NEW HAMPSHIRE 2020: Sanders jumps to lead, BUttigieg surges While Warren and Biden slip (Emerson)

[brooklynite]

A new WHDH 7 News/Emerson College poll finds a major shakeup in the New Hampshire primary with Senator Bernie Sanders leading with 26%, followed by Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 22%. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren are at 14%, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is at 6%, and Entrepreneur Andrew Yang is at 5%. All other candidates are below 5%. (Nov. 22-26, MM, n=549, +/- 4.1%).

This is a major shift from Emerson’s last New Hampshire poll in September, where Biden led with 24% (-10), followed by Warren with 21% (-7). Sanders has jumped from third, where he was at 13% (+13), and Buttigieg also doubled his support from 11% (+11).

Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “the Democratic voters have taken a look at Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and they appear unsatisfied at this time which brought some voters back to Bernie Sanders while others are now moving to a fresh face in Pete Buttigieg, this demonstrates the fluidity of the race.”

http://emersonpolling.com/2019/11/27/new-hampshire-2020-sanders-jumps-to-lead-buttigieg-surges-while-warren-and-biden-slip/

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. I think it's time everyone drop out and get behind Bernie!

[brooklynite]

2. I'd love to, but the whole losing the election thing keeps coming up in my mind...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Yeah but you predicted AOC would lose. So....

[brooklynite]

7. I'm talking about the GE, not the Primary

...and this is just a guess but the other Primary candidates seem to be aware that they have competition.

[roody]

16. Yes, Clinton lost. It was sad.

[ehrnst]

46. Actually, she won. And she got more votes than any candidate not named Obama.

You're welcome.

Bernie Sanders lost last time. He didn't have as many supporters as HRC.

[Hekate]

56. It was part of the Russo-GOP sabotage of our elections, & very necessary that we not forget...

Bernie might have been playing it straight, but other entities were hell-bent on driving a wedge between all Americans. And they did, to our everlasting detriment.

Thanks, ehrnst. I say the same thing as often as I see the necessity.

[Lucky Luciano]

61. I really hate this argument that "she won". She didn't win. Everybody knew the rules

...going in that the electoral college is what needs to be won and Californians are relatively disenfranchised.

The correct strategy of aggressively focusing on the key states didn’t happen.


...and the interference didn’t help, but that is hard to quantify.

[ehrnst]

63. Math is math. She won, and the electoral college negated it when they could have upheld it.

I hate it when people ignore or dismiss the incredible feat of winning by that much in face of the things working against her:

-The statistical improbability of keeping the WH in one party for more than two consecutive terms (explaining in part why so few men threw their hats in)
-A Russian misinformation campaign working against her succefully waged with young white, college educated liberals.
-Misogyny on the Right and Left
-Twenty five years of GOP smears and attacks
-Comey's bogus concern letter days before the election
-Suppression of the Democratic vote in the key states where she lost by a sliver, in numbers greater than the margin she lost by.

I'd say the sort of win by the margin of votes she pulled out in the face of all that is pretty damn incredible, and unmatched.

Being a "flawed" candidate, or running a "flawed" campaign was never a deal breaker for any other Democratic POTUS candidate, even Dukakis. Only She was required to be "perfect," and making her "flaws" - real or fictional - the sole reason for the stealing of the Oval Office by the GOP with the help of Russia and Assange, supports the narrative and ambitions of certain other politicians.

Including Trump and Putin.

[Lucky Luciano]

77. The interference I obviously grant you.

However, people clamoring over the popular vote totals that say "she won" is inaccurate. Campaign strategies would be way different if it were about popular vote totals. We have to win the electoral college - period - no matter how stupid and undemocratic the EC is. The EC definitely gives the rednecks an edge.

[ehrnst]

78. Like I said, math is math. And math says she won the votes.

"Clamoring" to say that she "lost" is equally inaccurate.

It was a huge upset, considering the hurdles she had before crossing the finishing line 3 mill votes ahead. Not behind.

She did indeed cross the line first, and the WH was stolen from us, and the winner in a criminal act.

[ehrnst]

67. For Democrats anyway. Others decided it validated them.

And were likely smiling when they heard the news.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. I agree 100%!! It's time for everyone to jump on the bandwagon... space is tight

but we can always squeeze in to make more room.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

8. We're gonna need a bigger bandwagon

v

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. LMFAO!! Good one HBS!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Gothmog]

45. LOL

sanders is not likely to be the nominee. New Hampshire is a 90+% white state that does not reflect the demographics of the party

[ehrnst]

74. NH is very small and homegenous, isn't it. (nt)

[Gothmog]

48. Here is some interesting polling

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

49. ....

