Its fricking New Hampshire.

My Aunt lives there. When my mom visits it is Fox 24/7. Mom is a Dem. She is 89.

It is a very white conservative State. Hmmmm~

I would bet that Hillary takes both states no matter what the polling says. She has such a great ground game and excellent organization in both states.

Love how you got Buchanan in there trying to link him with Bernie. Classy! And yes, it's obvious that's what you were doing.
By the way, Hillary also won New Hampshire.

Only you would have that takeaway....

The point I'm making is who gives a shit about little old New Hampshire and the people they favor.

I've expreessed it a thousand times here on DU my affection to Bernie Sanders. Plenty of times.

Nope....you have to make up shit ...as usual...to try and take it to me.

I see right through you Cali...always have.

have a hankie

I think I've heard that somewhere before.

the PEOPLE are meeting and learning about candidates up close and personal and the LOCAL MEDIA are REPORTING!

http://www.qconline.com/news/local/presidential-hopeful-o-malley-touts-experience-results-at-davenport-event/article_30708197-a31f-5279-826a-b2231befb911.html

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150825/OPINION02/150829657/1068/news0606


Imagine THAT!

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin spoke at a number of grassroot campaign events in New Hampshire for Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton.

Gov. Shumlin, an early Clinton endorser, attended organizing meetings in Hanover, Claremont, and Peterborough to outline Clinton's New College Compact, a plan that which aims to tackle student debt.

http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/gov-shumlin-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton-in-nh

Bernie wins.

Way I heard it, it came down to the legislature to get Shumlin to win. There is no next time.

Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

It was so close it was thrown into the statehouse.

Vermonters can't stomach him. He isn't running next year because there is no way he could win an election for any office.

I've lived here for 35 years. In general, Vermonters like their elected officials. Never seen anything like the animosity Vermonters feel for him. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him last year. I had a lot of liberal company.

He barely eked out a win over a guy who had never run before. It was so close that it was thrown into the statehouse which is super majority dem in both the Senate and house. Some of the loathing for ol' Scummy Shummy comes from his having cheated a disabled neighbor out of his property, but there's a lot more to it. He had hoped to run for the senate, but the guy couldn't get elected dog catcher in Vermont now. He's gunning for a job in a Clinton admin.

Bernie is far and away the most liked politician in Vermont and Shumlin is by far the most disliked

So how did Sanders do in his two runs for Governor? And then his two runs for Senator?

As far as "barely eking out a win", Sanders won his FIRST election (after losing four times previously, getting about 5% or less each time) by a huge margin of TEN votes!

The "Most liked politician in Vermont" is Patrick Leahy, who won his last election for Senate with 89% of the vote!! And who was one of his defeated opponents when he was first elected to the Senate? None other than Bernard Sanders.

By the way, while we're on the subject of DEMOCRATIC politicians from Vermont, a little known fact is that Bernie Sanders won the Democratic nomination for the Senate in 2006, but he REFUSED it! A good indication of the respect he had/has for the Democratic Party, until he needed it this year.

You don't have a clue about my state. Since being elected as mayor Bernie has lost only one race. And that was because Paul Poirer ran and the vote was split. As I recall, Bernie got close to 40% and Paul got around 20%.

And no, although pat is well liked he isn't as popular as Bernie.

I live here. You don't have a clue.

I would never pretend to know more about the politics of your state than you do. I'm not that arrogant.

...i.e., "resumptuous", "don't have a clue", "arrogant".

I've lived in New England for 25+ years, and have been following politics in the region for just about as long.

So a person who lost to Leahy (with a mere 5% of the vote) is "more popular" than a man who won his last election with 89% of the vote is "more popular"? Hah!

I have more of a clue than you'd like to admit, thank you.

I've lived in New England much longer than you have but I don't know the intricacies and players in other new England states the way I do in Vermont. Pat is an institution here. Bernie is, well, beloved. Every year seven days runs a best in Vermont thing and readers vote. Bernie wins every year. No, this isn't scientific, but there are ad reasons why. Bernie is much more accessible and his office is recognised as doing more for constituents that need assistance of some kind. This is the stuff that if you don't live here,you're just not attuned to.

And yes, I think it's very presumptuous of you to think you know more about the state where I've lived for 35 years, than I do.

Have you learned nothing from your previous epic fails?

"By the way, while we're on the subject of DEMOCRATIC politicians from Vermont, a little known fact is that Bernie..."

