web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > new hampshire

New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving

Westlake Legal Group 12turnout-facebookJumbo New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving Voting and Voters Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Party

In Iowa last week, Democrats looking anxiously for a surge in caucus turnout — higher, some expected, than the record set in 2008 — were dismayed when the numbers barely even exceeded the much lower bar set in 2016.

New Hampshire gave them better news. But it still wasn’t really what they were hoping for.

The final precinct in New Hampshire reported its results Wednesday, bringing the total count of Democratic ballots to 296,622. That is substantially higher than in 2016, when turnout was 250,983. But taking into account the state’s growing voting-age population, it was pretty much on par with the turnout in the past two cycles in which only one party had a competitive primary — a more apt comparison.

Those cycles were 2012 (when Republicans had a competitive primary but Democrats had an incumbent) and 2004 (vice versa). Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, calculated before the primary that if turnout rates were similar this time, Democrats could expect 295,000 to 300,000 voters to turn out.

The final number was right in that range. “Not blockbuster, not below average, but just about normal,” Dr. Scala said.

Some Democrats have cited an exciting-sounding statistic: Turnout broke the record set in 2008, when 287,542 people voted in the Democratic primary. This is noteworthy, but it is mostly attributable to the fact that there are more eligible voters in New Hampshire now than there were in 2008. The percentage of eligible voters who participated did not change much.

Also, because unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries in New Hampshire, it is tricky to compare cycles in which both parties have competitive races — meaning unaffiliated voters have to choose between two serious contests — with cycles in which one party has an incumbent whose renomination is a foregone conclusion.

This did not mean that breaking the 2008 record was insignificant — “a lot of people did come out to vote,” said Mia Costa, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies electoral participation, “and there was a possibility that that wasn’t going to be the case, because that’s not what we saw in the last primary here” — but the numbers did not indicate unusual enthusiasm among Democrats.

The most interesting signals can be found in the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who won the primary by about 3,900 votes over former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was buoyed by very strong support among young voters. Exit polls show that Mr. Sanders overwhelmingly won voters under 40, while voters over 40 were split between Mr. Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and that dynamic might have been decisive, Dr. Costa said.

But the results do not appear to support one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest arguments for his “electability”: that he will bring a slew of first-time voters, formerly disaffected, into the fold.

That theory would call for turnout to be high over all, and especially high in the places Mr. Sanders did best. Dave Wasserman, an editor at the Cook Political Report, estimated on Wednesday that the largest increases in turnout, in comparison to 2016, had actually come in the places Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar did best.

Dr. Scala said: “One would think that if Sanders’s theory was right, turnout would be above the norm, and what I’m saying is it looks pretty normal to me. To hear Sanders tell it, there’s going to be this tidal wave of new voters. I don’t see it.”

Across the aisle, more than 150,000 voters — 151,602, to be precise — turned out for the Republican primary even though its outcome was never in doubt. That is extremely high for a noncompetitive primary. By comparison, about 54,000 people voted in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012, and about 57,000 voted in the Republican primary in 2004.

Democrats, desperate to beat President Trump, have been trying to read the tea leaves of primary turnout for signs of a blue wave in November. But while trends in the primaries may be suggestive of trends in the general election, it is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions.

“I don’t think it would be inaccurate to say that this is a really important election for a lot of people, and people are going to be more fired up now than in other elections,” Dr. Costa said. “But it’s an unknowable question.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Centrist Democrats Want to Stop Sanders. They’re Not Sure Who Can.

Westlake Legal Group merlin_168828456_b30ab22b-a246-4e89-97a8-229cc19550bc-facebookJumbo Centrist Democrats Want to Stop Sanders. They’re Not Sure Who Can. Warren, Elizabeth south carolina Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Nevada Klobuchar, Amy Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr

MANCHESTER, N.H. — The Democratic presidential primary is entering an intensely tumultuous phase, after two early contests that have left former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. reeling and elevated Senator Bernie Sanders but failed to make any candidate a dominant force in the battle for the party’s nomination.

