The original purpose behind the New Hampshire primary was to test candidates in people to people contacts. New Hampshire is small enough to allow voters to assess value personal skills. In larger states, the prevailing candidates are those with the best machines. It's a little old fashioned, for sure, but charisma, charm, and the ability to communicate one on one should not be downplayed. Dave Chapelle, one of my favorite comedians, says that he voted for Bill Clinton because he picked up black babies and kissed them without hesitation, unlike Bush. He's being silly of course, but there's something to the suggestion that you can better judge a candidate who you meet face to face.
8
Why not replace the current primaries with nine regional division primaries using U.S. Census Bureau regional designations?
Region 1: Northeast
Division 1: New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont)
Division 2: Mid-Atlantic (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania)
Region 2: Midwest
Division 3: East North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin)
Division 4: West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota)
Region 3: South
Division 5: South Atlantic (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C., and West Virginia)
Division 6: East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee)
Division 7: West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas)
Region 4: West
Division 8: Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming)
Division 9: Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington)
The regions could take turns going first.
Region 1: Northeast
Division 1: New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont)
Division 2: Mid-Atlantic (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania)
Region 2: Midwest
Division 3: East North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin)
Division 4: West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota)
Region 3: South
Division 5: South Atlantic (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C., and West Virginia)
Division 6: East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee)
Division 7: West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas)
Region 4: West
Division 8: Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming)
Division 9: Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington)
The regions could take turns going first.
6
Mark Thompson and others,
President Clinton pointed out that Bernie's ad implying that he was endorsed by two newspapers was dishonest. It was according to Politifact and at least one of the paper's editors. Bernie has not disavowed the ad and his campaign has tried to justify it. Then there is the matter of the many people who identify themselves as Sanders supporters who constantly direct personal, even vicious, attacks on the Clintons and anyone who supports them or criticizes Bernie in any way. Since you post on here regularly, I'm sure you have seen them. As Paul Krugman noted, when he wrote columns saying Hillary's financial reform proposals were better than Bernie's, questioning Bernie's electability, and talking about how change occurs, he was ripped with the type of comments he usually gets from Rush Limbaugh. Joan Walsh got the same treatment. I'd guess that many of these self-described Bernie supporters are Republicans who want Bernie to win because they think he is a weaker general election candidate, but it's clear than many really are Bernie supporters. Meanwhile, Bernie claims he is running a clean campaign and gives his supporters a wink and a nod. He lets these followers do the dirty work.
President Clinton pointed out that Bernie's ad implying that he was endorsed by two newspapers was dishonest. It was according to Politifact and at least one of the paper's editors. Bernie has not disavowed the ad and his campaign has tried to justify it. Then there is the matter of the many people who identify themselves as Sanders supporters who constantly direct personal, even vicious, attacks on the Clintons and anyone who supports them or criticizes Bernie in any way. Since you post on here regularly, I'm sure you have seen them. As Paul Krugman noted, when he wrote columns saying Hillary's financial reform proposals were better than Bernie's, questioning Bernie's electability, and talking about how change occurs, he was ripped with the type of comments he usually gets from Rush Limbaugh. Joan Walsh got the same treatment. I'd guess that many of these self-described Bernie supporters are Republicans who want Bernie to win because they think he is a weaker general election candidate, but it's clear than many really are Bernie supporters. Meanwhile, Bernie claims he is running a clean campaign and gives his supporters a wink and a nod. He lets these followers do the dirty work.
6
Others have commented on the disproportionate influence that citizens of Iowa and new Hampshire have on our presidential elections. I might also point out that (the obvious) the electoral college system is undemocratic in two ways: (1) it gives extra power to states with small populations, which usually vote republican (why are North and South Dakota two states, anyway? How did that happen?) (2) with each state being winner-take-all, the entire election depends on a couple of swing states. This also depresses voter turnout in non-swing states.
The Constitution should be amended to elect the president by nationwide popular vote. But in order for this to happen, 3/4 of the states would have to approve such an amendment. As long as 13 states are favored by the current system, that is not likely to happen! The electoral college system was a deal with the devil.
The Constitution should be amended to elect the president by nationwide popular vote. But in order for this to happen, 3/4 of the states would have to approve such an amendment. As long as 13 states are favored by the current system, that is not likely to happen! The electoral college system was a deal with the devil.
5
The young know that in 1999 Bernie voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall; had Bill Clinton agreed with him and vetoed that bill, we might have avoided the crash of 2007. They know that in 2002, he voted against Bush's invasion of Iraq; had Hillary and 30 other senators agreed with him and voted against it, we would have saved thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and $4 trillion. They know that in 2011, he advised against the overthrow of Gaddafi which threw Libya into chaos and gave ISIL a start. They know that he wants to help those Americans below the poverty line, whose numbers have doubled since 1974. And they know that he's good for American capitalism: he wants the people to have enough money to buy the things our corporations can make. For these reasons, young women and young men vote for Sanders. I hope those my age do too.
11
We are still left with interchangeable candidates who agree with each other 99%.
If Hillary wins the nomination I, along with just about everyone I know, who are all closely following the race, will lose all interest in news regarding the election. Take note NY Times Editorial Board.
3
My goodness, all five of you?
4
I think when all is said and done and we look back at 2016 it will be viewed as a major political turning point.
The generations that follow the Baby Boomers are starting to really express themselves and get involved. They are an optimistic but highly skeptical bunch that will not just sign off on the usual dogma or respond to the same political dog whistles.
My preference in this election - Senator Bernie Sanders- is going to get his first of what will be many wins. It has been hard fought and well earned. It is well past time Hillary and her minions were humbled- there are plenty of us who are not enamored of her, her politics, her track record and have no intent of ever voting for her.
Like Cornell West said: the Sanders Campaogn is a love train. Come aboard.
The generations that follow the Baby Boomers are starting to really express themselves and get involved. They are an optimistic but highly skeptical bunch that will not just sign off on the usual dogma or respond to the same political dog whistles.
My preference in this election - Senator Bernie Sanders- is going to get his first of what will be many wins. It has been hard fought and well earned. It is well past time Hillary and her minions were humbled- there are plenty of us who are not enamored of her, her politics, her track record and have no intent of ever voting for her.
Like Cornell West said: the Sanders Campaogn is a love train. Come aboard.
12
If Sec. Clinton loses in New Hampshire primary by huge margin of votes today , that could become a turning point for her election campaign . It appears that overwhelmingly turn out of young voters , women , Blue caller workers , economic disadvantaged and the Middle class folks like Iowa primary , are in support for Bernie in primary elections thus far . If America is ready to vote for Bernie Sanders 's revolution ?
3
I love the pot with tickets in. It tells what the electoral system is: a lottery.
Although I was once in an aid organization in which so many of the volunteers were in it to meet people that we had to issue instructions to dress appropriately and to show up ready to work, I find it hard to believe, unless I’m completely out the loop, that those youngsters, with their rock ‘n’ roll music and the haircuts notwithstanding, support the Sanders’ campaign because that’s where the boys are.
4
The insanity of it all. Not a Rubio fan but unfair criticism really gets in my craw. When he took a highly UNSCRIPTED sip of water in 2013 during his response to Obama's state of union speech you'd have thought he had molested a child if you give the so-called experts any credence. The travesty of it all. Now he ignores Christie during the debate to give his own remarks, canned though they may be, but definitely sticking to the all important script and you'd have thought he molested another child, oh the travesty of it all. Pretty smart in my book to ignore Christie - everyone else is. But poor Rubio the guy can't win. Stick to script or not stick. Yes the insanity of it all.
1
There is a bright potential result of Sanders and Trump being the clear winners on Super Tuesday:
Bloomberg.
That would set up the scenario he suggested would provide the rationale for his declaring as an independent candidate for the presidency.
He turned New York City around. Who else out there could turn this country around?
Bloomberg.
That would set up the scenario he suggested would provide the rationale for his declaring as an independent candidate for the presidency.
He turned New York City around. Who else out there could turn this country around?
2
While cross-over voting has affected the voting in the early primary states, most people don't recognize that while Republican (Independents) are moving over and disrupting the Democratic Party Election, the same is happening in reverse to the Republican Party.
Republicans are voting in the Democratic party for Sanders, a Socialist, and Democrats are crossing over and voting for just about anyone they believe will make the weakest candidate against Hillary Clinton.
Before we can "get back our country", we must get back our election process by having closed state party election primaries and caucuses.
Open primaries and caucuses make for mischief by outsiders.
It is up to the rank and file members of the party to make selections of their nominees, and then true independents just might make a difference in a close election.
Most elections are not that close, and the independent vote is useless. A waste of their time and ours.
Republicans are voting in the Democratic party for Sanders, a Socialist, and Democrats are crossing over and voting for just about anyone they believe will make the weakest candidate against Hillary Clinton.
Before we can "get back our country", we must get back our election process by having closed state party election primaries and caucuses.
Open primaries and caucuses make for mischief by outsiders.
It is up to the rank and file members of the party to make selections of their nominees, and then true independents just might make a difference in a close election.
Most elections are not that close, and the independent vote is useless. A waste of their time and ours.
You know what? Since my state's primary is so much later in the year, I have yet to pay attention to the current candidates.
I have lived in this country for 30 years, and nobody has ever been able to give me a convincing reason for such a long dragged-out campaign.
I have lived in this country for 30 years, and nobody has ever been able to give me a convincing reason for such a long dragged-out campaign.
1
"If candidates cannot strike a winning chord in the early contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, the money often dries up."
That's the problem - the money dries up. The problem isn't the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire have oversized impact on the fate of candidates. It's the fact that campaign financing is a corrupt, unjust and counterproductive mess.
And the media play a prominent role, too - donors read and listen to the pundits declaring so-and-so is toast after a dismal showing in New Hampshire, and they cut off the money. Media and money become a closed circuit - media watches the money and money watches the media. These two forces dictate our presidential elections, not the candidates' platforms or the nation's voters.
The result is that candidates will say and do anything to please donors and media, and too many primary voters have been conditioned to hear only what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.
It's a shameful situation, one that should embarrass and anger us.
That's the problem - the money dries up. The problem isn't the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire have oversized impact on the fate of candidates. It's the fact that campaign financing is a corrupt, unjust and counterproductive mess.
And the media play a prominent role, too - donors read and listen to the pundits declaring so-and-so is toast after a dismal showing in New Hampshire, and they cut off the money. Media and money become a closed circuit - media watches the money and money watches the media. These two forces dictate our presidential elections, not the candidates' platforms or the nation's voters.
The result is that candidates will say and do anything to please donors and media, and too many primary voters have been conditioned to hear only what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.
It's a shameful situation, one that should embarrass and anger us.
6
Why is Clinton's relative "electability" against Sanders' so self-evident? After (if?) she triumphs in the South and does OK on Super Tuesday, her "inevitability" is bound to release a tsunami of resignation among many Democrats. Just keep telling yourself that the Supreme Court really matters.
4
God bless Democracy! In spite of the millions spent on campaigns, the voters in New Hampshire get to decide who to vote for!
Ideas and a basic feeling about a candidate are what may influence voters more than all the money. New Hampshire politics are retail politics and the smart candidates know you have to meet voters in person and give them a true sense of what you are about. The retail campaign of Senator Sanders should do well in New Hampshire. Kasich may do better than expected as well...
Ideas and a basic feeling about a candidate are what may influence voters more than all the money. New Hampshire politics are retail politics and the smart candidates know you have to meet voters in person and give them a true sense of what you are about. The retail campaign of Senator Sanders should do well in New Hampshire. Kasich may do better than expected as well...
4
First Hillary sends out Chelsea to lie about Bernie Sanders. The she sends out Steinem and Albright to scare young women. And finally she sends our her husband, Bill, who should know better, to lie about Bernie Sanders. Hillary's campaign has turned disgusting. It says, clearly, that she's not up for the job. What a disgrace she has become.
13
It is not true that these two states winnow the field.
What IS true is how the NYT and MSM all collude on endless "polls" that help pre-determine how people will vote.
The fact that Trump and Bernie are foregone conclusions in New Hampshire is NOT the result of the New Hampshire primary.
It IS the result of the NYT fascination with publishing polling results, opinionated articles and editorial board endorsements BEFORE the people vote.
What IS true is how the NYT and MSM all collude on endless "polls" that help pre-determine how people will vote.
The fact that Trump and Bernie are foregone conclusions in New Hampshire is NOT the result of the New Hampshire primary.
It IS the result of the NYT fascination with publishing polling results, opinionated articles and editorial board endorsements BEFORE the people vote.
2
New Hampshire will, it seems, vote for two unelectable (general election) candidates. Does New Hampshire thereby give us President Bloomberg?
1
The right thing to do is to start with NY;VA;FL;TX and CA states that represent diversity, that are populous and award the most electoral votes in the general election.
