New Hampshire Primaries 2016

[Big Guy]

Can Trump hold his lead?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/donald-trump-new-hampshire-2016/

[Big Guy]

The races begin to tighten in New Hampshire:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/new-hampshire-poll-republicans-democrats-218805

I still believe that Sanders is too old to be running for president. If Clinton ran as his running mate then I believe that package would have no trouble winning the presidency. As I have tried to explain before, people in that 74+ age group can be exceptionally sharp one day and be senile within a year. I have seen it happen too many times and those in geriatrics have agreed with me. Clinton as a back-up would guarantee that ticket.

[Derek 2.0]

I still believe that Sanders is too old to be running for president.

I believe age isn't an issue in the New Hampshire primary, or the overall race......Sanders is only five years older than Trump, and six years older than Clinton.........the current Vice President is only a year younger than Sanders.

-------------

I expect Trump will win, but only barely just, with Rubio on his heels........I also expect Sanders to win over Clinton, but by a far closer margin......I doubt Cruz will finish in the top three of the GOP race.

[Big Guy]

I believe age isn't an issue in the New Hampshire primary, or the overall race......Sanders is only five years older than Trump, and six years older than Clinton.........the current Vice President is only a year younger than Sanders.

-------------

I expect Trump will win, but only barely just, with Rubio on his heels........I also expect Sanders to win over Clinton, but by a far closer margin......I doubt Cruz will finish in the top three of the GOP race.

Would you hire a 74 year old guy to oversee a project that is expected to take 8 years?

I would not.

[Derek 2.0]

Would you hire a 74 year old guy to oversee a project that is expected to take 8 years?

I would not.

That would depend on the project and the individual......and their health.

[cybercoma]

Would you hire a 74 year old guy to oversee a project that is expected to take 8 years?

I would not.

4 years, then a review. Yes.

[Topaz]

I'd take Saunders over Clinton but the important question is who would be the VP for Saunders?

[bush_cheney2004]

Who ? Senator Elizabeth Warren.

[msj]

Would you hire a 74 year old guy to oversee a project that is expected to take 8 years?

I would not.

Depends on who is running as VP.

Who knows, could be a wonderful "Weekend at Bernie's" Presidency.

[Derek 2.0]

I think the debates winners were Kasich and Bush.....Christie, Carson and Rubio weren't bad, but Rubio got sandbagged early over his age and experience, it could hurt him.....Trump got booed countless times (being a prick to Bush) and made a fool over some of his polices, but still got some good shots in.........Cruz was dressed down and embarrassed over his dirty tricks against Carson and some of his other promises........After tonight, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see Kasich and Bush finish higher in the primary, at the expense of Carson, Cruz and maybe Trump and Rubio.

[kimmy]

The introductions from the Republican debate were great!

Poor Dr Carson. I wonder if Trump waited with him so that he wouldn't feel as embarrassed by the whole thing, or because he was thinking "Carson wants to come out last to get the biggest applause. Well I'm not letting him do that."

Also, gotta love the moderators completely forgetting to introduce Gov. Kasich until Gov. Christie offers to introduce him.

-k

[Big Guy]

These guys (and gal) are creating a cornucopia of video material for the Presidential election campaign.

I still believe that these "debates" are the worst thing that could happen to a contest for the leadership of a country. I keep hearing he "won" or he "lost" the debate but it is the country which loses because of the debate. They are now all looking like clowns and anyone getting to, lead the party for the presidency eventually will have inherited a very weakened office. The rest of the world is watching and laughing at this public mud slinging contest.

I see no correlation between "doing well" on a televised debate and making the right decisions to lead a country in the right direction.

[Derek 2.0]

Poor Dr Carson. I wonder if Trump waited with him so that he wouldn't feel as embarrassed by the whole thing, or because he was thinking "Carson wants to come out last to get the biggest applause. Well I'm not letting him do that."

I think a little of column A and column B, but more so column C: I think Trump actually likes Ben Carson, well knowing full well that Carson and Cruz occupy the same space in the field. I think this is why Trump has been really vocal about the Cruz sandbagging of Carson during the Iowa primary, in addition, by having Carson in the race, natural supporters that would go to Cruz remain divided.....which helps Trump.

With my tinfoil hat on, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Trump was actually giving some money to Carson to keep him in the race to screw over Cruz.

[Derek 2.0]

New Poll:

Donald Trump earns 30% support from voters likely to participate in Tuesday’s Republican primary. He currently leads all other candidates by double digits, while four candidates vie for second place – John Kasich (14%), Marco Rubio (13%), Jeb Bush (13%), and Ted Cruz (12%). Other candidates receive single digit support, including Chris Christie (6%), Carly Fiorina (5%), and Ben Carson (4%). For most of these candidates, support levels are basically unchanged from Monmouth’s New Hampshire poll last month. The one exception is Bush, who has gained 9 points since January. Again, it is important to remember that the vast majority of interviews for this poll were conducted before last night’s GOP debate.

It goes back to the numbers game and the "vote splitting" among the moderates/mainstream:

Trump: 30%

Cruz: 12%

Carson: 4%

versus the combined "moderate/mainstream" field:

Bush: 13%

Rubio: 13%

Kasich: 14%

Christie: 6%

Fiorina : 5%

For a combined total of: 51% or ~enough to secure the Republican nomination, and of course, if one of the above was able to get Carson's supporters for a cushion, as the anti Trump/Cruz choice.

I predict, after New Hampshire (if not South Carolina), Fiorina, Christie and Carson will fold.....unless a second place finish, I'd also expect Kasich to be not far behind. Further to that, and this poll was conducted before last night's debate, if Christie's attack on Rubio resulted in lasting damage to him, combined with Bush's above noted surge and his strong performance last night, we could see Bush ( by Nevada or Texas) become the GOP front runner........a come from behind not seen since his father lost to this guy........who started off as the front runner, stumbled early to George H Bush, then went onto win the nomination......