Keep flinging those red herrings and thinking it's distracting people from noticing how desperate some HC supporters are getting.

are two people that have never been in my kitchen.

And so it goes.

Never forget!

doesn't necessarily win the primary.

and I think that it means Bernie's message is getting through regardless of the slanted and minimal main stream media he gets and even though the DMC is limiting the debates and further tilting the board toward HRC with the exclusivity clause.

I think more polls will come from other states that will show similar trends. This is a movement and the time has come for real measurable change in this nation.

Now if he led Ohio or California...well that's different.

I thought you were sent on vacation unfairly and actually said so.

Welcome back.

I think that's why President Josiah Bartlet was from there. Real political players were deeply involved with the show, which is why the griping about the futility of winning New Hampshire came through so strongly.

Josh would say that you had to appear to 'try' win it, then completely ignore it.

the game has changed.

When it doesn't fit their polling inevitability narrative. The rest of us take them with a hopeful grain of salt.

I'm a big time Hill supporter and I could care less.

It bothered you enough to start a discussion about it...

To be earth shattering...

I'm just saying whoop t doo

But let them celebrate. I think the celebrations will be few and far between for the Bernie supporters. It will be super Tuesday that tells the tale, not NH or IA.

Put up or shut up.

Lets try and chill out a bit.

Hillary has spent over $800,000 on polling so her polling in NH seem to matter to her I am sure she would like to win there, as would anyone but come on "put Up or shut up" is that really necessary here?

Bring it!

I just had more fun punching the word, "Suffolk" into the search bar though.

The trend at this point is not good for Hillary, regardless of the polls you don't like.
Face it, she will probably still be the candidate in the end, but everyday more and more people are looking elsewhere. Including the administration, and party big wigs, otherwise the Biden talk would be not happening.

For me, my mantra from the start has been NO MORE CLINTONS, NO MORE BUSHES!!!!!!!

I haven't quite decided yet who I will back in the primaries yet (yes there are still undecideds), but in the end I will back the party nominee no matter how much I dislike it.

insurmountable lead. How is that THIS poll is the one you choose to post that no one should give a rat's ass about? Did you make the same statement about the dozens and dozens of polls touting Hillary's lead?

again.

"Does anyone really give a rats ass about a New Hamshire poll or an Iowa poll...etc."

Apparently they do:
"Hillary Clinton SURGES ahead in Iowa"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110716749

Why is it that only 2 states (with fairly small and homogeneous populations BTW) get placed on a pedestal during the primaries? It's just weird to me how they get so much airtime and so much time from the candidates devoted to them, while the other 48 get less attention.

You care enough about it to start a thread to dismiss it.

Fuck small, rural, white, racist, volvo-driving, entitled, dumb-fuck New Hampshire! Right? You dont need us now nor will you ever!

We're supposed to be ashamed of where we live now.



Good for you, NH!

You can drive Bernie all the way to the white house in your Volvo!

It says "priggish" on the license plate.

He's a thousandaire!

Just trying to help!

That is where we send all the volvos to die as well. Our proud state is evenly split between Humvee driving tealibans and prius/subaru pinko commie liberals, most of whom are too uptight to acknowledge their granola eating past.

except for those meaningless national polls that Team Clinton loves to scoreboard with.

You heard me say the NH poll don't mean shit .

The ones she doesn't buy? They're good if they are consistent with the narrative.

And he takes 10-15% away from Hillary overnight, I bet the polls really won't matter then lol

delegates and this will win the nomination.

Usually it comes earlier in the day, but this will do.

p.s. "Hampshire". Although we will allow the alternative spelling "New Hampster" as it is chuckle-worthy.

They don't drive my choices.

Really, the only reason for me to enjoy a positive poll for Sanders is to watch all those who tell me that any candidate I support is unelectable, using poll data, race to rationalize his poll numbers away.

13 people don't give a rats ass. The rest of DU are at least moderately interested.

So just LOL

Unless you're new to following US politics, you ought to know how much the first caucus and first primary matter.

"Since 1976, when proliferating primaries and caucuses became the basis for selecting convention delegates, every single nominee but one, in both parties, won either Iowa or New Hampshire."

As for New Hampshire specifically, although there have been several exceptions in recent years, the winner of NH typically becomes the party's nominee. I won't be surprised, though, if 2016 provides another exception to the rule.

Those who lose both Iowa and New Hampshire, especially if they lose badly, have virtually zero chance of becoming the nominee.