3
I continue to be offended by the lack of respect The Times shows for it's readers. Iowa and New Hampshire do NOT a presidential candidate make. Huckabee and Santorum won Iowa in 2008 and 2012 for the GOP respectively. Paul Tsongas (remember him?) won New Hampshire in 1992, the year Clinton won the coveted prize. Could that have been because he was a New England senator from a neighboring state? While Sanders is not a New Englander by birth he IS a senator from a VERY neighboring state. Clearly there are similar values so strongly aligned that it gives them an edge during this primary campaign. My point is that any intelligent person knows that these contests are just as much about pundits trying to keep the electorate interested for publicity's sake as they are about vetting the eventual nominee. If I were a fool and were satisfied by foolish commentary I'd read The Post and not The Times. Maybe it's time for a look at another option (does it exist) where I can get serious feedback without extraneous information on the issues of the day.
3
I understand why people outside of Ohio may view John Kasich as a "closet Democrat," but he is far from that. Go back to 2011 and check out his attempt to smash public employees' unions a la Scott Walker. Look at his support of every anti-abortion rights legislation delivered to him from Ohio's Jurassic state legislature (he is about to sign legislation to defund Planned Parenthood despite the actions of the Houston grand jury). It now appears that his Ohio EPA had been ignoring elevated lead levels in the drinking water of Sebring, OH. See back in 2014 when he declined to continue an initiative to develop more wind energy farms in Ohio. It reminded me of when Ronald Reagan had Jimmy Carter's solar panels removed from the White House.
10
A Clinton nomination will ruin us. I cannot abide another Democrat who will embrace Henry Kissinger.
7
"On the Democratic side, the main interest is seeing by how much Hillary Clinton can control the damage of an expected Bernie Sanders victory."
Oh, that's rich NYT. Since late summer/early fall, this chorus of commenters over here on the right side of the page, these little people, have been shouting about Sanders and how he will prevail. We have been aware of this parallel universe on the internet where the grassroots enthusiasm and sheer numbers of supporters have been propelling Sanders and his prescient policies and platforms to new heights. Back here at the stogy NYT, it's been all Clinton and Republicans all the time, with, until most recently, usually dismissive or even derogatory allusions to Sanders tossed in to feed the hungry readership. Your editorial board needs to pay attention to what's really happening out here, because it sure hasn't been reflected in your reporting.
Oh, that's rich NYT. Since late summer/early fall, this chorus of commenters over here on the right side of the page, these little people, have been shouting about Sanders and how he will prevail. We have been aware of this parallel universe on the internet where the grassroots enthusiasm and sheer numbers of supporters have been propelling Sanders and his prescient policies and platforms to new heights. Back here at the stogy NYT, it's been all Clinton and Republicans all the time, with, until most recently, usually dismissive or even derogatory allusions to Sanders tossed in to feed the hungry readership. Your editorial board needs to pay attention to what's really happening out here, because it sure hasn't been reflected in your reporting.
13
Thankfully, I don't think most Americans want a "revolution." We certainly don't need one led by an over the hill Senator who never committed to trying to make a difference in one of our two leading parties. We certainly don't need to be led by a socialist who dissembles when asked to define the term and somehow magically emerges as a true progressive. Anyway, I am the same age as Sanders and have lived long enough to recognize and old man on an ego trip destined to wreck the legacy of hard work by countless true progressives who would like to see that very hard earned progress not be rolled back by a Republican victory in November.
My guess is today will not winnow the field. Christie, Bush, and Kasich will do well enough to stay alive. As to Carson, as there is no obvious reason he got in the race in the first place, there is no obvious reason for him to pull out. As to Fiorina: she has been running for Vice President from day one. She will stay in it until there is a clear leader who she can suck up to and endorse, hoping he will pick her solely on the basis of her having two X chromosomes.
Thus, the entire circus is likely to move on to South Carolina, where the candidates' biggest battles will be to lower expectations in the media.
Thus, the entire circus is likely to move on to South Carolina, where the candidates' biggest battles will be to lower expectations in the media.
2
I cannot understand the strategy behind Bill Clinton's outspoken attack on Sanders during the run-up to the NH primary. It serves no purpose - Mr. Sanders is going to very likely win NH...so what in the overall scheme of things? He just will not prevail over Mrs. Clinton nationally, as his socialistic past sadly will not resonate on the large stage. Give NH to him, play up all the important strengths Mrs. Clinton has (obvious but will state again, global respect and experience, works well with legislators, hardworking moderate stance that will prevail), and she will be president. I admire and respect Mr. Sanders very much, am just pragmatic in this situation. There is absolutely no positive future in doing the unthinkable - having one of the GOP clowns in office, even dogcatcher...so my pragmatism must include seeing Mrs. Clinton in office.
1
"Darwinian efficiency??"
Somewhere, poor Mr. Darwin is spinning in his grave, at the odd notion that the contemporary presidential campaign process has anything to do with natural selection, or survival of the fittest, or even "efficiency."
The Right may claim that social Darwinism provides an underpinning for the wretched anti-democratic travesty that is our current public office auction, but I hardly expected the NYT to sign-on to that arrant sanctimony.
Somewhere, poor Mr. Darwin is spinning in his grave, at the odd notion that the contemporary presidential campaign process has anything to do with natural selection, or survival of the fittest, or even "efficiency."
The Right may claim that social Darwinism provides an underpinning for the wretched anti-democratic travesty that is our current public office auction, but I hardly expected the NYT to sign-on to that arrant sanctimony.
4
We need a National Primary where all states get to vote, to avoid early winnowing out of candidates which voters in other states may actually support. By the time the candidates get to the rest of the states, decisions which affect us all have already been made.
We need a National Primary Election.
We need a National Primary Election.
5
Nobody will leave the race after today except perhaps Fiorina and, maybe, Carson. Everyone else other than Trump will get something around 10 percent of the vote, and they all have enough funds to carry on to South Carolina and probably beyond. I suspect the next Republican debate will sport the same array of candidates as the one last Saturday. South Carolina is another unpredictable campaign stop so whatever outcome happens there will probably be shrugged off by most of the candidates. I don't see much winnowing happening until after March 1st.
2
The concept of having areas of low population vote first is a good one, and is in fact the best defense against money in politics. Without Iowa and New Hampshire, we'd have no Bernie Sanders, John Kasich or Obama. We'd have Clinton and Trump. We'd have the big name and the one able to run the most TV commercials as only possible winner. Promoting retail politics helps level the playing field. Perhaps some would prefer that the South Bronx be the first in the nation primary, but NH has a long history and culture of evaluating politicians and I'm more than pleased that they get the first crack.
10
Pardon me but I like having the candidates fight it out in Iowa & New Hampshire first. Given their small populations it forces the candidates to meet the people face to face instead of deploying an army of surrogates. Despite the complaints about the ethnic makeup of those states, I'm fairly certain the whole spectrum of political positions is present & the candidates frequently encounter uncomfortable to them questions.
As to the role of the media, sure they are not giving equal time to all but just imagine how much more difficult it would have been for Bernie to get started in California or New York where the costs of advertising is far higher and it is almost impossible to engage in the same kind of retail politicking
To those who say Bernie cannot win, the answer to that is it all depends upon whether the People will vote for labels or ideas. To those who say Bernie can't accomplish anything if elected, the answer to that is when Obama won the voters voted into office a Democrat majority in the House & Senate. If the same happens with Bernie much will get done - this time for the 99%
As to the role of the media, sure they are not giving equal time to all but just imagine how much more difficult it would have been for Bernie to get started in California or New York where the costs of advertising is far higher and it is almost impossible to engage in the same kind of retail politicking
To those who say Bernie cannot win, the answer to that is it all depends upon whether the People will vote for labels or ideas. To those who say Bernie can't accomplish anything if elected, the answer to that is when Obama won the voters voted into office a Democrat majority in the House & Senate. If the same happens with Bernie much will get done - this time for the 99%
17
I just checked national polling data and it is true that Clinton and Sanders are now neck and neck. Although I gave Sanders money at the start of his campaign I will never vote for him or give him any more money. I was looking forward to a woman candidate for president.
Blomberg will probably enter the race if Hilary continues to lose support. He is strong on two issues that matter a lot to me: gun control and the environment. Sanders has a sorry record on gun control and doesn't say much about climate change. As a new grandfather the latter issue matters the most to me. If he enters the race I will support him.
Sanders is a pie in the sky candidate. There is no way in hell that he will ever get anything through a Republican congress. And some of his ideas should die. As a career politician (yes, that is what he is) he will have for the rest of his life better medical insurance than medicare alone allows. Guess what folks, medicare only covers 80% of the costs of doctors or hospitals. Those of us that actually use medicare rely on supplemental policies to cover the rest. Many of those policies are written by the same private insurance companies that Sanders wants to destroy.
I have voted for democrats in presidential elections since 1964. I may break that personal history in 2016.
Blomberg will probably enter the race if Hilary continues to lose support. He is strong on two issues that matter a lot to me: gun control and the environment. Sanders has a sorry record on gun control and doesn't say much about climate change. As a new grandfather the latter issue matters the most to me. If he enters the race I will support him.
Sanders is a pie in the sky candidate. There is no way in hell that he will ever get anything through a Republican congress. And some of his ideas should die. As a career politician (yes, that is what he is) he will have for the rest of his life better medical insurance than medicare alone allows. Guess what folks, medicare only covers 80% of the costs of doctors or hospitals. Those of us that actually use medicare rely on supplemental policies to cover the rest. Many of those policies are written by the same private insurance companies that Sanders wants to destroy.
I have voted for democrats in presidential elections since 1964. I may break that personal history in 2016.
2
I'm so very torn.
On the one hand, I love much of what Sanders has to say. On the other, I'm terrified that nominating him could even the odds in favor of a Trump or Cruz at the national level. He's the principled candidate, no doubt, but his principles are those of the bona fide left, not necessarily of the center or center-left. So, the pragmatist in me is leaning Hillary.
Then again, again, I'm concerned that Hillary Clinton could face federal indictment over her Email scandal. However harmless the mistake, it seems that she may have violated Federal law. This, also, could force her to withdraw from the race at an awkward time and hand a victory to the Republican candidate.
What to do?
On the one hand, I love much of what Sanders has to say. On the other, I'm terrified that nominating him could even the odds in favor of a Trump or Cruz at the national level. He's the principled candidate, no doubt, but his principles are those of the bona fide left, not necessarily of the center or center-left. So, the pragmatist in me is leaning Hillary.
Then again, again, I'm concerned that Hillary Clinton could face federal indictment over her Email scandal. However harmless the mistake, it seems that she may have violated Federal law. This, also, could force her to withdraw from the race at an awkward time and hand a victory to the Republican candidate.
What to do?
1
Let's face it, nothing much more can be said about the Republicans than that a man such as Trump is the runaway leader.
Remember when Obama unjustly was slandered as a demagogue? No one could explain why that was remotely pertinent, unless popularity itself is reason enough.
But it isn't. HOW a politician achieves it is the key: inflaming racial and ethnic hatred, a la Hitler, is the essence.
Remember when Obama unjustly was slandered as a demagogue? No one could explain why that was remotely pertinent, unless popularity itself is reason enough.
But it isn't. HOW a politician achieves it is the key: inflaming racial and ethnic hatred, a la Hitler, is the essence.
1
Actually, The Donald's success is probably due only to the fact that he is the only one of the field that isn't one of the evangelical clones.
1
With the 1% winnowing the fields, it is a scary thought that we might wind up with Donald Trump v. Bernie Sanders in the general election. I agree with those who believe a Socialist Jewish man in his mid 70s has no chance of becoming President in this country, leaving us with the Donald as our President. This is about as demoralizing as it gets.
10
I have more respect for the intelligence of the voters than that. I think Bernie wins that matchup easily.
3
Ten years ago the idea of a black man being president was almost unthinkable
The point is pretty simple, and I think the NYT makes it well: these two states have simply too much power when it comes to winnowing the field AND they are strongly supported by the media who need the "caucus circus" and New Hampshire voters to keep viewers.
12
What young women recognize from the remarks of Steinem and Albright are the differences between the government that they want and the government that narcissists who "know best" will decide that they should have. In the 20th Century, women adapting the worst parts of patronizing patriarchs was considered chic. In the 21st Century, that coat is now recognized by the cloth it is cut from, and it no longer wears well on any gender.
17
It's true that electing a woman to the US Presidency will be an important milestone in raising the status of all women, but for Albright and Steinem to argue that this particular woman deserves the White House and the most important job in the world is an insult to the Office and to the voters whose trust must be in merit, not what might well be recognized as tokenism.
3
The people of this country are angry, they're angry that a few rich people get to tell the rest of us that they're gonna make things all better and then they don't. We are supposed to accept that a pompous narcissist billionaire or a lifelong politician funded by billionaires and corporations can do something to help a country that is governed by people who are owned by the very corporations that have ruined it. Those of us who have felt the corporate 'burn' and seen our savings eroded and are livelihoods diminished are not have it. That's why we and our kids who have witnessed it are 'feeling the Bern!'