Within the Democratic establishment, the results have deepened a mood of anxiety and frustration: The collapse of Mr. Biden’s support in the first two states, and the fragmentation of moderate voters among several other candidates, allowed Mr. Sanders, a Vermont progressive, to claim a victory in New Hampshire and a split decision in Iowa with former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.

In both states, a majority of voters supported candidates closer to the political center and named defeating President Trump as their top priority, but there was no overwhelming favorite among those voters as to which moderate was the best alternative to Mr. Sanders. Unless such a favorite soon emerges, party leaders may increasingly look to Michael R. Bloomberg as a potential savior.

In an unmistakable sign of Mr. Bloomberg’s growing strength and Mr. Biden’s decline, three black members of Congress endorsed the former mayor of New York City on Wednesday, including Representative Lucy McBath of Georgia, a high-profile lawmaker and gun-control champion in her first term — and a senior adviser to Mr. Bloomberg told campaign staff that internal polling showed the former mayor now tied with Mr. Biden among African-Americans in March primary states.

The turmoil in the party has the potential to extend the primary season, exacerbating internal divisions and putting off the headache of uniting for the general election for months.

The Democrats’ proportional system of allocating delegates could make it all but impossible to avert such an outcome. With no winner-take-all contests, and no indication yet that Mr. Sanders can broaden his appeal or that a moderate can coalesce support, the candidates are poised to keep splitting delegates three or four ways, as they did in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“We are obviously going to have a longer battle here,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who directed an anti-Sanders ad campaign in Iowa.

The leading candidates are plainly worried about the party’s divisions, and signaled as much in their speeches in New Hampshire on primary night: Mr. Sanders, blamed by much of the party for his slashing approach to the 2016 primaries, stressed in his victory speech that the most important task was defeating Mr. Trump, while Mr. Buttigieg urged his supporters to “vote blue, no matter who” in November.

In a particularly urgent plea, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who slumped to a fourth-place finish on Tuesday, warned that no candidate should be “willing to burn down the rest of the party in order to be the last man standing.”

At the moment, no one is close to being the last candidate standing. But unless another Democrat rapidly consolidates support, Mr. Sanders could continue to win primaries and caucuses without broadening his political appeal, purely on the strength of his rock-solid base on the left — a prospect that alarms Democratic Party leaders who view Mr. Sanders and his slogan of democratic socialism as wildly risky bets in a general election.

The Biden team stoked that sense of alarm on Wednesday: Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, a co-chairman of Mr. Biden’s national campaign and a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, warned on a conference call with reporters that Democrats would risk “down-ballot carnage” if they selected Mr. Sanders.

“If Bernie Sanders was at the top of the ticket, we would be in jeopardy of losing the House,” Mr. Richmond said. “We would not get the Senate back.”

Yet in a reflection of the multidimensional melee that allowed Mr. Sanders to claim victory in New Hampshire with the smallest plurality of any winner in decades, Mr. Richmond also criticized two other candidates, Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Buttigieg, lumping them into the same risky group and arguing that Democrats should not “take a chance with a self-defined socialist, a mayor of a very small city, a billionaire who all of a sudden is a Democrat.”

Mr. Mellman said Mr. Sanders would continue to benefit as long as there was a relative abundance of moderate candidates in the race. “The longer more of those people stay in,” he said, “the easier it is for Sanders to skate through.”

There is no sign that any of the half-dozen major candidates left in the race are headed for the exits: Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Biden will have to contend in the Nevada caucuses against Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who finished a strong third in New Hampshire, while on the left Mr. Sanders still faces a dogged competitor in Ms. Warren. Unless one candidate comes out of Nevada and South Carolina with a powerful upper hand, it is quite likely that the same atomized delegate count could continue into Super Tuesday, when 15 states and territories, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all delegates in the Democratic race, cast ballots on March 3.

Indeed, with early voting already taking place in California and other Super Tuesday states, and no dominant front-runner, the fragmentation may already be well underway.

In Arkansas, a Super Tuesday state where early voting starts next week, a poll taken after Iowa illustrated the Democrats’ dilemma: Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg were each winning 16 to 20 percent of the vote.

