Poll: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37
35 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has rocketed past longtime front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, a stunning turn in a race once considered a lock for the former secretary of state, a new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll shows.
Sanders leads Clinton 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, the first time the heavily favored Clinton has trailed in the 2016 primary campaign, according to the poll of 442 Granite-Staters.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinton_in_nh_44_37[/url]
[t]http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2011/06/Sen+Bernie+Sanders+VT+Addresses+Ben+Bernanke+icjNRvVf76ll.jpg[/t]
I knew I could have some faith in my state!
Good.
New Hampshire is a small state. Let me know when its Texas or Florida or California.
[QUOTE=redBadger;48446663]New Hampshire is a small state. Let me know when its Texas or Florida or California.[/QUOTE]
uhh you do know NH is like the most important state for campaigners early on right
if you dont get positive support from here and like the next few states that get their primaries, your chances of winning the nomination are pretty much down the drain unless you're a magic man
[editline]12th August 2015[/editline]
[url]http://conventions.cps.neu.edu/nominations-conventions/current-practices/iowa-and-new-hampshire/[/url]
it's better explained here, just look up New Hampshire Primary on google and take a good read, us and Iowa are like essential to candidates, especially ones like Sanders who really need to rely on the -people- and not other politicians/companies to drive their campaigns
It's still almost a year until the primaries though, and Hillary hasn't even really started her campaign yet.
I expect things to turn dramatically once she fires up her campaign.
Good news so far. Gonna be intrigued with how his support works out in bigger states, especially in the south. Kinda worried that the southern states alone might be against him do to his "socialist" stance.
I have already made my mind up, I'm planning on voting for him as a Democrat candidate when it comes to NoDak. I'd rather sit in a chamber full of tear gas for the rest of my damn life then deal with Hillary Clinton.
From what I've heard from Sanders, I really hope he manages to get the Democratic nomination. His beliefs have been clear, genuine and consistent throughout his entire political life, and he clearly puts a lot of thought into how they affect the people. Compared to the typical politician, I'd like to believe that someone like him is still capable of becoming President.
Very important to note that Iowa and New Hampshire are some of the most demographically advantageous states for Sanders - i.e. they're full of white liberal Democrats. Him doing well there doesn't necessarily translate to him doing so well across the country. In fact if he wasn't doing well there it would basically be game over for him
[url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/[/url]
[editline]13th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;48448577]It's still almost a year until the primaries though, and Hillary hasn't even really started her campaign yet.
I expect things to turn dramatically once she fires up her campaign.[/QUOTE]
Almost a year? It's five months
if bernie wins, 2020 will be exciting times for both the UK and the US
Bernie is the best out of all of them.
[QUOTE=redBadger;48446663]New Hampshire is a small state. Let me know when its Texas or Florida or California.[/QUOTE]
That isn't how elections work. Texas and California are two of the most useless states in an election, despite their population.
Thankfully he's gaining support even more and more. Maybe dreams do come true :)
Once people learn of Bernies positions and record they support him. People know that Hilary is the corporate candidate but they think she's the only realistic "left" option.
Hilary can't win back people who support Bernie so she has to prevent people from even knowing about him to maintain her lead. She's probably lost this state forever.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;48449356]That isn't how elections work. Texas and California are two of the most useless states in an election, despite their population.[/QUOTE]
Texas, California, and Florida are the most important states in elections because they carry such large electoral votes. They're called swing states for a reason.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48450665]Texas, California, and Florida are the most important states in elections because they carry such large electoral votes. They're called swing states for a reason.[/QUOTE]
California and Texas are not swing states wtf
Hopefully he'll get nominated cuz then no one will vote for a socialist and then the Republicans will win.:hammered:
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48450665]Texas, California, and Florida are the most important states in elections because they carry such large electoral votes. They're called swing states for a reason.[/QUOTE]
Neither Texas or California are swing states.
California and Texas are like the free space on a bingo card.
These states may not matter for the general election, but primary elections are a bit different.
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election#Presidential_primaries"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election#Presidential_primaries[/URL]
[QUOTE=smurfy;48449012]
Almost a year? It's five months[/QUOTE]
Then my sources seem to have been fucked up.