[ismnotwasm]

6. Why?

[George II]

9. As they say, "bwahahahahaha!" New Hampshire has a mere 24 delegates, it takes about 2000....

...to win the nomination.

Proportionally, Sanders will get no more than about half those 24, which is less than 1% of those required. I applaud your enthusiasm and sense of humor, but for this from his closest neighbor, BS is toast.

[Gothmog]

42. It is more likely that sanders would get 8 to 10 delegates from NH

I doubt that sanders will be the nominee

[George II]

43. You're correct, especially with the Democratic talent we have running in the primaries.

[Gothmog]

81. This will make you smile

Link to tweet

[redstateblues]

11. Bernie could win the nomination but he could never win the GE

[roody]

17. He is the only one that can beat Trump.

[Thekaspervote]

21. Nope!

[Tiggeroshii]

24. He was last time and he is now!

[George II]

38. He beat trump last time?

[sheshe2]

50. ;)

[roody]

60. He would have.

[ehrnst]

66. Maybe you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

[ehrnst]

69. Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

[TexasTowelie]

27. .

[Gothmog]

36. If sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states

[George II]

37. We'll never know.

[ehrnst]

47. No, he's not. A winner would have to be able to get the majority of primary votes from Democrats.

Only 42% of those who voted for Bernie in the 2016 Primary selected him as their top choice in the 2020 Primary.

Many assume that Bernie’s supporters from 2016 are a deeply loyal group, but it would appear that with more alternatives in 2020 (beyond Hillary Clinton) former Bernie voters have new top choices. For example, of Bernie’s 2016 supporters, 15.7% now selected Beto O’Rourke as their top choice, 11.7 % selected Joe Biden, 7.9% selected Pete Buttigieg and 6% selected Kamala Harris.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldurkheimer/2019/04/17/5-weird-items-in-the-new-bernie-buttigieg-poll/#388094657ddd

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. You got that right!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[redstateblues]

62. He could possibly win the GE but he can't win the primary

[ehrnst]

65. That's funny.

[pnwmom]

22. Since he got 60% in the 2016 primary, I think they've been leaving him,

not the other way around.

[TexasTowelie]

25. .

[Lexblues]

28. I prefer to vote for Democrats

[Gothmog]

35. LOL

That is not going to happen NEw Hampshire is 90+% white I really doubt that sanders will be the nominee without some wins in states that reflect the demographics of the party

[ehrnst]

44. I think it's time he dropped out, and got behind other progressive candidates. (nt)

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2019, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[roody]

59. That's funny.

[ehrnst]

64. I thought you'd like that. Here's another:

[Kurt V.]

51. i thought your post might get a small reaction.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. .

[CentralMass]

54. Yes :-)

[ehrnst]

68. If running unopposed is the only way a candidate can win,

what does that say about the candidate?

[MrsCoffee]

70. You Better Believe It!

[Dem4Life1102]

71. Yeah why bother with democracy

and letting people vote. Let’s have a coronation instead.

[ehrnst]

72. That sounds like someone is trying to create an "aura of inevitability" and supports a "coronation."

[DavidDvorkin]

5. Major, sudden changes like this make me skeptical

As a Buttigieg supporter, I'd like to believe Mayor Pete's numbers, but I'll take a wait-and-see attitude to this poll.

[Celerity]

19. He was already leading in NH in another poll and is top there in RCP's average as well

https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/NHIOP/Polls/1119%20Topline%20Summary.pdf


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html

[evertonfc]

10. Democratic voters

in NH not nationally. Big difference. NH is not reflective of the party demographics.

[LongtimeAZDem]

12. Politics in New Hamshire is retail, and wildly capricious

[left-of-center2012]

13. Bernie can't win the swing voters, or the Trump voters

They're not ready for a "socialist revolution".

In my humble opinion.

[Kurt V.]

52. swing voters are about 8% of the electorate.

[left-of-center2012]

14. Poll

[Quackers]

15. Is anyone else really surprised how far Kamala has fallen?

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2019, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I thought she would’ve held onto more support for a little longer.

[roody]

18. No one from CA is surprised.

[MrsCoffee]

73. Oh please.

You don’t speak for even a fraction of us.

[MrsCoffee]

75. It's Kamala.

And she hasn’t fallen anywhere.