All of those candidates are increasingly confronting Mr. Bloomberg’s presence as a rival in the March primaries. Mr. Bloomberg skipped all four February contests but has climbed into double digits in national polls on the strength of an enormous and sustained advertising campaign, funded from his personal fortune.

On a conference call with campaign staff members on Wednesday afternoon, Howard Wolfson, Mr. Bloomberg’s senior adviser, said that internal tracking data showed that the former mayor had pulled “very narrowly” into first place across the March primary states, inching ahead of Mr. Sanders over all and tying Mr. Biden among African-American voters.

Though Mr. Wolfson did not provide specific numbers, he said Mr. Biden had “rather precipitously fallen” in the larger array of states voting next month, according to Bloomberg polling.

But Mr. Bloomberg is facing new tests as a candidate: For the first time, he may qualify for a televised debate, next week in Las Vegas, and he has come under newly direct criticism from other Democrats for his record on policing and much else.

Mr. Wolfson acknowledged as much on the conference call, telling staff members that Mr. Bloomberg would have a “bigger target on his back” as his numbers rose. He said Mr. Bloomberg would address scrutiny of his support for stop-and-frisk policing by calling it “the biggest regret of his 12 years as mayor,” and saying that the language he had used in the past to defend it did not “reflect who he is or what is in his heart.”

But the recently circulated audio recording of Mr. Bloomberg in 2015 matter-of-factly stating that “the real crime is” almost always committed by young “male minorities” quickly ricocheted across the tight-knit community of black political leaders.

J. Todd Rutherford, the minority leader of the South Carolina House, said many African-Americans had increasingly recognized that Mr. Biden did not have “what it takes” and had been ready to bolt to the former New York mayor.

“A lot of people would’ve said Bloomberg last week, but now I don’t know,” said Mr. Rutherford, alluding to the recording and declaring that the gnawing uncertainty hanging over the Democratic race was “really scary.”

Mr. Biden and other candidates have indicated that they intend to challenge Mr. Bloomberg on race in the coming days, and his resiliency, or lack thereof, on the subject could shape the primary campaign.

Yet even supporters of Mr. Biden acknowledge that if one of the moderates doesn’t take a clear lead with that faction of the party after Nevada, the eyes of many establishment-aligned Democrats will turn to Manhattan.

“The longer the waters are muddy, the better off Bloomberg is,” said former Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina, who recently backed Mr. Biden.

The campaign in Nevada is as disordered as anything else in the Democratic race, according to people closely watching the contest there. But as in New Hampshire, Mr. Biden long held a considerable advantage as the candidate perceived as the safe and electable choice, while Mr. Sanders entered the race with a strong bloc carried over from his last run for the presidency. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Biden will bleed support there as rapidly as he did in New Hampshire, or whether any other candidate will be able to take advantage of his fall.

Tick Segerblom, a prominent Sanders backer in the state who is a member of the Clark County Commission, said Mr. Biden’s national plunge would upend the campaign in Nevada. He said that Mr. Sanders could count his “25 percent,” but that his ability to expand his coalition was an open question.

“Bernie is still alive and Biden is definitely a disaster,” Mr. Segerblom said. “I think Pete is going to do very well — he’ll be able to pick up the Biden people.”

Representative Dina Titus, perhaps the most prominent Biden supporter in the state, said the campaign needed to send in the political cavalry to stave off defeat.

“He could certainly use more hands — and they’re supposedly coming now,” she said.

She added that she would spend her time helping Mr. Biden with senior groups and labor unions. But the former vice president’s hope that the most influential union in the state, the Culinary Workers, would endorse him in an effort to halt Mr. Sanders has been dimmed after his poor performance in the first two states.

In South Carolina, even moderate Democrats who are sympathetic to Mr. Biden believe he’s in grave danger of losing the state.

“He’s wounded,” Tyler Jones, a Charleston-based Democratic strategist, said of the former vice president. Like other political professionals in the state, Mr. Jones is increasingly less concerned about Mr. Biden’s weakness than about the billionaire Tom Steyer’s strength — and what it means for the nominating process.

Mr. Steyer has been pouring money into South Carolina, cutting into Mr. Biden’s lead with black voters and raising the specter of Mr. Sanders’s winning another state with a plurality thanks to a divided electorate.