21
Didnt' you say the same thing when you supported Obama?
I'm sure that also was the rallying these past 40 years in Maryland, overall, too.
Yet, you still blame the people who didn't win the White House the past 7 years, nor the people you put into the statehouse in MD, either.
Pretty convenient, eh?
I'm sure that also was the rallying these past 40 years in Maryland, overall, too.
Yet, you still blame the people who didn't win the White House the past 7 years, nor the people you put into the statehouse in MD, either.
Pretty convenient, eh?
2
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the bizzare American electoral system, which gives a decisive political advantage to low population states. Here are two other examples:
1- A mere 17% of the population, which reside in the 25 lowest population states, elects 50 of the 100 Senators!
2- The electoral college system, with its minimum of 3 for each states, makes small population states a clear advantage. California has 54 electoral votes, and Wyoming has 3. If it was proportional to the population, California would have had 220 electoral votes. Therefore, the ballots of every four Californian counts as one in the Presidential elections!
1- A mere 17% of the population, which reside in the 25 lowest population states, elects 50 of the 100 Senators!
2- The electoral college system, with its minimum of 3 for each states, makes small population states a clear advantage. California has 54 electoral votes, and Wyoming has 3. If it was proportional to the population, California would have had 220 electoral votes. Therefore, the ballots of every four Californian counts as one in the Presidential elections!
19
Triple the size of the House of Representatives, the number of which has not been expanded in about 100 years (and was regularly increased all through the 19th century as the number of states and the aggregate population grew).
This will move representation closer to the constituents and serve to level the playing field for electoral college importance.
This will move representation closer to the constituents and serve to level the playing field for electoral college importance.
1
Max, perhaps you've forgotten, this is the United ***STATES***, not the dictatorship of the high population centers in the country. Otherwise, we would all be living under the "sensibilities" of the NYC and LA crowd. No thanks.
1
I agree with the general sentiment you are expressing. However, how can we ascertain the proportions are right? The conventional wisdom with electoral processes is "one man, one vote". We have skewed that to accommodate our State system in many of our electoral processes, including the state-by-state primaries. All of this was set in motion in different era more than 200 years ago. Can this be ever reviewed to make sure it represents the realities of our time?
"Deep throat" to Woodward re the 1972 campaign Nixon "dirty tricks": "You are missing the big picture. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they are running against." I leave it to the reader's imagination to apply this to the current contest.
5
The primary process is appallingly undemocratic and in dire need of change. That such a tiny and unrepresentative handful of voters in two virtually all-white states get to have such disproportionate influence on who becomes president is brutally unfair. A series of rotating regional primaries makes a lot more sense.
6
Since there are but two Democrats running Hillary can claim, like her Hubby Bubba, of being The Comeback Kid. Many too young may not know Bill did not win, he came in second. Of course in '92 there were more than two in the crowded field. The winner Tsongas later went on to lose badly, and he is no longer of this world.
Hillary's second place finish in NH then has little relevancy. Since the Sixties when it held great importance, a predictor of presidents, NH was revered. Now, not so much, except for all the media hoopla which makes it seems more important than it is. That's only Show Biz which politics has devolved into, folks.
After the Green Mountain Boy Sanders loses the ties that bind him to NH, the rough road ahead for him becomes tougher to hoe. So where does this leave New Hampshire? In a lurch one surmises. It has now become a spoiler, a distraction for Hillary, still the presumed nominee.
Dems in NH have been able to accomplish something though. They've made it harder for Hillary and maybe that's good, she'll be a tested and tougher candidate in the Fall. But it could backfire and make it more difficult to win, mortally wounded.
If so those who vote Sanders would have managed to do what Republicans couldn't, give them the candidate they yearn to run against in the Fall, and snatch a Democratic defeat from the jaws of Victory. Hello President Trump? Cruz? Thanks New Hampshire.
DD
Manhattan
Hillary's second place finish in NH then has little relevancy. Since the Sixties when it held great importance, a predictor of presidents, NH was revered. Now, not so much, except for all the media hoopla which makes it seems more important than it is. That's only Show Biz which politics has devolved into, folks.
After the Green Mountain Boy Sanders loses the ties that bind him to NH, the rough road ahead for him becomes tougher to hoe. So where does this leave New Hampshire? In a lurch one surmises. It has now become a spoiler, a distraction for Hillary, still the presumed nominee.
Dems in NH have been able to accomplish something though. They've made it harder for Hillary and maybe that's good, she'll be a tested and tougher candidate in the Fall. But it could backfire and make it more difficult to win, mortally wounded.
If so those who vote Sanders would have managed to do what Republicans couldn't, give them the candidate they yearn to run against in the Fall, and snatch a Democratic defeat from the jaws of Victory. Hello President Trump? Cruz? Thanks New Hampshire.
DD
Manhattan
3
Oh yeah-- Bernie will "fail" in a national election just as he "failed" in Vermont. Just which of these other candidates do you think could possibly stand a chance of being elected on their merits without the backing of the major political machinery stoked by money and mindlessly parroting "don't waste your vote!" "unelectable!!!" The only vote wasted is a vote for perpetuating a government that you would like to see changed.
What both parties fear is a landslide popular vote for Sanders as the electoral college picks their establishment candidate who will continue deficit spending, government by the rich and sending our young to die for corporate and foreign interests. It will spotlight the emperor with no clothes.
What both parties fear is a landslide popular vote for Sanders as the electoral college picks their establishment candidate who will continue deficit spending, government by the rich and sending our young to die for corporate and foreign interests. It will spotlight the emperor with no clothes.
At last the NYT is forced into writing about Bernie Sanders! Before the primaries started we rarely read anything about him, particularly anything positive! And certainly never read anything about Martin O'Malley!
7
"Half a dozen"???? How in the heck did you get that inflated number? Even if you count Gilmore, by my count, there are only 8 Republicans running (unless you mean that one of the two remaining Dems will drop out). And considering that Bush has more money than the total GDP of many countries, I cannot imagine circumstances where more than four (including Gilmore) drop out.
1
"Winnowing" is a good word for this. Unripe wheat will blow away with the chaff.
1
The original intent of the founding fathers, significantly behind the requirement that civic decisions be not made by a king, but by a small, select group of white men, is best honored by winnowing the group of candidates for president in a caucus in Iowa and a primary in New Hampshire. The overwhelming concentration of whites in those two states, however unrepresentative they may be of the composition of the country, pays homage to the slave-owning land thieves who wrote our constitution (all the while ignoring the 10-year old Confederation).
That's just the way we do things. That's why Wayne's World edits are so much in keeping with the founding fathers’ intent: #BlackLivesMatterNOT
That's just the way we do things. That's why Wayne's World edits are so much in keeping with the founding fathers’ intent: #BlackLivesMatterNOT
3
Social progressiveness will not work in this country. Bernie Sanders will not work in this country.
All liberal proposals depend on EVERYONE chipping in so EVERYONE can gain. We do not have a country that supports that possibility, sociologically and demographically. We are a lopsided country with a shrinking middle-class plus upper class that support close to 50% of the rest of the country! We have large inner cities with low job skill rates, we have massive immigrant populations, both legal and illegal, with low literacy, and zero advanced job skill training, we have broad swathes in middle of our country with low skill/income-opportunities.
We are not Denmark. We are not Canada. At some point the politically correct fantasies have to stop.
Bernie's proposals sound great in theory. Free health-care for all. Free college for all. Free this. Free that. Everyone chips in so at the end of the day we all benefit. Except that 50 percent of the country will not chip in. And that 50 percent will grow to 60-70 percent as it becomes less and less advantages to work. You can't continually milk the richest to support the missing 60% percent chunk who won't contribute. That's not viable long term.
Bernie's proposals will work as long as we do it only in a demographically literate and job skilled sectors.
Find any Sweden-like mostly middle and upper class area in the USA. Secede. And they'll work perfectly. The United States of Suffolk County under President Bernie will be great.
All liberal proposals depend on EVERYONE chipping in so EVERYONE can gain. We do not have a country that supports that possibility, sociologically and demographically. We are a lopsided country with a shrinking middle-class plus upper class that support close to 50% of the rest of the country! We have large inner cities with low job skill rates, we have massive immigrant populations, both legal and illegal, with low literacy, and zero advanced job skill training, we have broad swathes in middle of our country with low skill/income-opportunities.
We are not Denmark. We are not Canada. At some point the politically correct fantasies have to stop.
Bernie's proposals sound great in theory. Free health-care for all. Free college for all. Free this. Free that. Everyone chips in so at the end of the day we all benefit. Except that 50 percent of the country will not chip in. And that 50 percent will grow to 60-70 percent as it becomes less and less advantages to work. You can't continually milk the richest to support the missing 60% percent chunk who won't contribute. That's not viable long term.
Bernie's proposals will work as long as we do it only in a demographically literate and job skilled sectors.
Find any Sweden-like mostly middle and upper class area in the USA. Secede. And they'll work perfectly. The United States of Suffolk County under President Bernie will be great.
6
Not sure what kind of kooky, Republican math you use to come up with the number that 50% of the county contributes nothing. Do these people not work? Do they not pay state tax, municipality tax, sales tax, fica tax, medical tax, and a whole host of other fees which are a higher percentage of their lower income? Do they not form the overwhelming percentage of our armed forces, asked to fight perpetual war everywhere on the planet?
And explain how "it" - social progressiveness - can work in Canada, which ethnically, politically and historically similar to the United States, but not here? Particularly given we are sooooo Christian in this country.
And explain how "it" - social progressiveness - can work in Canada, which ethnically, politically and historically similar to the United States, but not here? Particularly given we are sooooo Christian in this country.
1
It worked well in the middle half of the last century and it can again. The problems you describe have been largely caused by the runaway capitalism we are currently operating under. As the income and wealth inequality levels back out to a reasonable ratio again the middle class will rise and the poor will be able to sustain themselves working jobs that actually provide a living wage and enjoying the benefits of healthcare and an education system that allows their kids to better themselves.
1
Yes, the essential fly in the ointment. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" produces a lot of needs and reduces ability. That said, we have an enormous problem in this country with the wealth disparity between the 0.1% and everyone else.
2
New Hampshir'ns don't winnow anymore. They harrow.
1
Last night, the coverage on MSNBC was quite something. Rachel Maddow had a full interview with Mrs Clinton (the third or fourth interview with the candidate in less than a week), and interestingly, they chose to give us the interview in segments so as to seem it was throughout the hour of the program. Although, Mr. Sanders has been leading the polls by a large percentage now for several weeks, every utterance, analysis (if one can truly call it that in any objective way) and projection was Mrs. Clinton's candidacy point-of-view even thought Mr. Sander's is the front runner in the State and has narrowed the gap to 2 % points in the national polls.
Establishment journalists / reporters as water-carriers for the establishment. What a surprise!
Establishment journalists / reporters as water-carriers for the establishment. What a surprise!
47
Watch Morning Joe, the Clinton hate is strong there.
Brezsinski barely disguises her disdain for Hillary Clinton and Scarborough has been a hater for a long, long time.
Brezsinski barely disguises her disdain for Hillary Clinton and Scarborough has been a hater for a long, long time.
Bernie is great, so is a Ferrari. Unfortunately, both are also impractical and very unaffordable. Even left leaning economists have an awfully hard time with his economic justifications. He's also left a 40 year legacy of radical sounding video clips that make him seem like Lenin reincarnated. He will get taken completely apart by November, losing most moderate support. It's OK to look at the Ferarri, but we need to buy a strong and resilient SUV to actually get us to the top of that snow covered mountain. That's simple, blunt reality.
9
I still can't believe Steinham patronized young women for not being sufficiently dedicated to electing the first woman president. Going so far as to suggest they plan their political beliefs around filling their dance cards. We expect better from one of the most iconic feminist activists in history.
But Clinton isn't the only one who's looking at completing a major milestone. Wouldn't it be something to elect the very first Jewish US president?
But Clinton isn't the only one who's looking at completing a major milestone. Wouldn't it be something to elect the very first Jewish US president?
46
My biggest fear right now is that John Kasich will be the next President of the United States because Democrats are such poor strategic thinkers and the Republican elite are such accomplished ones.
13
Not happening. Kasich isn't far enough to the right to get himself the nomination in a party with a jones for bigots and lunatics.
2
More likely Kasich will be the vice-presidential nominee standing alongside Donald Trump.
1
Don't worry. Trump will be the next president.
There are millions of liberal progressive minded 60 something year old boomers cheering everyday for Bernie Sanders. Our hopes and dreams for America have been trampled on for 40 years. Senator Sanders has given us a voice again.
68
Yes, but will he deliver political power, which is what you've forgotten you are really looking for.
