The chart above shows the latest poll among Democrats (and Democratic leaners) in New Hampshire. It is the WBUR Poll -- done between September 12th and 15th of a random state sample of 404 likely voters, and has a margin of error of 4.9 points.
It verifies what a couple of other surveys have shown -- that Bernie Sanders has a lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire (although the 4 point lead in this poll is within the margin of error). It shows Sanders with 35%, Clinton with 31%, and Biden (who is not a candidate) with 14%.
But one thing I (as a Clinton supporter) found intriguing was the final two paragraphs of the statement issued with the release of the poll. They said:
Clinton makes up a good part of her deficit among independents with a strong showing among registered Democrats. Among partisans, she leads Sanders 40 percent to 34 percent.
This party split is not a new phenomenon, and echoes of the 2008 contest are unmistakable. That year, Clinton rode the strong support of Democratic voters to a surprise victory over Barack Obama, despite trailing in pre-election polls and losing the independent vote. If she remains in a strong position among Democrats this year, she has a shot at keeping the race close through primary day.
Can that be true? Does Hillary Clinton still have a chance to win the New Hampshire primary? While probably not likely, I think it is a definite possibility -- especially when you consider the results in the chart below. Note that 81% of the respondents said Clinton had the experience necessary to be president, while only 51% said that of Sanders.
And perhaps even more important, a majority of 56% say Clinton can beat the GOP's candidate in 2016, while only 29% believe she would not. The figures are far different for Sanders -- with only 34% believing he could beat the GOP candidate, while 48% believe he would lose. As the primary draws closer, it is possible that Democrats will decide to vote for the candidate they believe can win.
I find it hard and horrifying that Democrats can argue that they'd rather vote for someone who will turn all THREE branches of government over to a bunch of certifiable lunatics like today's Republican Party. (I will never stop stressing the importance of the SCOTUS appointments that will be made over the next four years and may last for the next three decades.
ReplyDelete'
Isn't voting for someone who 'tihinks likes me' rather than someone that can win one of the things we criticize-the supporters of the Orange Tornado (who has hit peak intensity and is blowing out to sea, which leaves Carson, Huckabee and Cruz to fight among the spoils). I remember Republicans like Clifford Case, Jake Javits, Hugh Scott, Ev Dirksen, even the conservatives like Goldwater and later Rudman and a few others. We'd vote against them, try and defeat them, and worry that they would slow the country down, maybe turn it backwards a little, But the country, the safety net, and the democratic process was safe in their hands. Even the ugliest of the Thurmond-Wallace-Faubus crowd were still within the overall consensus. (I am not defending them in any other way than that, saying they'd have rejected the neo-secessionists and 'tenthers' and the "Wall Builders" -- of either kind.) And later, as late as the demotion of Trent Lott and McCain's rejection of John Hagee -- who he'd begged to support him -- based on his mad apocalypticism and bigotry, there was still a sane ugliness that recognized its limits. The Republicans rejected David Duke, for example, the way we rejected the two LaRouchians that accidentally wound up on the ballot one year. (Today the person who was described as Duke without the robes is the #3 man in the House, and the rejected-for-racism judicial nominee Jeff Sessions is a senior member of the Senate leadership.)
'
My point is simply that, unlike the Republicans I grew up with -- who we could 'stand' and 'bear up' under, and who even made some unexpected SCOTUS appointments like Warren, Blackmun, Souter, above all, Brennan -- today's Congressional Republicans are authentically dangerous to the very existence of America as a democracy -- and the climate liars endanger the existence of all of us.
'
What I am saying is that, when we had a forty year Democratic majority in the House, we could afford to vote for a Bernie, even nominate him, and the worst we'd have to face might be a Kasich. Today he is the sanest one on the dais, the only one who even cares about honesty, and therefore one of the lower pollers of the crowd, and does anyone think he has any more ability to stand against the crazies than does Boehner.
'
(Of course, we can hope the Sanders people are simply 'making a statement' and hoping to keep the Democratic Party to the left-- the way many of the voters for Jesse Jackson were. I'd admire them for that, maybe even support them were Bernie even barely electable -- but too many of them are 'building weapons for the enemy.')
I like your statement about past Republicans. I did not agree with their policies, but they were men that could be respected -- and they understood how to compromise for the good of the country. And they rejected the John Birchers, who today's Republicans now embrace. Today's Republicans are scary insane.
ReplyDelete