“A vote for Steyer is a vote for Bernie, which is a vote for Trump,” said Mr. Jones, who believes Mr. Sanders cannot win the general election and wants to stop his campaign “dead in its tracks.” But he acknowledged that urging voters to act strategically and reject Mr. Steyer was easier in theory than in execution.

Other Democrats are turning to what they believe is a more simple solution.

In early January, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York offered an off-the-cuff assessment of the Democratic race: Should Mr. Biden wheeze in the early states, many in the party would turn to Mr. Bloomberg as a Plan B.

“If Mr. Biden can’t get out of New Hampshire and Iowa, then Bloomberg has Super Tuesday,” Mr. Meeks said at the time.

On Wednesday, he was one of the three black lawmakers who endorsed Mr. Bloomberg.

Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving

Westlake Legal Group 12turnout-facebookJumbo New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving Voting and Voters Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Party

In Iowa last week, Democrats looking anxiously for a surge in caucus turnout — higher, some expected, than the record set in 2008 — were dismayed when the numbers barely even exceeded the much lower bar set in 2016.

New Hampshire gave them better news. But it still wasn’t really what they were hoping for.

The final precinct in New Hampshire reported its results Wednesday, bringing the total count of Democratic ballots to 296,622. That is substantially higher than in 2016, when turnout was 250,983. But taking into account the state’s growing voting-age population, it was pretty much on par with the turnout in the past two cycles in which only one party had a competitive primary — a more apt comparison.

Those cycles were 2012 (when Republicans had a competitive primary but Democrats had an incumbent) and 2004 (vice versa). Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, calculated before the primary that if turnout rates were similar this time, Democrats could expect 295,000 to 300,000 voters to turn out.

The final number was right in that range. “Not blockbuster, not below average, but just about normal,” Dr. Scala said.

Some Democrats have cited an exciting-sounding statistic: Turnout broke the record set in 2008, when 287,542 people voted in the Democratic primary. This is noteworthy, but it is mostly attributable to the fact that there are more eligible voters in New Hampshire now than there were in 2008. The percentage of eligible voters who participated did not change much.

Also, because unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries in New Hampshire, it is tricky to compare cycles in which both parties have competitive races — meaning unaffiliated voters have to choose between two serious contests — with cycles in which one party has an incumbent whose renomination is a foregone conclusion.

This did not mean that breaking the 2008 record was insignificant — “a lot of people did come out to vote,” said Mia Costa, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies electoral participation, “and there was a possibility that that wasn’t going to be the case, because that’s not what we saw in the last primary here” — but the numbers did not indicate unusual enthusiasm among Democrats.

The most interesting signals can be found in the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who won the primary by about 3,900 votes over former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was buoyed by very strong support among young voters. Exit polls show that Mr. Sanders overwhelmingly won voters under 40, while voters over 40 were split between Mr. Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and that dynamic might have been decisive, Dr. Costa said.

But the results do not appear to support one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest arguments for his “electability”: that he will bring a slew of first-time voters, formerly disaffected, into the fold.

That theory would call for turnout to be high over all, and especially high in the places Mr. Sanders did best. Dave Wasserman, an editor at the Cook Political Report, estimated on Wednesday that the largest increases in turnout, in comparison to 2016, had actually come in the places Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar did best.

Dr. Scala said: “One would think that if Sanders’s theory was right, turnout would be above the norm, and what I’m saying is it looks pretty normal to me. To hear Sanders tell it, there’s going to be this tidal wave of new voters. I don’t see it.”

Across the aisle, more than 150,000 voters — 151,602, to be precise — turned out for the Republican primary even though its outcome was never in doubt. That is extremely high for a noncompetitive primary. By comparison, about 54,000 people voted in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012, and about 57,000 voted in the Republican primary in 2004.

Democrats, desperate to beat President Trump, have been trying to read the tea leaves of primary turnout for signs of a blue wave in November. But while trends in the primaries may be suggestive of trends in the general election, it is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions.