Michael Piscopiello: The "boomers" whom you refer to, also know as the "Me Generation" and the"baby boomers", are now ages 52 to 70 years and just about fully in charge of the politics, business interests/ economy of this country, as well as the social/ethical environment we find ourselves in. Getting involved in the unprovoked, unnecessary war in Iraq, after the lessons which should have been learned in Viet Nam and pushing this nation into the most unfair and uneven wealth distribution since the 1920's , prior to the Great Depression, are not proud legacies of this so called "boomer" generation, in my opinion. Neither is the slow response to climate change/ global warming and its effects on the planet, to which this country has greatly contributed, or the massive proliferation of guns , including military style weapons, widely available and making us all less safe by the day.
In general, the 'boomer" generation and its promise have let us down. It's time for this group to get over themselves and their Me-ness and start making a positive difference for all of us, from their current position of power as an age group. So far, the record is not looking so great.
In general, the 'boomer" generation and its promise have let us down. It's time for this group to get over themselves and their Me-ness and start making a positive difference for all of us, from their current position of power as an age group. So far, the record is not looking so great.
1
He will have the political power of position, the political power of experience, and most importantly the political power of values that are greatly desired by young and old alike.
Will there be a more progressive congress in the future? We will see. We will see who he inspires to seek public office? The Tea party branch of conservative republicans did just that.
Will there be a more progressive congress in the future? We will see. We will see who he inspires to seek public office? The Tea party branch of conservative republicans did just that.
What I can't understand is this. Jeb Bush throws insults on billboards back at Trump, so he stoops to the same level. He and and 2 other hasbeens gang together and try to rubbish Marco Rubio, like him or don't like him is irrelevant to what I'm saying here, when on the face of things he is the only contender with enough percentage in the polls to even get a look in at taking on Trump for the nomination. The establishment has made it clear they don't like Cruz, the gang of 3 don't have enough percentage between the 3 of them together to make a difference to Trump's lead so they go after the only one who does....leaves them with what...? They are handing the nomination to Trump by cutting the legs out from under any other viable contenders. Seems to me they should either shut up and get behind one of those who have a chance and stop with the sour grapes or lay off the vitriol and improve their own numbers to the state where they can actually become real contenders and not just wind bags.
2
str8talk, I agree, and think you nailed the dysfunction of the Republican Party & candidates. All seem to be driven by a "me first" mentality. The biggest "me firster" (Donald Trump) leads. Watching these guys talk about anything makes me wonder what planet they live on.
1
The only problem with your premise is that Rubio is not a strong candidate - he became undone at a party debate, which should be considered friendly ground. His speech the night of the Iowa caucuses was awkwardly delivered and canned. He's ambition, but little substance.
What will he do in national debates, when everyone is watching. How will he handle questions from journalists - he has to come out of the bubble sometime.
What will he do in national debates, when everyone is watching. How will he handle questions from journalists - he has to come out of the bubble sometime.
1
With the remarks by Albright, Steinem, and Hillary's attack husband, Bill, the Clinton campaign appears at least for the moment to be in full meltdown mode. Hillary's ridiculous attempt to impugn Sanders with her claim that he has taken Wall Street cash was truly pathetic. The Clintons have gorged at the Wall Street trough and she insists that her speaking fees are harmless. Why would she then turn around and try to make Sanders look bad for taking Wall Street dollars? Sensible people would never believe he ever did. She seems to be losing her icy veneer. How fun to watch!
18
Many, perhaps most, ought never to have been candidates ever, ever at all. What is there offers a poor future for the nation.
11
There are reasons why, in some cases, therapists use short-term therapy. It puts pressure on people. Which can be very beneficial.
I think this country needs some of that short-term therapy. Forced to make a decision in a shorter time.
The constant navel-gazing of voters who have the luxury of spinning out this process of making a decision (or no decision, if they choose not to vote) is detrimental to society. Give me proof that the lingering makes for better decisions. Because I don't buy it!
Other countries manage to hold short-term elections. Or are we depending upon endless campaigns for a "campaign economy" or "reality show blood sport"?
I bet we might even get better candidates.
Long term therapy is expensive and may be very necessary for certain individuals. But placing a time-limit, in my view, often works with couples, who are stuck. Or navel-gazers who really don't want to change.
We could at least try it!
I think this country needs some of that short-term therapy. Forced to make a decision in a shorter time.
The constant navel-gazing of voters who have the luxury of spinning out this process of making a decision (or no decision, if they choose not to vote) is detrimental to society. Give me proof that the lingering makes for better decisions. Because I don't buy it!
Other countries manage to hold short-term elections. Or are we depending upon endless campaigns for a "campaign economy" or "reality show blood sport"?
I bet we might even get better candidates.
Long term therapy is expensive and may be very necessary for certain individuals. But placing a time-limit, in my view, often works with couples, who are stuck. Or navel-gazers who really don't want to change.
We could at least try it!
10
Nuance is the name of the game in this Editorial and in our "Pre-Election" process. It should not go unnoticed that as the editorial aptly states... If you do not succeed, the money dries up. In both the Republican and Democratic primaries those that come in second can impact the front runner who knows they must court the "second place" supporters. When the voting is very close, it is important that the final winner does not state " I have a mandate". They must focus on the voters , what their mood is, what is important to them . In other words lose the "I". They are not the most important person in the room, the voter is. So far Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump have focused to much on themselves. The nuance is to talk of your accomplishments but zero in on what is important to the voter and lay out the plan to accomplish what they have identified as issues facing the voters. When politicians are running for office, they are very good at identifying a problem, but they are not very good at solutions. Then there is also the electoral college. There is nothing that is "law" that they must follow the popular vote.
1
The solution for 1% of the voters denying the rest of us the ability to vote for a preferred candidate is a national primary. Everyone votes on the same day for all the candidates. If no one gets a majority of the votes, have a run-off primary. This would have a secondary effect of cutting back the time we have to endure the whole process. Have the primary three months before the general election and we have a winner in a reasonable time frame with much less angst.
13
While you make good points, the reason the parties don't do it that way is that you would need money to campaign everywhere for a national primary. So, you would be restricting the choice to moneyed candidates who could get their message out.
What the parties need to do is ditch the unrepresentative states they use now - IA and NH - and find a small state with diversity to provide a good voting sample for th rest of the population.
What the parties need to do is ditch the unrepresentative states they use now - IA and NH - and find a small state with diversity to provide a good voting sample for th rest of the population.
6
The 1%--or rather the 0.1%--has pre-decided for several elections now. Trump threw a monkey wrench in the Oligarchy machine via truly shrewd marketing, while Sanders has done it with millions of $30 contributions, instead of a handful of $30 million contributions.
The pre-ordained coronations of Jeb! and Rodham Clinton have not taken place. That's actually rather positive. Real democracy is messy; we're seeing messy for the first time in a while. If more and more non-0.1%ers start paying attention, there's still hope for us.
The pre-ordained coronations of Jeb! and Rodham Clinton have not taken place. That's actually rather positive. Real democracy is messy; we're seeing messy for the first time in a while. If more and more non-0.1%ers start paying attention, there's still hope for us.
46
This editorial forgot the part the media plays in winnowing the candidates. Along with the usual jump-on-the-bandwagon reporting that has become to so familiar in much mainstream reporting, the media's role in the process could not have been more apparent this election cycle where news organizations decided to set arbitrary rules regarding who could participate in the main debates and who could not. By denying their own role in the presidential selection process, the media are doing the public a disservice. On a fundamental level, it subverts the already much needed transparency in the murky world of financial quid pro quo, influence pedaling, and other forms of questionable deal making that are the hallmarks of the American political campaign.
35
Be it the economy or politics, the One-percenters are always decisive.
6
If that were true, Mitt Romney would be president. It's just not true.
1
That sound you hear from the Hillary camp are the echoes of South Caroline, circa, 2008...
I think Mr. Clinton will be an asset if he focuses exclusively on making the straightforward case for why Mrs Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate on either side of the aisle to become POTUS, but he will without a doubt become a liability to his wife's campaign if he goes negative to try to make the case for why voters should reject Mr. Sanders. I say that as a committed Hillary supporter and a lifelong admirer of Mr. Clinton and his sharp political instincts, which seem to leave him in the heat his wife's political campaigns. She is structurally favored to win this thing. Don't blow it by trying too hard save face for an expected loss in New Hampshire, a loss that most will understand. Instead, prepare to put a positive face on it to keep the narrative from going too negative, because it will go negative, and then regroup to put Mr. Sanders away by winning the next several contests that she is favored to win...and win them Big.
Hillary will win the nomination. Bloodying Mr Sanders too much could alienate his die-hard supporters she will need to prevail in November. So, keep the Big Dawg on a leash...
I think Mr. Clinton will be an asset if he focuses exclusively on making the straightforward case for why Mrs Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate on either side of the aisle to become POTUS, but he will without a doubt become a liability to his wife's campaign if he goes negative to try to make the case for why voters should reject Mr. Sanders. I say that as a committed Hillary supporter and a lifelong admirer of Mr. Clinton and his sharp political instincts, which seem to leave him in the heat his wife's political campaigns. She is structurally favored to win this thing. Don't blow it by trying too hard save face for an expected loss in New Hampshire, a loss that most will understand. Instead, prepare to put a positive face on it to keep the narrative from going too negative, because it will go negative, and then regroup to put Mr. Sanders away by winning the next several contests that she is favored to win...and win them Big.
Hillary will win the nomination. Bloodying Mr Sanders too much could alienate his die-hard supporters she will need to prevail in November. So, keep the Big Dawg on a leash...
6
I'd tie Madeleine Albright up with him, too.
Does Hillary realize what message she sends when she stands up on stage with a largely female group of backers? Yes, I know Cory Booker was there recently, but lately it's been a barrage of female Senators like Klobuchar and Gillibrand. In the past the "gender gap" has been between the two parties, but in this primary, there is a pretty substantial gap within the Democratic party as well.
While Clinton can wax eloquently about the problems facing women, particularly poorer women, what does she have to say to 28-year-old male carpenters who cannot support their families because they have no work? Is she ceding them to Trump? Talking about families is fine as long as the conversation acknowledges that there are both men and women in those families, and that both genders face serious, and often quite different, problems.
The generational gap is another problem for Mrs. Clinton, one that again I don't see them paying much attention to. If anything her surrogates are just making things worse by attacking young women who support Sanders. Arguing that they must vote for Hillary to put a woman in the Oval Office is pure sexism. Why don't they see that?
Does Hillary realize what message she sends when she stands up on stage with a largely female group of backers? Yes, I know Cory Booker was there recently, but lately it's been a barrage of female Senators like Klobuchar and Gillibrand. In the past the "gender gap" has been between the two parties, but in this primary, there is a pretty substantial gap within the Democratic party as well.
While Clinton can wax eloquently about the problems facing women, particularly poorer women, what does she have to say to 28-year-old male carpenters who cannot support their families because they have no work? Is she ceding them to Trump? Talking about families is fine as long as the conversation acknowledges that there are both men and women in those families, and that both genders face serious, and often quite different, problems.
The generational gap is another problem for Mrs. Clinton, one that again I don't see them paying much attention to. If anything her surrogates are just making things worse by attacking young women who support Sanders. Arguing that they must vote for Hillary to put a woman in the Oval Office is pure sexism. Why don't they see that?
The NY Times in 2016 really reflects what the entire country has become: Rubio is mainstream, Sanders is a socialist commie. Can you image having doubts and concerns (code words for shock and nausea) about who the Times would endorse 20, even 10 years ago if these two were the final candidates? Well, here we are.
1
The time is long past for us to establish a National Primary Day: one day for all primaries to take place. (sorry, New Hampshire!).
This would allow citizens of every state to decide who stays in the race and who should pack it in. Kinder to the candidates, easier on the rest of us who have to endure months of nasty and infuriating political ads.
Let all of us have our say, in one day.
This would allow citizens of every state to decide who stays in the race and who should pack it in. Kinder to the candidates, easier on the rest of us who have to endure months of nasty and infuriating political ads.
Let all of us have our say, in one day.
10
So, under your proposal, only the rich, well-financed candidates will have a shot, since it costs money to run a national campaign. How is a smaller candidate supposed to visit, media-spend, etc., across 50 states? Answer: can't do it.
The primary system being set-up with smaller states going first, giving candidates a better chance to get their message out without needing tons of cash is a good idea. It's just that we have the wrong two small states leading the pack.
The primary system being set-up with smaller states going first, giving candidates a better chance to get their message out without needing tons of cash is a good idea. It's just that we have the wrong two small states leading the pack.
Could not wait for today's results. Just sent Bernie Sanders a (small) contribution. Again.
10
All I have got to say is that I like the winnowing process on the Republican side especially. There are too many candidates. The sooner some of them are gone the better
1
To Raymond: No, the people haven't spoken, New Hampshire, small, white and arbitrary have spoken. I love Bernie Sanders and would love him as president, but I don't believe he has the foreign policy chops while Hillary is reasonably well-liked. Don't mistake this vote here in New England, where Bernie is from, as being representative. There is middle-America and the south to contend with. In some ways, this presidency is up for grabs - terrifying because of the supreme court, already heavily Republican activist.