[ReeferMadness]

I bet if "none of the above" were on the ticket, he'd win with a landslide. What a sad bunch.

[Derek 2.0]

A new poll, conducted before and after the debate....on the live broadcast, it was explained that ~25% of the poll was after the debate, and of that percentage, there were no drops in support for Rubio.......but no movement for Christie.....I guess breaking Reagan's 11th commandment didn't help him....

Trump holds 31%, down two points from the February 3-6 release, but within the poll's margin of sampling error.

Behind him, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio earned 17% support -- within the margin of sampling error of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 14%, but significantly ahead of the fourth and fifth place candidates in the poll, Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 10% and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 7%.

Behind Bush, Carly Fiorina stands at 5%, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 4% and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 3%.

It still goes back to the moderate/mainstream camp's vote splitting to knock Trump off.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[kimmy]

.....Christie, Carson and Rubio weren't bad, but Rubio got sandbagged early over his age and experience, it could hurt him.....

To expand on that point a bit... I just saw this clip from the debate where Christie savaged Rubio. Rubio went to the well four times with the same canned response, and Christie called it out and mocked him for it.

I actually think Rubio's basic argument is reasonable: people have been saying we shouldn't elect another first-term senator because Obama showed what a mistake that was... but the truth is that Obama has been very effective at implementing the agenda that he wants, and the real problem Republicans have with him is that the agenda he wants is very opposite to the agenda that Republicans want. In short, that Obama has been an effective leader, but has been leading America to the wrong place. Rubio is arguing that the problem isn't with Obama being a first-term senator, the problem is with Obama's ideas.

It's a good argument. It's an argument I agree with.

The problem is, when Rubio comes out and states it exactly the same way 4 times in a row as if he rehearsed it in front of a mirror, it makes it painfully obvious that it was coached into him by his handlers. "Ok, Marco, when they hit you with the First Term Senator question, this is what you tell them."

-k

[Argus]

I actually think Rubio's basic argument is reasonable: people have been saying we shouldn't elect another first-term senator because Obama showed what a mistake that was... but the truth is that Obama has been very effective at implementing the agenda that he wants, and the real problem Republicans have with him is that the agenda he wants is very opposite to the agenda that Republicans want. In short, that Obama has been an effective leader, but has been leading America to the wrong place. Rubio is arguing that the problem isn't with Obama being a first-term senator, the problem is with Obama's ideas.

Look, I loath the Tea Party, but Obama has certainly not been an effective leader, nor do I think he has he got much, if any, of his agenda implemented. Now if Obama had waited and served a couple more terms to learn how things operated, maybe he'd have done a way better job. Maybe Rubio should get a little more experience, too.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Argus

[kimmy]

How do you feel about Christie's premise, that being a Governor is more relevant experience for the job?

-k

[Derek 2.0]

I actually think Rubio's basic argument is reasonable:

As do I, and further to his point, there should be no doubt that a Clinton administration would be a continuation of Obama's policies.

The problem is, when Rubio comes out and states it exactly the same way 4 times in a row as if he rehearsed it in front of a mirror, it makes it painfully obvious that it was coached into him by his handlers. "Ok, Marco, when they hit you with the First Term Senator question, this is what you tell them."

Right, and though it didn't make for good tv, and I thought it would hurt via media soundbites, let's look at the context......Rubio's slight here is that he used talking points in hammering home his (above) point in response to Christie...as opposed to attacking him.....what politician doesn't use talking points (including Christie)?

As to his experience, ala the first term Senator moniker, again, that too has to be put into context.......he spent nearly a decade in the Florida House of Representatives, including a term as majority leader.....when you add that experience to his US Senate experience, he's held elected office, writing and passing laws and budgets etc, for ~15 years.......a period of time in elected government longer than the majority of the current GOP field, including Christie's tenure......all before his 45th birthday.

[bush_cheney2004]

It doesn't really matter what their experiences are...a U.S. presidential election campaign is a grueling process and test that will separate the contenders from the pretenders.

[August1991]

It doesn't really matter what their experiences are...a U.S. presidential election campaign is a grueling process and test that will separate the contenders from the pretenders.

It's a costly experience to anyone but does it produce a "good" leader?

I think rather that the US Constitution ensures that if an idiot manages to have access to the State's power, there will be little damage to the lives of ordinary people.

=====

I would prefer a society in which we choose leaders inspired to do good but I will settle for a society that ensures our leaders don't cause harm. Some 250 years later, I think the "framers" (as Americans say) got it more or less right. Then again, as Chou-En Lai said, this experiment has yet to be proven.

Edited February 9, 2016 by August1991

[August1991]

How do you feel about Christie's premise, that being a Governor is more relevant experience for the job?

-k

Feel? The key question is whether Christie does better or worse than Rubio in NH. Current polls show that Rubio is far ahead. If these NH polls are accurate, I'd say that with SC and Super Tuesday ahead, Christie is finished.

I don't particularly like Rubio - but I reckon that "my feeling" matters nowadays (Rubio's unfavourables are low): he's the least unliked.

Edited February 9, 2016 by August1991

[Big Guy]

How do you feel about Christie's premise, that being a Governor is more relevant experience for the job?

-k

Unfortunately, the characteristics and personality traits required to get elected are very different from those to govern well.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a costly experience to anyone but does it produce a "good" leader?

Producing a good leader is secondary to producing a dedicated competitor with a very strong drive to campaign, curry political and financial support, build alliances, destroy enemies, and win the election. These are all traits a new president will need to win office not only once, but twice.