“I don’t think it would be inaccurate to say that this is a really important election for a lot of people, and people are going to be more fired up now than in other elections,” Dr. Costa said. “But it’s an unknowable question.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving

Westlake Legal Group 12turnout-facebookJumbo New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving Voting and Voters Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Party

In Iowa last week, Democrats looking anxiously for a surge in caucus turnout — higher, some expected, than the record set in 2008 — were dismayed when the numbers barely even exceeded the much lower bar set in 2016.

New Hampshire gave them better news. But it still wasn’t really what they were hoping for.

The final precinct in New Hampshire reported its results Wednesday, bringing the total count of Democratic ballots to 296,622. That is substantially higher than in 2016, when turnout was 250,983. But taking into account the state’s growing voting-age population, it was pretty much on par with the turnout in the past two cycles in which only one party had a competitive primary — a more apt comparison.

Those cycles were 2012 (when Republicans had a competitive primary but Democrats had an incumbent) and 2004 (vice versa). Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, calculated before the primary that if turnout rates were similar this time, Democrats could expect 295,000 to 300,000 voters to turn out.

The final number was right in that range. “Not blockbuster, not below average, but just about normal,” Dr. Scala said.

Some Democrats have cited an exciting-sounding statistic: Turnout broke the record set in 2008, when 287,542 people voted in the Democratic primary. This is noteworthy, but it is mostly attributable to the fact that there are more eligible voters in New Hampshire now than there were in 2008. The percentage of eligible voters who participated did not change much.

Also, because unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries in New Hampshire, it is tricky to compare cycles in which both parties have competitive races — meaning unaffiliated voters have to choose between two serious contests — with cycles in which one party has an incumbent whose renomination is a foregone conclusion.

This did not mean that breaking the 2008 record was insignificant — “a lot of people did come out to vote,” said Mia Costa, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies electoral participation, “and there was a possibility that that wasn’t going to be the case, because that’s not what we saw in the last primary here” — but the numbers did not indicate unusual enthusiasm among Democrats.

The most interesting signals can be found in the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who won the primary by about 3,900 votes over former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was buoyed by very strong support among young voters. Exit polls show that Mr. Sanders overwhelmingly won voters under 40, while voters over 40 were split between Mr. Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and that dynamic might have been decisive, Dr. Costa said.

But the results do not appear to support one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest arguments for his “electability”: that he will bring a slew of first-time voters, formerly disaffected, into the fold.

That theory would call for turnout to be high over all, and especially high in the places Mr. Sanders did best. Dave Wasserman, an editor at the Cook Political Report, estimated on Wednesday that the largest increases in turnout, in comparison to 2016, had actually come in the places Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar did best.

Dr. Scala said: “One would think that if Sanders’s theory was right, turnout would be above the norm, and what I’m saying is it looks pretty normal to me. To hear Sanders tell it, there’s going to be this tidal wave of new voters. I don’t see it.”

Across the aisle, more than 150,000 voters — 151,602, to be precise — turned out for the Republican primary even though its outcome was never in doubt. That is extremely high for a noncompetitive primary. By comparison, about 54,000 people voted in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012, and about 57,000 voted in the Republican primary in 2004.

Democrats, desperate to beat President Trump, have been trying to read the tea leaves of primary turnout for signs of a blue wave in November. But while trends in the primaries may be suggestive of trends in the general election, it is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions.

“I don’t think it would be inaccurate to say that this is a really important election for a lot of people, and people are going to be more fired up now than in other elections,” Dr. Costa said. “But it’s an unknowable question.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving

Westlake Legal Group 12turnout-facebookJumbo New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving Voting and Voters Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Party

In Iowa last week, Democrats looking anxiously for a surge in caucus turnout — higher, some expected, than the record set in 2008 — were dismayed when the numbers barely even exceeded the much lower bar set in 2016.

New Hampshire gave them better news. But it still wasn’t really what they were hoping for.

The final precinct in New Hampshire reported its results Wednesday, bringing the total count of Democratic ballots to 296,622. That is substantially higher than in 2016, when turnout was 250,983. But taking into account the state’s growing voting-age population, it was pretty much on par with the turnout in the past two cycles in which only one party had a competitive primary — a more apt comparison.