Good thing it's in 5 months though, I really want to know how it turns out and the wait is killing me :v:
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;48446803]uhh you do know NH is like the most important state for campaigners early on right
if you dont get positive support from here and like the next few states that get their primaries, your chances of winning the nomination are pretty much down the drain unless you're a magic man
[editline]12th August 2015[/editline]
[url]http://conventions.cps.neu.edu/nominations-conventions/current-practices/iowa-and-new-hampshire/[/url]
it's better explained here, just look up New Hampshire Primary on google and take a good read, us and Iowa are like essential to candidates, especially ones like Sanders who really need to rely on the -people- and not other politicians/companies to drive their campaigns[/QUOTE]
Heheh, wasn't there a bit of "competition" between NH/Iowa and a couple other states over who got to hold the earliest primaries?
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;48450665]Texas, California, and Florida are the most important states in elections because they carry such large electoral votes. They're called swing states for a reason.[/QUOTE]
California and Texas are two of the most worthless states because they give up most of their electoral votes to smaller states like New Hampshire, which is a swing state.
California has 10 less electoral votes than it should for it's population, which is the reason it's mostly ignored by candidates.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;48457009]California and Texas are two of the most worthless states because they give up most of their electoral votes to smaller states like New Hampshire, which is a swing state.
California has 10 less electoral votes than it should for it's population, which is the reason it's mostly ignored by candidates.[/QUOTE]
That and its so jerrymanderd that it rarely ever swings away from Democrat.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48462386]That and its so jerrymanderd that it rarely ever swings away from Democrat.[/QUOTE]
I thought the electoral college votes were done on an at-large 'winner takes all' basis? As in the entire state is a single electorate, and all the electors pledge to vote for whichever candidate has the most support?
Which is why campaigning in states like California or Texas for Presidential elections is kinda useless considering California is a safe liberal state and Texas (outside of Dallas) is a safe conservative state.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48462557]
Which is why campaigning in states like California or Texas for Presidential elections is kinda useless considering California is a safe liberal state and Texas (outside of Dallas) is a safe conservative state.[/QUOTE]
I think it's a different story when it comes to primaries. California is pretty much guaranteed to be go Democrat, so it's pointless to campaign there once the party representatives are chosen. However I would large states like California and Texas matter when it comes to choosing who the representative is.
There's no doubt California will vote democrat, but which democrat?
[editline]14th August 2015[/editline]
I don't actually know what I'm talking about. It just seems like logical thinking though
[QUOTE=GhetoGeek;48462620]I think it's a different story when it comes to primaries. California is pretty much guaranteed to be go Democrat, so it's pointless to campaign there once the party representatives are chosen. However I would large states like California and Texas matter when it comes to choosing who the representative is.
There's no doubt California will vote democrat, but which democrat?
[editline]14th August 2015[/editline]
I don't actually know what I'm talking about. It just seems like logical thinking though[/QUOTE]
California and Texas are late in the primaries, candidates carry with them momentum from earlier primaries. It's why people are wrong to assume that Bernie has got this one in the bag. Hillary is not going to let New Hampshire go so easily. I assume she's waiting until right before the primaries so she is fresh in everyones' minds, or at least Facepunchers aren't posting news about her campaigns.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48462557]I thought the electoral college votes were done on an at-large 'winner takes all' basis? As in the entire state is a single electorate, and all the electors pledge to vote for whichever candidate has the most support?
Which is why campaigning in states like California or Texas for Presidential elections is kinda useless considering California is a safe liberal state and Texas (outside of Dallas) is a safe conservative state.[/QUOTE]
You should really read the Bush V Gore Supreme Court Case.
The entire shithole of a case was because of gerrymandering and voting fraud.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48462771]You should really read the Bush V Gore Supreme Court Case.
The entire shithole of a case was because of gerrymandering and voting fraud.[/QUOTE]
Bush v Gore had nothing to do with gerrymandering. I suggest you inform yourself on what gerrymandering actually is. Bush v Gore from what I know was about different counties in Florida applying different vote counting procedures. Gerrymandering is not relevant in the slightest to Presidential elections. At the federal level it's only relevant for House of Representatives elections.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.