[Quackers]

80. Sorry about that. My iPad still tries to autocorrect it to Kamila even now.

I fixed it. In regard to my point though, she has fallen. Her numbers here on DU have plummeted to 7% after being in the double digits. Her poll number nationally have fallen every week for a few months now, and then one of her top aids resigned and penned a letter speaking to how bad everything was and everyone is being treated. Then according to a New York Times article, more than 50 current and former campaign staffers and allies corroborated the conditions listed in the letter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html



I’m not trying to be mean, I really was surprised her campaign has fallen. It’s disingenuous to say it hasn’t.

[Thekaspervote]

20. 538 poll average for NH 11/25 Biden 20% warren 18% sanders 17%

[Mike Nelson]

26. This poll is...

... a surprise, to me. I can't believe Tulsi and Yang are doing better than some behind them... I did see their momentary appeal, but am really surprised they are ahead of some names. Also surprised Biden and Warren aren't closer to the top two. Of course, it all will change... again and again...

[still_one]

30. NH a very volatile state, and when the poll includes republicans, indicates that 45% could change

their minds, 14% are undecided, and their partially open primary means that anyone before the primary election, can change their registration to no party preference, and then that group can choose which primary they want to participate in

"the New Hampshire primary is not a "closed primary," where voter participation is limited by voters' past or recent party registration. Instead, New Hampshire enables any voter who has been undeclared, or re-registers as undeclared (not registered with any party) to vote in either party's primary. This seemingly technical distinction can have big impacts on the primary, and how fluidly candidates do in the state (especially if only one party has a competitive primary in a given year, eliciting a greater likelihood that undeclared or less partisan voters will flood that party's primary, if they want to participate at all.) This system is not a fully open primary, because people who are registered with a party (Republican or Democratic) on voting day cannot vote in the other party's primary."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

To demonstrate the point:

"Hillary Clinton managed an upset win over Barack Obama in New Hampshire, despite polls showing her as much as 13 points behind in the run-up to the vote.[20] The win helped Clinton get back some of the momentum she lost the week before when Obama carried the Iowa caucuses—though Obama did eventually win the Democratic nomination. John McCain won the Republican primary, sparking an unexpected comeback for the senator whose long-shot campaign had been written off as a lost cause months before."

[Mike Nelson]

31. That explains a lot...

... thank you!

[still_one]

32. From my perspective, I don't think NH will produce a clear winner delegate wise. While it will

allow bragging rights for whoever comes in first, it will be interesting to see if that carries any momentum over into Super Tuesday IMHO

[still_one]

29. 14% undecided, 45% said they could change their minds, and republicans included in this

poll. In addition NH is a partially open primary:

" the New Hampshire primary is not a "closed primary," where voter participation is limited by voters' past or recent party registration. Instead, New Hampshire enables any voter who has been undeclared, or re-registers as undeclared (not registered with any party) to vote in either party's primary. This seemingly technical distinction can have big impacts on the primary, and how fluidly candidates do in the state (especially if only one party has a competitive primary in a given year, eliciting a greater likelihood that undeclared or less partisan voters will flood that party's primary, if they want to participate at all.) This system is not a fully open primary, because people who are registered with a party (Republican or Democratic) on voting day cannot vote in the other party's primary."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

[helpisontheway]

34. Oh WOW Bernie is leading in a state near the state he has represented for years..

IMPRESSIVE...Not..🙄 Continue to surge Mayor Pete..

[Lucky Luciano]

79. He is competing with Warren there too - just an FYI.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. BOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[George II]

40. Something fishy about this poll. The results of all four top candidates have fluctuated wildly:

Biden 24 to 14
Warren 21 to 14
Sanders 13 to 26
Buttigieg 11 to 22

I could see one, maybe two having shifts that large, but all four?

[Joe941]

41. Stories like this keep popping up. I guess Bernie's demise is just a false meme...

his enemies are pushing.

[newblewtoo]

55. Um,

just so everyone knows. NH is a has a unique primary which is subject to manipulation by 'many groups'. NH allows independents to 'select' a party on primary day and then switch back to independent status after voting. This is a one horse race on the Republicon side, many 'independents' will take advantage to RF the results.

Do not set any store in the results. "Independents' will break for the least likely opposition candidate.

[Demsrule86]

58. It won't hurt Biden...but Warren is cooked if she doesn't do well in New Hampshire...a

neighboring state to hers...Sanders too.

[quickesst]

76. I think the undecided voters....

.... will have an impact on the Iowa and New Hampshire elections. I also predict that what feels good right now for some people won't be feeling so good once the primary is out of Iowa and New Hampshire, and moves to states that are actually representative of the general population.