Those cycles were 2012 (when Republicans had a competitive primary but Democrats had an incumbent) and 2004 (vice versa). Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, calculated before the primary that if turnout rates were similar this time, Democrats could expect 295,000 to 300,000 voters to turn out.

The final number was right in that range. “Not blockbuster, not below average, but just about normal,” Dr. Scala said.

Some Democrats have cited an exciting-sounding statistic: Turnout broke the record set in 2008, when 287,542 people voted in the Democratic primary. This is noteworthy, but it is mostly attributable to the fact that there are more eligible voters in New Hampshire now than there were in 2008. The percentage of eligible voters who participated did not change much.

Also, because unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries in New Hampshire, it is tricky to compare cycles in which both parties have competitive races — meaning unaffiliated voters have to choose between two serious contests — with cycles in which one party has an incumbent whose renomination is a foregone conclusion.

This did not mean that breaking the 2008 record was insignificant — “a lot of people did come out to vote,” said Mia Costa, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies electoral participation, “and there was a possibility that that wasn’t going to be the case, because that’s not what we saw in the last primary here” — but the numbers did not indicate unusual enthusiasm among Democrats.

The most interesting signals can be found in the demographic breakdown of the electorate.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who won the primary by about 3,900 votes over former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was buoyed by very strong support among young voters. Exit polls show that Mr. Sanders overwhelmingly won voters under 40, while voters over 40 were split between Mr. Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and that dynamic might have been decisive, Dr. Costa said.

But the results do not appear to support one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest arguments for his “electability”: that he will bring a slew of first-time voters, formerly disaffected, into the fold.

That theory would call for turnout to be high over all, and especially high in the places Mr. Sanders did best. Dave Wasserman, an editor at the Cook Political Report, estimated on Wednesday that the largest increases in turnout, in comparison to 2016, had actually come in the places Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar did best.

Dr. Scala said: “One would think that if Sanders’s theory was right, turnout would be above the norm, and what I’m saying is it looks pretty normal to me. To hear Sanders tell it, there’s going to be this tidal wave of new voters. I don’t see it.”

Across the aisle, more than 150,000 voters — 151,602, to be precise — turned out for the Republican primary even though its outcome was never in doubt. That is extremely high for a noncompetitive primary. By comparison, about 54,000 people voted in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012, and about 57,000 voted in the Republican primary in 2004.

Democrats, desperate to beat President Trump, have been trying to read the tea leaves of primary turnout for signs of a blue wave in November. But while trends in the primaries may be suggestive of trends in the general election, it is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions.

“I don’t think it would be inaccurate to say that this is a really important election for a lot of people, and people are going to be more fired up now than in other elections,” Dr. Costa said. “But it’s an unknowable question.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Wall St. Giant Says Sanders Would ‘Ruin’ the Economy

Westlake Legal Group 12blankfein-1-facebookJumbo A Wall St. Giant Says Sanders Would ‘Ruin’ the Economy Warren, Elizabeth Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire High Net Worth Individuals Goldman Sachs Group Inc Democratic Party Blankfein, Lloyd C

Bernie Sanders has proposed a wealth tax on the richest Americans, criticized big businesses for turning huge profits while paying little in taxes and said he believed billionaires should not exist.

His win in Tuesday’s Democratic primary in New Hampshire has made plausible what Wall Street has for months considered a worst-case scenario: the inauguration of President Sanders.

An avowed socialist whose plans include disemboweling the private health care system and cracking down on lending and other banking activities, Mr. Sanders is considered by many traders, investors and bankers to be the only candidate less desirable than the widely loathed Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Late Tuesday, as Mr. Sanders was pulling out a close win in New Hampshire, Lloyd Blankfein, the former Goldman Sachs chief executive, wrote on Twitter that the Vermont senator would “ruin our economy” if elected president.

He succinctly summed up Wall Street’s feelings, calling Mr. Sanders just as polarizing as President Trump, while being worse for the country. “If I’m Russian, I go with Sanders this time around,” he wrote.

The post quickly attracted thousands of comments from Mr. Sanders’s supporters — some of whom invoked Goldman’s position at the center of the 2008 financial crisis.

“This is what panic from the Wall Street elite looks and sounds like,” Faiz Shakir, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, responded in a tweet on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Blankfein, who once said that he was looking forward to “unrestrained tweeting” in retirement, did not respond to messages seeking comment on Tuesday. But his tweet — his latest tussle with a progressive candidate from his own party — was read by many as a direct manifestation of big money’s growing unease with the self-described democratic socialist.

Others on Wednesday brushed off Mr. Sanders’s victory, saying he would be an untenable nominee in a race against Mr. Trump, one that could make people do the unthinkable: vote to re-elect the president.

Mike Novogratz, a Goldman Sachs alumnus who runs the merchant bank Galaxy Digital, said Mr. Sanders’s oppositional nature had prompted “too many friends” to say they would vote against him in November. “And they hate Trump,” he said.

Mr. Sanders’s narrow victory in New Hampshire has helped position him as the candidate with the most enthusiasm from the party’s most liberal wing. Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., who finished just behind him, and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who surged to third, split the centrist vote on Tuesday.

Mr. Sanders’s surge has come at the expense of Ms. Warren, who some on Wall Street have warmed to. Ms. Warren, a self-described capitalist who says she wants to work within the system to affect change, appears to many to be more malleable: In recent months, she has already walked back aspects of her “Medicare for all” plan, a universal health care initiative similar to Mr. Sanders’s. She also has a history as a onetime Republican who wrote scholarly research on bankruptcy law as a professor and adviser to big corporate clients.

But either candidate would represent a stark reversal from Mr. Trump’s economic agenda, which has been centered on cutting taxes and rolling back regulations. Perhaps as a result of that, their campaign contributions from finance-industry workers have fallen well short of more moderate peers, like Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar, according to year-end figures collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Last year, Mr. Sanders proposed the creation of a wealth tax on the richest Americans to help pay for his own “Medicare for all” health program, universal child care and an overhaul to the housing market that would include big subsidies for first-time home buyers. The proposed tax on the assets of households with a net worth above $32 million — about 180,000 households in total — is projected to raise $4.35 trillion over a decade.

He pairs those proposals with a combative tone.

Frustrated over what he views as an “outrageous” degree of inequality in the United States, Mr. Sanders has said billionaires should no longer exist here. And a recent Sanders campaign ad took particular aim at Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, calling him “the biggest corporate socialist in America today,” an overpaid executive who embraces a brand of socialism “that has eroded our society.”

Vin Ryan, founder of the venture-capital firm Schooner Capital and a supporter of Ms. Warren’s, said he believed Mr. Sanders’s unrelenting approach would hurt his chances against Mr. Trump.

“Bernie Sanders, I think, is a lightning rod,” Mr. Ryan said. “And he’s going to be killed with the socialism by the Republicans.”

As much as many independent voters don’t like Mr. Trump, he said, they could be motivated to vote for him anyway by “pocketbook issues” and the relatively healthy economy that has marked his first term.

That has some in finance expecting that a general election involving Mr. Sanders would result in the president’s largely pro-business policies extending for four more years.

“The lack of any stock market reaction to Sanders’s surge suggests that investors either still don’t believe he can win the Democratic nomination against the more centrist candidates or, alternatively, that Sanders will win the nomination but, in doing so, his lack of appeal to independents makes it even more likely that Trump will be re-elected,” Andrew Hunter, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note to clients.

That could change, however, if Mr. Sanders shows signs of having a broader appeal as the primary season continues.

“If Sanders is the Democratic nominee and polls show a reasonable chance of him winning the election, then we expect a sharp market sell-off, especially for financials,” said Brian Gardner, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. “Part of the reason is that investors have discounted Senator Sanders’s chances. At some point investors might reassess this scenario and it is not, in our view, priced into the market.”

Mr. Blankfein, who left the top job at Goldman Sachs in 2018 after a 12-year tenure, has sparred with Mr. Sanders before, including over corporate stock buybacks, which Mr. Sanders wanted to limit.