17
But Americans across this nation have experienced the same thing under Wall Street dominated government: a loss of jobs, the burden of debt, difficulty affording health care. We're all in this together. Bernie speaks for all of us.
5
To all of you who are apparently bitter about the role New Hampshire plays in the process . . . you're right, we're not a perfect demographic match with the rest of the nation, and with a population of just over 1 million, we are smaller than some of the cities that you live in.
But you're forgetting that our small size forces candidates to engage with voters, often one-on-one, and answer questions about themselves, their proposals, and their vision for America. They have to slog through the snow to Town Hall meetings with 20 or 30 citizens. It is impossible for candidates to hide behind a slick advertising campaign or sound bites on the evening news.
NH voters endure months of this (and the phone calls, canvassers, and telephone pollsters) so that we can force the candidates to reveal their true selves to us and to the rest of the nation. We get to stare a candidate in the eye, listen to their answers to our questions, and take their measure. That simply would not, could not, happen in a larger state like NJ, TX, or CA. The closest those states' residents will ever get to a candidate is the image on their television screens, with no chance to challenge them or hold them accountable for their previous statements and actions.
We've done our job. Please stop complaining about why you think the process is unfair and get involved in the process yourselves.
I drove through the snow early this morning and voted in our Primary.
You're welcome.
But you're forgetting that our small size forces candidates to engage with voters, often one-on-one, and answer questions about themselves, their proposals, and their vision for America. They have to slog through the snow to Town Hall meetings with 20 or 30 citizens. It is impossible for candidates to hide behind a slick advertising campaign or sound bites on the evening news.
NH voters endure months of this (and the phone calls, canvassers, and telephone pollsters) so that we can force the candidates to reveal their true selves to us and to the rest of the nation. We get to stare a candidate in the eye, listen to their answers to our questions, and take their measure. That simply would not, could not, happen in a larger state like NJ, TX, or CA. The closest those states' residents will ever get to a candidate is the image on their television screens, with no chance to challenge them or hold them accountable for their previous statements and actions.
We've done our job. Please stop complaining about why you think the process is unfair and get involved in the process yourselves.
I drove through the snow early this morning and voted in our Primary.
You're welcome.
18
That the rest of us should pay homage to a system that allows New Hampshire to be first and be grateful for it, gives me great pause as to the types of selections being made on my behalf.
The rest of the country would be delighted to take that burden from the shoulders of a beleaguered New Hampshire in a computerized world that would allow all of us to vote at once.
The rest of the country would be delighted to take that burden from the shoulders of a beleaguered New Hampshire in a computerized world that would allow all of us to vote at once.
4
I would happily have driven the mile down the hill on a beautiful 72 degree california day Monday to vote in a fair and representative primary. Would I expect the people of NH to thank me?
1
Without small states and solitary primaries, the candidacies of Obama and Sanders and the like, would be impossible. Regional events like Nevada and South Carolina will also demonstrate the breadth of candidate's appeal, and the message.
2
The current primary system not only narrows down the field before the majority of the country has a chance to vote, but it favors candidates whose views are closely aligned with those of the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. None of those three states is demographically or politically representative of the US as a whole. Both problems could be resolved if the parties instead held first primaries simultaneously in, say, six states selected to be more representative of the country: California, New York, Texas, Florida, either Ohio or Virginia, and a small, rural state such as Iowa or Nebraska. This would give us a range of voters, including liberal and conservative, rural and urban, rich and poor, and ethnically diverse. And it would force all candidates to broaden their message and allow more moderate candidates to rise to the top. There are no downsides I can think of, and lots of upsides. The solution is so simple it almost hurts to think that the political parties continue to torture the electorate at large with the current, outdated, inadequate system.
The suggestion is simple: both parties should replace the current primary system with "first" primaries to be held in five major states and one or two smaller, rural states. Specifically, California, New York, Texas, Florida and either Ohio or Virginia should be the sites of the first primaries, all held on the same day. Additional first day primaries could be held in states
The suggestion is simple: both parties should replace the current primary system with "first" primaries to be held in five major states and one or two smaller, rural states. Specifically, California, New York, Texas, Florida and either Ohio or Virginia should be the sites of the first primaries, all held on the same day. Additional first day primaries could be held in states
10
Then you'd have the candidates simply focus on campaigning in the larger states. This is one nice thing about small states going first, given our eventual winner-take-all state-by-state election process: it forces candidates to reach out to folks they would otherwise ignore. If anything, primaries should be held in smaller states first, gradually leading up to the larger states that will get attention regardless.
1
Since we are a country that has 50 states, I find it odd that politicians and the media act as though the first two to vote will decide the probable course of the election.
Does "the financing machine" not understand that, after today's voting, we still have FORTY EIGHT other states to go?
Only in America.
Does "the financing machine" not understand that, after today's voting, we still have FORTY EIGHT other states to go?
Only in America.
6
I keep wondering if the number of fickle voters in both tiny electorates, where the winnowing begins, aren't simply playing coy because coy brings them more attention. Unconsciously coy, if that's the case.
But these long, drawn out primaries - with so many undecided voters in need of hand-holding and deferential courting - remind me of those ritualized slow dances like the Minuet. But the bowing and curtsying, the endless revolutions and changing of partners... It's a slow-motion affair. And the rest of the nation has to sit on its hands all the while.
Darwinian efficiency may kick in - finally! - on caucus day or voting day. But the rest of it seems, as I've already described, like some courting ritual for the 1% - the few, the coy, the fickle. All the while the rest of us are held hostage. Till "the day" - the brutal day of reckoning, when the Minuet turns into a true firing squad.
Can we not find a better way? Can we not find better candidates? Can we not have years taken up with primary and pre-primary and the bludgeoning of candidates in an endless slow-motion parade to gullotines for some and a longer parade for others?
Ok, I probably could have written this comment in another thread this morning. But that just proves how bad things are...
But these long, drawn out primaries - with so many undecided voters in need of hand-holding and deferential courting - remind me of those ritualized slow dances like the Minuet. But the bowing and curtsying, the endless revolutions and changing of partners... It's a slow-motion affair. And the rest of the nation has to sit on its hands all the while.
Darwinian efficiency may kick in - finally! - on caucus day or voting day. But the rest of it seems, as I've already described, like some courting ritual for the 1% - the few, the coy, the fickle. All the while the rest of us are held hostage. Till "the day" - the brutal day of reckoning, when the Minuet turns into a true firing squad.
Can we not find a better way? Can we not find better candidates? Can we not have years taken up with primary and pre-primary and the bludgeoning of candidates in an endless slow-motion parade to gullotines for some and a longer parade for others?
Ok, I probably could have written this comment in another thread this morning. But that just proves how bad things are...
9
I find Bill Clinton's visceral response to Bernie Sanders very interested. I suspect he is not defending his wife but his own record, his own legacy. Bernie is pointing out the flaws in Bill Clinton policies and how Clinton's actions are responsible for the corruption of the financial system.
62
Maybe a little bit of both but perhaps you are overthinking this one.
My 60 year old wife, who supports Bernie only so she can hang with me, is quite complimented being lumped in with his "young female supporters."
20
The entire process is a joke. It allows extremist candidates a foothold by appealing to populations that are more interested in how many times you go to church than your policy platform. It allows huge sums of money to be concentrated on tiny populations further poisoning the process. It makes it much easier to swing votes by spreading rumors and lies through small groups.
It prevents the big vote states, like New York and California from having an influence in the selection process. They get to vote after the field has already been decided. That's ridiculous! That gives the deep red states far too much influence and power, which skews the process and makes the electorate appear to be much more conservative than it really is.
If the big deep blue states had a voice early on, Bernie would blow out the field by March. The current system gives these so-called establishment candidates a leg up. That's exactly what the establishment wants. It wants to maintain its power and control over the process.
That's why a Bernie Sanders candidacy is so threatening to the policy wonks on the left. If he wins, we no longer need the policy wonks. They lose their jobs and their power. The people would win and we haven't won in a very, very long time.
It prevents the big vote states, like New York and California from having an influence in the selection process. They get to vote after the field has already been decided. That's ridiculous! That gives the deep red states far too much influence and power, which skews the process and makes the electorate appear to be much more conservative than it really is.
If the big deep blue states had a voice early on, Bernie would blow out the field by March. The current system gives these so-called establishment candidates a leg up. That's exactly what the establishment wants. It wants to maintain its power and control over the process.
That's why a Bernie Sanders candidacy is so threatening to the policy wonks on the left. If he wins, we no longer need the policy wonks. They lose their jobs and their power. The people would win and we haven't won in a very, very long time.
42
"appealing to populations that are more interested in how many times you go to church than your policy platform . . )
Perhaps true of some in Iowa - I can't really say - but absolutely incorrect about New Hampshire - consistently ranked as among the one or two LEAST religious states in the country according to demographic surveys.
Perhaps true of some in Iowa - I can't really say - but absolutely incorrect about New Hampshire - consistently ranked as among the one or two LEAST religious states in the country according to demographic surveys.
1
Our nominating process is unbecoming of the world's oldest democratic republic.
53
We may be hoist by our own irrationality in allowing two states, both 94% white and otherwise wildly unrepresentative of us as a people to have such influence in the winnowing, but money doesn’t just come from donors anymore. Trump self-finances. If Trump or Cruz is nominated by Republicans we may see a Michael Bloomberg third-party candidacy that could win, and he’d self-finance.
Frankly, I can’t say I have immense respect in a primary season like this for those who are undecided until the last minute. The Republican candidates are wildly different, and if you’re agonizing over whom to support with a vote then you simply don’t know YOURSELF: precisely the kind of voter with little real depth that I lambaste regularly in this community as what is destroying representative governance in America, making of it a mutual suicide pact. It’s a superb argument for narrowing the franchise.
It’s particularly emblematic to me of poor thinking that Bernie is 16 points ahead of Hillary in NH. Absent an eMailGate indictment, Hillary is going to crush Bernie nationally for the perfectly good reason that he hasn’t the slightest notion of how he will enact his program while Hillary clearly would work with a Republican Congress and deliver far more even for liberals than a Bernie who would deliver nothing. Yet NH insists on a pyrrhic statement.
We’ll see how the winnowing proceeds; but we should seriously consider forcing Iowa and NH to the back not the front of the pack.
Frankly, I can’t say I have immense respect in a primary season like this for those who are undecided until the last minute. The Republican candidates are wildly different, and if you’re agonizing over whom to support with a vote then you simply don’t know YOURSELF: precisely the kind of voter with little real depth that I lambaste regularly in this community as what is destroying representative governance in America, making of it a mutual suicide pact. It’s a superb argument for narrowing the franchise.
It’s particularly emblematic to me of poor thinking that Bernie is 16 points ahead of Hillary in NH. Absent an eMailGate indictment, Hillary is going to crush Bernie nationally for the perfectly good reason that he hasn’t the slightest notion of how he will enact his program while Hillary clearly would work with a Republican Congress and deliver far more even for liberals than a Bernie who would deliver nothing. Yet NH insists on a pyrrhic statement.
We’ll see how the winnowing proceeds; but we should seriously consider forcing Iowa and NH to the back not the front of the pack.
26
Richard: Why would a Republican Congress suddenly have a epiphany on January 20, 2017 and decide to work with Hillary? Even if the Democrats regain control of the Senate, the House appears to be in a GOP death grip for another 4 years at minimum.
I do not expect anything from your party. I Feel the Bern.
I do not expect anything from your party. I Feel the Bern.
61
Thank you. Finally, a sane comment about Sanders and Clinton. Again, thank you.
4
Kevin:
Surely you can't be that insistently innocent. Quite apart from the fact that just about anyone alive has better political skills than Barack Obama, Hillary also would have the advantage of Bill's counsel. Obama could have gotten much of what he wanted over the past seven years if he'd been willing to get into the trenches with Republicans and make some sausage, but he telegraphed very early on that he had no appetite for such work. If he had, he would have taken another year to finalize ObamaCare, gotten SOME bipartisan cover for it, and not lost the House in 2010, likely keeping it in 2012.
He's already regarded as the greatest gun salesman in U.S. history. History also is likely to declare him to be the biggest boon to a resurgence of Republican politics since our post-civil-war period.
Surely you can't be that insistently innocent. Quite apart from the fact that just about anyone alive has better political skills than Barack Obama, Hillary also would have the advantage of Bill's counsel. Obama could have gotten much of what he wanted over the past seven years if he'd been willing to get into the trenches with Republicans and make some sausage, but he telegraphed very early on that he had no appetite for such work. If he had, he would have taken another year to finalize ObamaCare, gotten SOME bipartisan cover for it, and not lost the House in 2010, likely keeping it in 2012.
He's already regarded as the greatest gun salesman in U.S. history. History also is likely to declare him to be the biggest boon to a resurgence of Republican politics since our post-civil-war period.
