HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Bernie can lose New Hamps...

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 12:29 PM

Bernie can lose New Hampshire and still win: McCarthy lost New Hampshire in 1968 but still forced

Johnson off the ticket:

"Despite the growing opposition to Johnson's policies in Vietnam, no prominent Democratic candidate was prepared to run against a sitting President of his own party. Even Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York, an outspoken critic of Johnson's policies with a large base of support, refused to run against Johnson in the primaries. Only Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota proved willing to openly challenge Johnson. Running as an anti-war candidate in the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy hoped to pressure the Democrats into publicly opposing the Vietnam War. Normally, an incumbent president faces little formidable opposition within his own party. However, McCarthy, although he was trailing badly in the national polls, decided to pour most of his resources into New Hampshire, the first state to hold a primary election. He was boosted by thousands of young college students, who shaved their beards and cut their hair to be "Clean for Gene." These students rang doorbells and worked hard in New Hampshire for McCarthy. On March 12, McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%, an extremely strong showing for such a challenger, and one which gave McCarthy's campaign legitimacy and momentum. Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy four days later, on March 16."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1968

I don't know how pushing the primaries forward may change this; I don't know if other candidates can enter their names at this point. But there are a lot of super-delegates out there watching, and endorsement or not, their first vote at the Convention may be a game changer.

12 replies, 1096 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie can lose New Hampshire and still win: McCarthy lost New Hampshire in 1968 but still forced (Original post)
hedgehog Jan 2016 OP
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #1
rocktivity Jan 2016 #2
Gothmog Jan 2016 #3
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #4
hedgehog Jan 2016 #5
NorthCarolina Jan 2016 #6
SheilaT Jan 2016 #7
Vinca Jan 2016 #8
book_worm Jan 2016 #9
book_worm Jan 2016 #10
book_worm Jan 2016 #11
hedgehog Jan 2016 #12

Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 12:31 PM

1. Bernie needs New Hampshire.

 


He isn't just looking to shape the debate, he is trying to win the nomination.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 12:37 PM

2. Bernie HAS to win NH -- and by more than five

If he can do that and lose IA by less than four, it would be be quite "upsetting" enough.


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 12:44 PM

3. New Hampshire and Iowa are both must wins for Sanders

Sanders is polling well only in a four states with 90+% white voter populations. Iowa and New Hampshire are both must wins for Sanders http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/11/bernie_sanders_could_win_iowa_and_new_hampshire.html

What would not change, though, is that Clinton would remain the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Even if Hillary staggers out of New Hampshire with her second loss in as many contests, she’ll still have the same massive advantages she enjoys today: the campaign and super PAC cash, the ground game, the endorsements, the pledged superdelegates, and the general support of a party establishment that won’t soon forget that her challenger is not technically even a part of the Democratic Party. An unexpected loss in Iowa and a less surprising one in New Hampshire wouldn’t change that.

She’d also have a chance to get back on her feet—and fast. Consider what comes next: Nevada (Feb. 20) and South Carolina (Feb. 27), two significantly more diverse states than lily-white Iowa and lily-whiter New Hampshire, and two places where Clinton currently enjoys massive leads in the polls. According to the RealClearPolitics rolling average, Clinton holds a 20-point advantage in Nevada and a whopping 40-point lead in South Carolina. March brings better news still for the former secretary of state, starting with a Super Tuesday slate that includes friendly territory in the form of southern states like Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The rest of the month, meanwhile, includes several big, delegate-rich contests that she won eight years ago during her battle with Barack Obama: Michigan, Florida, and Ohio. Yes, Sanders could have the momentum this time next month, but it’ll be on him to to find a way to keep it as he heads into significantly more challenging terrain than Iowa or New Hampshire, which were always going to offer his best chance at pulling off an early upset or two.

None of this is to say that Clinton has the nomination locked up already. She doesn’t. But if Iowa and New Hampshire are must-wins for anyone, it’s Sanders. Hillary can—and likely would—survive a slow start and still be the one standing on stage at the Democratic National Convention when the balloons come down this summer. Bernie, though, has no such margin of error.

Sanders is doing well in states with 90+% white voting populations and these states are not sufficient for Sanders to win the nomination. There are four states where Sanders is polling well in: Utah, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont. Texas has almost twice the number of delegates of these four states combined

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 12:44 PM

4. If he loses by a narrow margin it would display Hillary's weakness as a candidate.

 

Just like McCarthy's loss showed LBJ's weakness as a candidate. Any loss to Bernie anywhere is more damaging to Hillary because she's alleged to be the best candidate to win against the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 12:51 PM

5. My point exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 12:55 PM

6. Moot point as Bernie will win NH.

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:19 PM

7. No. He cannot lose New Hampshire and still win.

 

McCarthy's win in 1968 showed LBJ's vulnerability. If Bernie cannot win the state next door to his own, then he's a very weak candidate and will not get better.

The real question becomes this: Given the recent polling that shows Bernie incredibly far ahead of Hillary in NH (by some thirty points in one poll), if expectations there are raised to a total blow-out, and that doesn't happen, he will be perceived as weak and will be beaten down by the media after that.

He needs to win by some small but noticeable margin in Iowa, then decisively in New Hampshire. Then he needs to at worst come in very close in Nevada, preferably win there, even if by a small margin. South Carolina is a bit trickier. He can afford to lose that state, but not by a landslide.

Don't forget that the Democratic party apportions delegates by the percentage of the vote each candidate gets. So both Hillary and Bernie will walk away with delegates from all four of those contests. At the end of the fourth one, perception of weakness and strength of each is going to matter a great deal going in to Super Tuesday. However, Hillary is clearly floundering, striking out without a coherent plan of action, and trying to throw whatever mud she can on Bernie just to see what might stick. I also understand that her ground game beyond Super Tuesday is seriously lacking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:34 PM

8. I'm in NH and this is definitely Bernie country.

Plus, I discovered another advantage for Bernie just this morning. I had to go to the town offices for something and they had a sample primary ballot posted on the bulletin board. Bernie is the top name listed. I don't know how they determine order, but Hillary is buried in the middle a couple of names down from Vermin Supreme (yes, that's a real candidate).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:42 PM

9. If Bernie lost NH the media would wonder "What happened" given

that he is leading the polls there by a pretty solid margin. No, he needs NH more than HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:46 PM

10. The interesting thing about LBJ's vote in NH in 1968

is that he was a write-in candidate and McCarthy was on the ballot. Still it was a good showing by McCarthy. However, there are conflicting reports too. LBJ may have been planning not to run in 1968 anyway--he had discussed it with several people in the Fall of 1967. So not sure that it was really NH primary that convinced him not to run again. Also, the NH primary also caused RFK to jump into the race. It was somewhat opportunistic of RFK to do so after McCarthy was the only stature Democrat who was approached who was willing to take on LBJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Original post)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:49 PM

11. p.s.

There is another way of looking at it, too. In 1972 Edmund Muskie of neighboring Maine won NH by about ten points over George McGovern, but the media at that time discounted Muskie's win because he was a neighboring senator from that region and proclaimed McGovern the real victor. This year if HRC loses by 10 nobody will call that a "moral victory" for her even though Bernie is a neighboring Senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to book_worm (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:56 PM

12. Ed Muskie would have been a good President. Believe it or not, youngans,

his campaign imploded because he stood outside on a windy cold day and denounced the Manchester Union-Leader for attacking his wife. People thought he had tears in his eyes, and that wiped him from the field. Today he'd be accused of faking the tears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread