legislation New York City tried to pass (back in 2012) was not intended to ban ALL soft drinks, but rather to impose a cap on OVERSIZED soft drinks (i.e. those larger than a particular volume – 16 ounces, wasn’t it?).

  3. FT66 says:

    I for one agree the polls are wrong. Am expecting a different story after all votes are counted. We must not forget New Hampshire loves surprises.

  4. dpaano says:

    Although I do like Bernie, I personally don’t think he’s right for this country right now. I think we need someone who can bring continuity into the next 8 years and continue with the good work and forward momentum that we’ve seen with this administration. Despite what the GOP candidates spout….they are mostly lies! This administration has done quite a bit in the past 7+ years to bring this country BACK to some semplance of normality! We need to keep this momentum going, and I personally think Hillary’s experience and background is what is needed.

    • mike says:

      “semplance of mormality” what an absurd comment.
      The country is angry Obama has been a disaster economically, foreign affairs, but you think everything is hunky dory. What a joke,
      After yesterday the left doesn’t think she is the answer. Women voted against with devastating numbers because of dishonesty and untrustworthiness. What experience?? Lying and enabling?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.