3
"The inability to save isn’t because we’re wasting money on kitchen remodeling or fancy coffee, but rather because the cost of living has gone up — thanks to rising health-care costs and housing costs — while our salaries have stagnated or declined. And millennials have the extra burden of staggering student debt." Hence Trump and Sanders. The New Gilded Agers have created the desperation that makes the election of their chosen candidates less than a sure thing.
26
This nominating process is about as un-democratic as Citizens United. States with a high number of evangelicals get to bless their chosen one, and help him/her get out of the gate faster. Then a state the size of the town I live in gets to winnow the field, where the winners get the votes of some minuscule percentage of the total electorate of the country. Why do they get so much power? Much as I hate that the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson have so much power in our electoral process, the D and R parties' nominating schedule is close behind as an abomination to the democratic process.
136
"The financing machine that drives America’s political system" is also a target of the "winnowing out" process in both the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. For different reasons both are not beholden to the "dark money" hidden in Super PACs that is now attempting to buy the U.S. Presidency. So, my hope is that BIG money loses badly today in New Hampshire and that we'll celebrate with their voters for reminding us that we can only "Live Free or Die" if we get money out of politics.
17
What I and many others await, is to see just how big a victory Bernie can pull off. We are optimistic about double digits. The attacks on Bernie from the Clinton camp, of Steinem, Albright and Bill Clinton himself, we hope will only firm up the Sanders victory. They are small and nasty.
61
Sanders has lack of foreign policy knowledge Clinton was given the secretary of state position. Bloomberg (a self made man) would be an excellent alternative for democrats who now are steering totally left and republicans steering totally right with Cruz. Sanders democratic socialistic plans would cost plenty and if people knew what would be taken from them financially they would vote otherwise. College kids are all liberal then they get their first paycheck and question those expensive deductions.
2
We all like Bernie, who doesn't (maybe his ex-wife and former bosses before he was in the Senate?)... Anyway, I like him. But the chances that American voters will elect a Jewish man in his mid-70s, a declared "Socialist Democrat" (people only hear socialist, ask them—Americans don't do nuance) who applied for Conscientious Objector status during Vietnam (denied) and who's been amazingly mediocre as a Senator and someone who completely ignores the math and the realities of his campaign promises, are virtually zero. Everything is at stake for the Democrats. A Sanders' nomination will guarantee a Republican president. Chose wisely.
84
Please explain how electing the venerable senator from the great state of Goldman Sachs is substantively different than electing a republican? And if the democratic party really doesn't believe it can win with Bernie, whose popularity continues to grow and whose basic policy proposals time and again have been shown to be supported by a majority of Americans, over their anointed favorite in a year where the republican party and its theories of governance has been exposed as having poisoned literally an entire city? Then perhaps that party has no business winning elections.
4
Patrick,
You say: 'We all like Bernie, who'd doesn't', then go on to say we should not vote for him.
You implicitly endorse Hillary.
Hillary's problem is this: Very few people like Hillary. These are the one's in her own party. Fully half of the electorate positively demonizes and despises her.
That is not a formula for a successful run-up to the White House.
The Republican controlled Congress would block her every agenda. They have to. The people who vote for them DEMAND it.
You say: 'We all like Bernie, who'd doesn't', then go on to say we should not vote for him.
You implicitly endorse Hillary.
Hillary's problem is this: Very few people like Hillary. These are the one's in her own party. Fully half of the electorate positively demonizes and despises her.
That is not a formula for a successful run-up to the White House.
The Republican controlled Congress would block her every agenda. They have to. The people who vote for them DEMAND it.
3
All you get with voting for Clinton is Democratic label on a Republican president. Clinton is a moderate Republican in all but name. Choose wisely.
2
"modern campaigning means that candidates have less time than ever to break through."
The irony of this observation rings through a seemingly interminable permanent campaign, an at least two-year slog through lopsided and idiosyncratic primaries that fail to draw the best and brightest into the race. The bizarre length of our presidential election cycles has no parallel anywhere in the world. Reform of our primary system ought to be a very high public priority.
The irony of this observation rings through a seemingly interminable permanent campaign, an at least two-year slog through lopsided and idiosyncratic primaries that fail to draw the best and brightest into the race. The bizarre length of our presidential election cycles has no parallel anywhere in the world. Reform of our primary system ought to be a very high public priority.
15
Presidential candidates like Rubio and Cruz know how to sell the "why" to the mass and is doing well. Yet in my experience, a recipe for success requires both the "how" and the "why". Recipe for a road kill requires only the "why". I hope we will elect a candidate with both the "how" and the "why".
3
One can only imagine how ridiculous this appears to the rest of the world. Our political processes and discourse have sunk to a level that precludes real candidates. The real leaders and thinkers out there are too busy accomplishing things in the real world to take two years out of their lives to constantly tell people what they want to hear. Not to mention the reluctance to expose themselves and their families to relentless media scrutiny. All for a crummy $400k/yr job.
We need to publicly finance campaigns, limit campaign seasons, have a uniform primary day, and have real debates instead of American Idol competitions.
The only Presidential candidate in this race with any credibility in relation to the campaign finance issue is Bernie Sanders.
We need to publicly finance campaigns, limit campaign seasons, have a uniform primary day, and have real debates instead of American Idol competitions.
The only Presidential candidate in this race with any credibility in relation to the campaign finance issue is Bernie Sanders.
24
It's hardly a "crummy 4ooK year job;" the payouts post presidency and perhaps during, are staggering.
3
Mike:
Regarding our messy, no holds barred political format, you say: "One can only imagine how ridiculous this appears to the rest of the world." You know what? I bet most Americans don't care. And frankly, if quizzed, many would say that those folks overseas who are critical of our ways shouldn't bother to knock on the door the next time they need our help...
That said, I do agree, however, that the public financing of campaigns would be wonderful, but sell that to the media -- including the NYT -- that profits mightily from the seemingly endless politicking. After all, it's their creation -- well, actually theirs and the people who were dissatisfied with old-fashioned convention model, which, although derided by people with their own agendas in mind as "smoke filled room politics," in truth generally produced the best of what each party had to offer. And not only that, but resulted in campaigns rife with substantive discussions rather than what we now see and hear...
Finally, I am personally confident that Bernie Sanders believes in what he says, and I respect him for that. But I believe his ideas are really little more that than restatement of shopworn socialism, ideas that in the main can work only in a small and essentially homogeneous society. Like it or not, the truth is that Americans admire "doers" not "talkers."
Regarding our messy, no holds barred political format, you say: "One can only imagine how ridiculous this appears to the rest of the world." You know what? I bet most Americans don't care. And frankly, if quizzed, many would say that those folks overseas who are critical of our ways shouldn't bother to knock on the door the next time they need our help...
That said, I do agree, however, that the public financing of campaigns would be wonderful, but sell that to the media -- including the NYT -- that profits mightily from the seemingly endless politicking. After all, it's their creation -- well, actually theirs and the people who were dissatisfied with old-fashioned convention model, which, although derided by people with their own agendas in mind as "smoke filled room politics," in truth generally produced the best of what each party had to offer. And not only that, but resulted in campaigns rife with substantive discussions rather than what we now see and hear...
Finally, I am personally confident that Bernie Sanders believes in what he says, and I respect him for that. But I believe his ideas are really little more that than restatement of shopworn socialism, ideas that in the main can work only in a small and essentially homogeneous society. Like it or not, the truth is that Americans admire "doers" not "talkers."
1
If Clinton had wanted to stand for women she should have stood for Paula Jones.
But Paula Jones didn't go to Brown, or Vassar, or Yale, or Harvard. She doesn't have a law or journalism degree.
Clinton stands for women in her own self-styled elite group. She doesn't stand for women who are high school, community college graduates, scientists or engineers.
But Paula Jones didn't go to Brown, or Vassar, or Yale, or Harvard. She doesn't have a law or journalism degree.
Clinton stands for women in her own self-styled elite group. She doesn't stand for women who are high school, community college graduates, scientists or engineers.
12
She didn't stand for Zephyr Teachout; she stood for Teachout's male opponent, thus earning her own special place in hell, according to her pals Steinem and Albright.
4
Bernies "freebies for all campaign" has the Dems on a temporary high.
So I Guess the "Democratic" one woman race, will have to wait till the end of the month for their pre-planned coronation.
So I Guess the "Democratic" one woman race, will have to wait till the end of the month for their pre-planned coronation.
On the "thrice babbling"; make that four times.
2
If Mrs. Clinton loses NH, it is not because she didn't try.
She brought in so many Democratic elected officials and supporters to NH to campaign for her that to say she has the support of the establishment is an understatement. Knowing that the voters in this election despise the establishment, why she would bring them out in droves defies logic and yet again shows she lacks judgment.
Mrs. Clinton's hypocrisy was also evident when she took a swipe at Sanders for his appearance on Saturday Night Live: "I know Sen. Sanders went to New York to be on 'Saturday Night Live,' and I'm going to Flint to see if we can help with the kids."
That would no more endear her to young voters than disparaging comments by Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright would inspire young women to rally behind Mrs. Clinton.
Speaking of hypocrisy, Mr. Clinton, who was impeached by the House for lying under oath, calling Senator Sanders dishonest is beyond incredulous.
Clintons have understood that political power can enrich them so well that they would go to great lengths to defeat anyone standing in their way.
Hope NH electorate sends a clear message to the Clintons and their cronies that they trust Sanders more.
She brought in so many Democratic elected officials and supporters to NH to campaign for her that to say she has the support of the establishment is an understatement. Knowing that the voters in this election despise the establishment, why she would bring them out in droves defies logic and yet again shows she lacks judgment.
Mrs. Clinton's hypocrisy was also evident when she took a swipe at Sanders for his appearance on Saturday Night Live: "I know Sen. Sanders went to New York to be on 'Saturday Night Live,' and I'm going to Flint to see if we can help with the kids."
That would no more endear her to young voters than disparaging comments by Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright would inspire young women to rally behind Mrs. Clinton.
Speaking of hypocrisy, Mr. Clinton, who was impeached by the House for lying under oath, calling Senator Sanders dishonest is beyond incredulous.
Clintons have understood that political power can enrich them so well that they would go to great lengths to defeat anyone standing in their way.
Hope NH electorate sends a clear message to the Clintons and their cronies that they trust Sanders more.
108
@RK: Being "impeached" if that's what you call it, by this House of fools should be seen as a badge of honor. Or are you supporting their 9,000th or so Obamacare fiasco's as well?
As Claudius said to Caligula, "You depress me."
He was impeached but not convicted.
John Kasich
who will at least address the basic
vulgarity eschewed
as others pimp and preen like a Berlusconi nude.
who will at least address the basic
vulgarity eschewed
as others pimp and preen like a Berlusconi nude.
5
"With the Darwinian efficiency that characterizes our modern electoral system, voters representing less than 1 percent of the American electorate may by Wednesday have effectively spoiled the chances of the other 99 percent having a voice in who will be the next American president."
There, fixed that for you.
You'd think the Times would stop covering the horse race long enough to point out the ridiculousness of Iowa and New Hampshire's outsized influence on the election. And you'd be wrong.
There, fixed that for you.
You'd think the Times would stop covering the horse race long enough to point out the ridiculousness of Iowa and New Hampshire's outsized influence on the election. And you'd be wrong.
8
"Bill Clinton lit into Bernie Sanders"
But not very forcefully. It's surprising how much he has faded since electrifying the crowd at the last Democratic convention. It's doubtful if he will be able to do for Hilary in 2016 what he did for Barack Obama in 2012.
But not very forcefully. It's surprising how much he has faded since electrifying the crowd at the last Democratic convention. It's doubtful if he will be able to do for Hilary in 2016 what he did for Barack Obama in 2012.
7
Clinton winning means a win for Republican policies, because Republican policies are what she has stood for for years, what she really believes in, what she will deliver if elected. Clinton is a Republican in all but name.
14
???? rethink your objectivity on this subject.
@greg: Not sure where you get your information, but Ms. Clinton is not a Republican - she has some moderate views, but tell me how pro-abortion, pro-feminist and gun control fit into your Republican view. Absurd to the extreme.
The natural attrition process may be impeded this time around because of the massive egos of such stalwarts as Christie and Fiorina, who will forge ahead if their backers let them, despite zero probability of success. Fiorina has nothing to lose because she is a private citizen biding her time, and Christie will do anything to avoid going home to a brewing bridge-gate as an also-ran. It's quite clear he has lost his taste for the governor gig. Too bad he can't take Trump, Cruz, and Rubio with him to clear the way for the only sensible one among them, Kasich.
26
No matter how the winnowing of GOP Tea Party candidates occurs in New Hampshire today, there will be no prayed-for Deus ex Machina descending to rescue the Republicans from the chaos of their party. Like Humpty Dumpty and Donald Trumpty having a great fall off the wall into thousands of pieces no one can put together again.
1
Please, fellow NH voters, do not be taken in by Mr. Kasich's apparent moderation. He will privatize public assets-- especially schools, cut safety nets, limit a woman's right to choose, and promote fossil fuel extraction even if it means earthquakes abound.
52
The worry is that Sanders will undermine Hillary to the extent that, when she gets the nomination, she will be perceived as wounded by the larger electorate, allowing a Republican to win.... with all the consequences. Important that Sanders be challenged on the realities of his plans - HOW will he implement an informed and mature foreign policy? Or will he outsource it to "advisors" without really understanding the complexity himself? We've been down that road with George Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest.
7
If Hilary is the Democratic nominee, a Republican victory is assured. Not all Democrats will vote for her (I won't, for example), and few Republicans will cross over to vote for her. Her baggage is too great; she is widely despised; she drips scandal. Some Republicans at the bottom of the social ladder, who are tired of establishment governance and who are not wedded to conservative principles, will cross over to vote for Sanders. The conventional wisdom is wrong: it is not Sanders who cannot win; it is Hilary.
9
The answer to inequality is waiting today in New Hampshire, and as it waits, the Plutocratic Oligarchy has its representative, desperately doing everything imaginable to insure that we the people remain enslaved.
And they believe their own lies, with some kind of warped sincerity.
We all know by now who represents the answer for us; his name is Bernie Sanders, and he is speaking the absolute truth when he tells us that if we do not get out and support the peaceful revolution he is fighting for, we will be selling ourselves down the river, lock, stock, and barrel, to the Plutocrats, the warmongering elites who own our government.
Give Bernie a resounding victory tonight, New Hampshire, and lets all do the same, right up to November 8, when we select him as our 45th President.
And they believe their own lies, with some kind of warped sincerity.
We all know by now who represents the answer for us; his name is Bernie Sanders, and he is speaking the absolute truth when he tells us that if we do not get out and support the peaceful revolution he is fighting for, we will be selling ourselves down the river, lock, stock, and barrel, to the Plutocrats, the warmongering elites who own our government.
Give Bernie a resounding victory tonight, New Hampshire, and lets all do the same, right up to November 8, when we select him as our 45th President.
23
Once again, a small group of white people get to make decisions for the rest of us.
15
So if HRC loses by more than, say, 30% in NH, she'll do the decent & honorable thing & drop out? Endorse Bernie maybe? You want a dream, now there's one worth having. No, the people will have spoken, maybe in a landslide vote, but nothing will stop the Clintons from slandering & sabotaging Bernie ad nauseam.
Don't let 'em stop you, Bernie.
Don't let 'em stop you, Bernie.
21
Want personal proof that Clinton and her campaign people don't care about the voters?
Try to get them to stop sending those lame "Donate a $1" emails 10-20 times a day under various names.
In the last month I have done the following to get Clinton campaign to stop cluttering my email inbox:
1. 15 emails - not response emails but to her campaign site
2. 4 phone calls to campaign headquarters
3. 2 USPS letters to campaign headquarters, one with return receipt requested (I got the signed return reciept BTW so they got my letter).
I actually spoke to people twice by phone who told me they would get me off their list but other than those calls, no response at all and what the campaing staff told me were lies.
Your absolutely correct, Raymond, nothing stops the Clintons from doing what they want EXCEPT VOTING!!!.
New Hampshirites,
PLEASE vote for the honest, well mannerd Democrat, Bernie Sanders who listens to and cares about the people.
IGNORE Hillary as she ignores what voters ask for while at the same time begging for their money!
Try to get them to stop sending those lame "Donate a $1" emails 10-20 times a day under various names.
In the last month I have done the following to get Clinton campaign to stop cluttering my email inbox:
1. 15 emails - not response emails but to her campaign site
2. 4 phone calls to campaign headquarters
3. 2 USPS letters to campaign headquarters, one with return receipt requested (I got the signed return reciept BTW so they got my letter).
I actually spoke to people twice by phone who told me they would get me off their list but other than those calls, no response at all and what the campaing staff told me were lies.
Your absolutely correct, Raymond, nothing stops the Clintons from doing what they want EXCEPT VOTING!!!.
New Hampshirites,
PLEASE vote for the honest, well mannerd Democrat, Bernie Sanders who listens to and cares about the people.
IGNORE Hillary as she ignores what voters ask for while at the same time begging for their money!
9
"He is at his best in town hall meetings, which have doubled in attendance in recent days."
Twice nothing is still nothing.
Twice nothing is still nothing.
3
The vetting of these candidates...each and every one is better than the old, tired, white, corrupt (Hillary) detritus on the Democrat side...is crucial.
The establishment's last stand.
The establishment's last stand.
2
SAY IT ISN'T SO I don't want to believe that Trump is going to emerge first among GOP hopefuls. Beyond having no experience, he appears to have no common sense. I haven't read any whoppers recently from him, but his tweet the other week that Paris is in Germany should be a red flag for anyone who thinks of voting for him. Such an error displays a level of ignorance that would be terrifying for a presidential hopeful to have or it could be a symptom of dementia. I hope Rubio will carry 2nd place because I feel that Cruz is even worse than Trump. His hateful attitude makes me see him as a Joe McCarthy look-alike with a bit of Roy Cohn thrown in for good measure. While I do like Bernie's energy, his ideas are half-baked. He's telling the voters what they want to hear, but Hillary is telling them what they need to know. If there's going to be anything like a revolution this time around, it's not going to be with the Democrats. It'll be the GOP. A revolting revolution. Since the demographics of New Hampshire aren't ethnically diverse, the outcome of the primaries there may not be indicative of voting patterns ahead where minority groups may change the direction of the campaigns. I hope the Democrats are busy signing up voters and arranging to give them rides to polling places on election day, especially among youth and Hispanic voters, who tend to be under-represented at the ballot box.
24
Rubio's simple lack of ability is starting to show. He can't think on his feet, he doesn't really have much experience, he relies on his looks.
The solid candidates are turning out to be Cruz, Kasich, and Christie.
The solid candidates are turning out to be Cruz, Kasich, and Christie.
John,
He just issued a whole statement so filled with four letter words it was mostly bleeped out; crude school yard taunts.
Trump is proving that the bottomless pit of right wing rage is indeed bottomless. No telling what he will stir up next.
And worse, even if he eventually fails, Trump is setting precedent and for now until forever some other crypto-fascist will be using the same tactics.
He just issued a whole statement so filled with four letter words it was mostly bleeped out; crude school yard taunts.
Trump is proving that the bottomless pit of right wing rage is indeed bottomless. No telling what he will stir up next.
And worse, even if he eventually fails, Trump is setting precedent and for now until forever some other crypto-fascist will be using the same tactics.
1
John,
Trump resonates with the voters,because he speaks their languish.If he sounded intelligent, it would go over their heads. Consider,our infrastructure is falling apart, millions of people are being driven out of their homes by war. We have global warming which we can't stem or control, & Republicans don't believe in it.A maniac in North Korea has Nuclear weapons, Iran sent their Nuclear fuel to Russia who in turn will use it to produce nuclear weapons for Iran, a country run by Mullahs , who believe that God is on their side.
With all thats happening in the world, millions of voters cast their vote for those that are against Gay Rights, & Abortion.Trump is a perfect candidate for them, if not Trump, Cruz is in the wings, & the robotic Rubio, is waiting his turn, & lets not forget the bully Christie.We get what we deserve,
Trump resonates with the voters,because he speaks their languish.If he sounded intelligent, it would go over their heads. Consider,our infrastructure is falling apart, millions of people are being driven out of their homes by war. We have global warming which we can't stem or control, & Republicans don't believe in it.A maniac in North Korea has Nuclear weapons, Iran sent their Nuclear fuel to Russia who in turn will use it to produce nuclear weapons for Iran, a country run by Mullahs , who believe that God is on their side.
With all thats happening in the world, millions of voters cast their vote for those that are against Gay Rights, & Abortion.Trump is a perfect candidate for them, if not Trump, Cruz is in the wings, & the robotic Rubio, is waiting his turn, & lets not forget the bully Christie.We get what we deserve,
1
I'm sure media fatigue is an issue, too. Sick and tired of covering candidates whom they know are never going to become president, the media want both primaries narrowed down to one or two front-runners already, and to the losers, have a nice life. There's only so much money they have to spend following them around, anyway.
3
I share your reading of the situation. The main reason why "winnowing" takes place is that without it, the media would be forced to deal with covering the campaign of a number of candidates across multiple states in multiple regions. Journalists will often say that the public simply cannot handle campaigns with half-a-dozen candidates, but I think the organizational imperatives of the media organizations themselves plays the largest role. I can imagine the Republicans getting to March 1st with five or six remaining candidates. If so, I'm curious to see how the primaries on "Super Tuesday" will be covered.
6
The saddest part about this editorial is the line about campaign financing. I'm old enough to remember primaries being a lot longer and a lot more interesting than they are now, when there used to be occasionally a political convention with the nominee still undecided. Now that was political drama.
Now that elections are essentially financial beauty contests, where mega donors want to know immediately where to place their bets, it's a lot less interesting, and a lot more cynical as the wants and needs of say eergy donors vs casino donors become apparent. Whether voters realize it or not, they are not voting for the candidates, they are voting for the special interests backing them.
The other sad factor about the early selection of candidates is the recent breakdown in the Democratic Party, as Clinton surrogates in essence embarrass themselves. The party that prides itself on respecting democracy has turned to insulting the electorate, a tactic I predict is going to backfire.
Yes this 2016 election is bringing out the worst not only in the process but also in the personalities involved
Now that elections are essentially financial beauty contests, where mega donors want to know immediately where to place their bets, it's a lot less interesting, and a lot more cynical as the wants and needs of say eergy donors vs casino donors become apparent. Whether voters realize it or not, they are not voting for the candidates, they are voting for the special interests backing them.
The other sad factor about the early selection of candidates is the recent breakdown in the Democratic Party, as Clinton surrogates in essence embarrass themselves. The party that prides itself on respecting democracy has turned to insulting the electorate, a tactic I predict is going to backfire.
Yes this 2016 election is bringing out the worst not only in the process but also in the personalities involved
44
People have a choice. Vote for whom the "monied elite" tells them to vote for, or vote for who who will aid the middle class and working people.
14
Christine:
You say: "Whether voters realize it or not, they are not voting for the candidates, they are voting for the special interests backing them."
Well, many voters have finally realized what the real game is, and they have had enough.
If you and so many others are so appalled by today's campaign financing and the disproportionate influence of mega donors and Super PACs, maybe you should stop voting for those candidates.
Maybe you should also ask yourself "Why would a candidate accept millions of dollars from BigOil, BigPharma, and Wall Street"?
Or, why would those mega interests, as you say, "place their bets" on said candidate? Surely there must be some type of spoken or unspoken agreement/ understanding there for some type of "return on investment".
Isn't it obvious by now? The politicians who take that tainted money have chosen to play in our corrupt political process. They are an integral part of that corrupt establishment structure that will stop at nothing to buy laws and regulations that work in their favor and continue to crush the poor and middle class.
It defies reason and logic (maybe it is classic double think) when people complain about the money in the process and then tell us that that politician is going to fight for us. Really?
You say: "Whether voters realize it or not, they are not voting for the candidates, they are voting for the special interests backing them."
Well, many voters have finally realized what the real game is, and they have had enough.
If you and so many others are so appalled by today's campaign financing and the disproportionate influence of mega donors and Super PACs, maybe you should stop voting for those candidates.
Maybe you should also ask yourself "Why would a candidate accept millions of dollars from BigOil, BigPharma, and Wall Street"?
Or, why would those mega interests, as you say, "place their bets" on said candidate? Surely there must be some type of spoken or unspoken agreement/ understanding there for some type of "return on investment".
Isn't it obvious by now? The politicians who take that tainted money have chosen to play in our corrupt political process. They are an integral part of that corrupt establishment structure that will stop at nothing to buy laws and regulations that work in their favor and continue to crush the poor and middle class.
It defies reason and logic (maybe it is classic double think) when people complain about the money in the process and then tell us that that politician is going to fight for us. Really?
2
Christine,
The first campaign I noticed was in 1956 when I was seven. I have never seen a nominating contest that wasn't decided in advance of the convention. Every nominee in both parties during my lifetime held a majority of the delegates when they went to the convention. Perhaps you're sufficiently older than me to remember the 1952 Democratic Convention when Stevenson was nominated? Four years later he had the nomination sown up before the convention began. Ford v Reagan in 1976 came close.
The first campaign I noticed was in 1956 when I was seven. I have never seen a nominating contest that wasn't decided in advance of the convention. Every nominee in both parties during my lifetime held a majority of the delegates when they went to the convention. Perhaps you're sufficiently older than me to remember the 1952 Democratic Convention when Stevenson was nominated? Four years later he had the nomination sown up before the convention began. Ford v Reagan in 1976 came close.
"On the Democratic side, the main interest is seeing by how much Hillary Clinton can control the damage of an expected Bernie Sanders victory."
Not to break your theme, but this is only true if you think a Sanders victory represents some level of damage.
Some of us believe that a Sanders victory represents a positive move forward. At the very least, it shows that single voters, en masse, are capable of taking an election back from big money backers.
It also shows that American voters respond poorly to the concept of coronations.
Not to break your theme, but this is only true if you think a Sanders victory represents some level of damage.
Some of us believe that a Sanders victory represents a positive move forward. At the very least, it shows that single voters, en masse, are capable of taking an election back from big money backers.
It also shows that American voters respond poorly to the concept of coronations.
140
A Sanders victory is a victory for Democrats and the principals of most middle-class Democrats, a victory for the middle class.
A Clinton victory would be a victory for Republican policies and a victory for the ruling class.
A Clinton victory would be a victory for Republican policies and a victory for the ruling class.
28
And from big money newspapers.
4
Given the NYT's support for a coronation, it is obvious why they ignored your comment as one of their Picks, which got 50- times the support endorsements of some of the picks that they chose to bless.
1
Bill Clinton calling Bernie Sanders dishonest -- now THAT is hypocrisy writ large.
It is the disgusting political play book of projecting onto an opponent whatever is a true weakness in oneself.
There is nothing dishonest about Bernie. The claims of dishonesty are themselves calculated dishonesty. They are shameless, as Bill Clinton has always been. They are based on twisting the other side into a pretzel of itself, then boldly lying about that straw man creation, and about oneself.
It is the disgusting political play book of projecting onto an opponent whatever is a true weakness in oneself.
There is nothing dishonest about Bernie. The claims of dishonesty are themselves calculated dishonesty. They are shameless, as Bill Clinton has always been. They are based on twisting the other side into a pretzel of itself, then boldly lying about that straw man creation, and about oneself.
174
The psychological term for that projection is "reaction formation." It's common among narcissists, particularly when reality is catching up to them.
19
Reply to Judy,
It is indeed common in narcissists, and in this case we have two of them, seeing nothing but that which they actually believe belongs to them, the White House, and by extrapolation, all the wealth they can get their hands on.
True narcissists don't even know there is anything wrong with their way of being.
It's unbelievable that some still support Hillary and Bill; it must be getting embarrassing.
It is indeed common in narcissists, and in this case we have two of them, seeing nothing but that which they actually believe belongs to them, the White House, and by extrapolation, all the wealth they can get their hands on.
True narcissists don't even know there is anything wrong with their way of being.
It's unbelievable that some still support Hillary and Bill; it must be getting embarrassing.
7
Observing the republican Parade of Pygmies where a PT Barnum is duking it out with a Canadian refugee who is an anti immigrant immigrant, the dynast who singlehandedly cursed us and the world with the war crimes of his brothers administration, brings to mind the observation of an astute, long time witness to American hubris, said of the 2012 election.
"The selection of a republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States, is, and I mean this seriously, the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance, that has ever been".
Fidel Castro
"The selection of a republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States, is, and I mean this seriously, the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance, that has ever been".
Fidel Castro
107
The worst of many bad things about Jeb? is that he brings back his brother's advisers, Wolfowitz and other neocons, and political operatives.
137
Wow. Quoting a manical bloodthirsty communist to make the point that you are anti-American. How quaint.
1
Mark,
You mean the entire cabal of Viet Nam dodging cowards who grew up to be war criminals, Boy George, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Bolton, Kristol and Wolfowitz?
You mean the entire cabal of Viet Nam dodging cowards who grew up to be war criminals, Boy George, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Bolton, Kristol and Wolfowitz?
25
bernies gonna ride this primary as if it were a saturn 5
god speed, president sanders
god speed, president sanders
100
In spite of the times' lavish coverage of personal attacks by a presidential sex offender and viewpoint shaming by Steinem and Halfbright.
7
I second that.
6
People focusing on Bernie's young female followers miss the point. These followers are from the angry-me generation so they see that in Bernie. However, New Hampshire might not reflect the whole population. Bernie also got the proximity advantage. Another test - and maybe the most important one - is to see if Bernie's camp is really color blind, for the next presidency could be determined by the "minorities."
11
The phrase "Bernie's young female followers" also misses a lot.
It misses my 90-year old mother, and all her friends doing lunch down at the Senior Center. They are very clear about what they think of Hillary. It isn't nice.
It misses me too. It misses my sons too, not just my daughter, and all three will vote this time. My wife, firmly in between in age, agrees with them all.
It misses my 90-year old mother, and all her friends doing lunch down at the Senior Center. They are very clear about what they think of Hillary. It isn't nice.
It misses me too. It misses my sons too, not just my daughter, and all three will vote this time. My wife, firmly in between in age, agrees with them all.
132
love this...
a telling intergenerational synopsis of a family in change...
how many one wonders? Cheers
a telling intergenerational synopsis of a family in change...
how many one wonders? Cheers
4
and my wife, and almost every women who's been voting since the 70's and 80's that we know who are not living on the dark side of the moon with the Republicans. The one's who aren't mostly fall into the weak and afraid category, but with a little hand holding and gentle encouragement, they can usually be led out of the Valley of Shadow and Doubt.
4
So now Marco Rubio is considered a "mainstream" candidate who will unify the Republican party? He doesn't believe in climate change or Obamacare (with no alternative suggested). He's against abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. His greatest accomplishment to date is running for President. He hasn't handled his own finances well, and he (and his wife) depend on a benevolent billionaire buddy to help.
That billionaire will be richly repaid if Rubio's tax reductions are realized.
He keeps repeating in debates, "When I am President." It makes my blood run cold. The fact that Cruz is even WORSE is no consolation.
That billionaire will be richly repaid if Rubio's tax reductions are realized.
He keeps repeating in debates, "When I am President." It makes my blood run cold. The fact that Cruz is even WORSE is no consolation.
195
Norman Braman has already been richly rewarded, at taxpayer expense. While Speaker of the Florida House, the high heeled zip-up bootie aficionado steered $83,000,000 to Braman "charities" and causes.
19
Excellent thank you
5
Even after Chris Christie pummeled him on Saturday, Marco Rubio still hasn't learned about the perils of robotically repeating himself.
Marco did it again, but this time within 30 seconds, repeating the same line about raising children in the 21st century. After repeating the same line the second time, I think he realized he was repeating himself and added a couple of more words to try to recover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBX0Z1MkDyQ
Marco is like the Microsoft Windows software in that several upgrades may be required before an almost bug-free version becomes available.
Marco did it again, but this time within 30 seconds, repeating the same line about raising children in the 21st century. After repeating the same line the second time, I think he realized he was repeating himself and added a couple of more words to try to recover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBX0Z1MkDyQ
Marco is like the Microsoft Windows software in that several upgrades may be required before an almost bug-free version becomes available.
3
There is no "wheat" to winnow out among the GOP candidates in New Hampshire. They are all "chaff."
155
Republicans probably feel there is no "wheat" in the Democratic party either.
Susan, what a great observation.
7
Well put!
The churlish Republican presidential candidates, who mislead their supporters about the problems that America faces, are indicative a Republican Party that is manacled to Richard Nixon's and Ronald Reagan's racist Southern Strategy.
It seems the "R" after a candidate/politician name has come to mean Racist.
The churlish Republican presidential candidates, who mislead their supporters about the problems that America faces, are indicative a Republican Party that is manacled to Richard Nixon's and Ronald Reagan's racist Southern Strategy.
It seems the "R" after a candidate/politician name has come to mean Racist.
4
If there is a concise definition of political insanity, it might be the US Primary nomination process.
Spending well over a year organizing and campaigning in two states together totaling 1% of the US population (and virtually all white), then rushing through the other 99% in a few more months is not the retail politics it is advertised to be.
It's a perfect environment for "gotcha" and lies like "John McCain's illegitimate child" falsehood spread so malevolently before the SC Primary by the W Bush campaign.
Any form of roll-out is inherently unfair and favors local special interest politics like agribusiness in Iowa.
Better to have one national primary voting date, like the rest of the developed world.
Spending well over a year organizing and campaigning in two states together totaling 1% of the US population (and virtually all white), then rushing through the other 99% in a few more months is not the retail politics it is advertised to be.
It's a perfect environment for "gotcha" and lies like "John McCain's illegitimate child" falsehood spread so malevolently before the SC Primary by the W Bush campaign.
Any form of roll-out is inherently unfair and favors local special interest politics like agribusiness in Iowa.
Better to have one national primary voting date, like the rest of the developed world.
88
Winnow out and what have you got left
Republicans devoid of heft,
Crying climate hoax
At behest of the Lochs
Of any compassion bereft.
Oh what a great prospect awaits
Reducing the spouters of hates,
A possible POTUS?
Not one that bears notice,
The GOP's lacking in Greats!
Republicans devoid of heft,
Crying climate hoax
At behest of the Lochs
Of any compassion bereft.
Oh what a great prospect awaits
Reducing the spouters of hates,
A possible POTUS?
Not one that bears notice,
The GOP's lacking in Greats!
22
what happened to that K?
13
Looks like you've been burned by the autocorrect gods.
1
You've heard of the Koch Ness Monster, haven't you?
3
This editorial fails to mention the 2,000 pound gorilla which is Mike Bloomberg, the self professed savior of American democracy patiently waiting in the green room for his chance to make a grand entry onto the national political stage.
One thing that unites a great many voters on both the left and the right this election season is a profound weariness with the role big money has played in driving the ambitions and fortunes of most of the politicians in our two major parties. Donald Trump, the billionaire front runner in the Republican race, may offend many of his fellow Republicans, but-- assuming he is true to his word-- he is willing to take his chances on the Republican's primary system.
Bloomberg's incipient candidacy, by contrast, represents the somewhat new (we saw something similar with Ross Perot) and frightening prospect that any man or woman rich enough to gain ballot access and blanket the airwaves with his message can bypass the long, messy, deliberative process that our primary system provides.
Some (including, no doubt, the former mayor's admirers) may see this alternative path to power as a great blessing for the nation. I don't. Democracy should be messy. And third party candidacies don't work well given the way the electoral college system functions. Let the primary process continue as it is and may the best person win.
One thing that unites a great many voters on both the left and the right this election season is a profound weariness with the role big money has played in driving the ambitions and fortunes of most of the politicians in our two major parties. Donald Trump, the billionaire front runner in the Republican race, may offend many of his fellow Republicans, but-- assuming he is true to his word-- he is willing to take his chances on the Republican's primary system.
Bloomberg's incipient candidacy, by contrast, represents the somewhat new (we saw something similar with Ross Perot) and frightening prospect that any man or woman rich enough to gain ballot access and blanket the airwaves with his message can bypass the long, messy, deliberative process that our primary system provides.
Some (including, no doubt, the former mayor's admirers) may see this alternative path to power as a great blessing for the nation. I don't. Democracy should be messy. And third party candidacies don't work well given the way the electoral college system functions. Let the primary process continue as it is and may the best person win.
19
Bloomberg has zero chance of getting on the ballot in 50 states, and has two additional problems. The left hates him for policing policy, and the right hates him on flooding money into states not his on gun confiscation.
5
Take heart from the fact that Bloomberg is not what you'd call likeable.
7
The nomination process works well as a way of keeping a minimum number of candidates, each speaking for a large part of the population, and ensuring that, for the most part, the candidate has majority or near-majority support. It also keeps it out of the House of Representatives, which would be a mess and has not had to decide a president since 1824. However, under the right circumstances, there is nothing wrong with an independent candidacy. Bloomberg is not the guy though. He has angered right and left and would have little chance of winning.
2
I'm not very confident that New Hampshire will be the Waterloo for "a half-dozen people who hoped they'd be the next American president" when the sun comes up tomorrow. As we've learned throughout history, the rats and cockroaches are the great survivors of great physical calamities. Bernie Sanders excepted, expect Hillary "Goldman Sachs" Clinton, Marco "last flight out" Rubio, Ted "Canadian Club" Cruz, Jeb! "he kept us safe" Bush, he-whom-I-refuse-to-name, Ben "Dr. Nytol" Carson, and Carly "moving baby parts" Fiorina, and, perhaps, Chris "a bridge too far" Christie, to emerge from the sewer of Citizens United. Gov. John Kasich rules the margins of the sewer because he can't conjure up enough enthusiasm to elicit even a yawn. He, Sen. Sanders aside, may have more substance as a candidate than any of the other GOP bottom-feeders. This stench-in-the-nostrils primary season (and it's only just begun, lucky us!) could have been prevented if we had the firewall of a "pure" Supreme Court, one unsoiled by special interests and political ideology. This shame of a Roberts Court is what happens when a minority party gains power through indifference, indolence and neglect. New Hampshire follows Iowa as a mere carousel of rancid showpieces, most of whom you would not ask into your home. New Hampshire won't make much of a dent in this primary season. It's already a trail of slime and it will get worse the longer it goes on. We have a sneak preview of the government for which we yearn.
44
soxared040713: But tell us, really, what do you think of the process and the candidates? I mean, without pulling any punches.