The antagonism goes back years: In 2012, Mr. Sanders targeted Mr. Blankfein in a speech from the Senate floor, labeling him the “face of class warfare” for supporting cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Blankfein, a registered Democrat, supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and has donated to Republicans in the past. At a CNN conference in October, he said he did not see himself reflected in the current party.

But as unloved as Mr. Sanders currently is in the finance industry, not everyone agreed with everything the former Goldman boss had to say.

Mr. Ryan, the Schooner Capital founder, said he didn’t think Mr. Blankfein’s suggestion of Russian favoritism — tongue-in-cheek as it was — invoked the right issue.

That notion is “nuts,” Mr. Ryan said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Alarmed by Sanders, Moderate Democrats Can’t Agree on an Alternative

Westlake Legal Group merlin_168828456_b30ab22b-a246-4e89-97a8-229cc19550bc-facebookJumbo Alarmed by Sanders, Moderate Democrats Can’t Agree on an Alternative Warren, Elizabeth south carolina Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Nevada Klobuchar, Amy Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Bloomberg, Michael R Biden, Joseph R Jr

MANCHESTER, N.H. — The Democratic presidential primary is entering an intensely tumultuous phase, after two early contests that have left former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. reeling and elevated Senator Bernie Sanders but failed to make any candidate a dominant force in the battle for the party’s nomination.

Within the Democratic establishment, the results have deepened a mood of anxiety and frustration: The collapse of Mr. Biden’s support in the first two states, and the fragmentation of moderate voters among several other candidates, allowed Mr. Sanders, a Vermont progressive, to claim a victory in New Hampshire and a split decision in Iowa with former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.

In both states, a majority of voters supported candidates closer to the political center and named defeating President Trump as their top priority, but there was no overwhelming favorite among those voters as to which moderate was the best alternative to Mr. Sanders. Unless such a favorite soon emerges, party leaders may increasingly look to Michael R. Bloomberg as a potential savior.

In an unmistakable sign of Mr. Bloomberg’s growing strength and Mr. Biden’s decline, three black members of Congress endorsed the former mayor of New York City on Wednesday, including Representative Lucy McBath of Georgia, a high-profile lawmaker and gun-control champion in her first term — and a senior adviser to Mr. Bloomberg told campaign staff that internal polling showed the former mayor now tied with Mr. Biden among African-Americans in March primary states.

The turmoil in the party has the potential to extend the primary season, exacerbating internal divisions and putting off the headache of uniting for the general election for months.

The Democrats’ proportional system of allocating delegates could make it all but impossible to avert such an outcome. With no winner-take-all contests, and no indication yet that Mr. Sanders can broaden his appeal or that a moderate can coalesce support, the candidates are poised to keep splitting delegates three or four ways, as they did in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“We are obviously going to have a longer battle here,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster who directed an anti-Sanders ad campaign in Iowa.

The leading candidates are plainly worried about the party’s divisions, and signaled as much in their speeches in New Hampshire on primary night: Mr. Sanders, blamed by much of the party for his slashing approach to the 2016 primaries, stressed in his victory speech that the most important task was defeating Mr. Trump, while Mr. Buttigieg urged his supporters to “vote blue, no matter who” in November.

In a particularly urgent plea, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who slumped to a fourth-place finish on Tuesday, warned that no candidate should be “willing to burn down the rest of the party in order to be the last man standing.”

At the moment, no one is close to being the last candidate standing. But unless another Democrat rapidly consolidates support, Mr. Sanders could continue to win primaries and caucuses without broadening his political appeal, purely on the strength of his rock-solid base on the left — a prospect that alarms Democratic Party leaders who view Mr. Sanders and his slogan of democratic socialism as wildly risky bets in a general election.

The Biden team stoked that sense of alarm on Wednesday: Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, a chairman of Mr. Biden’s national campaign and a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, warned on a conference call with reporters that Democrats would risk “down-ballot carnage” if they selected Mr. Sanders.

“If Bernie Sanders was at the top of the ticket, we would be in jeopardy of losing the House,” Mr. Richmond said. “We would not get the Senate back.”

Yet in a reflection of the multidimensional melee that allowed Mr. Sanders to claim victory in New Hampshire with the smallest plurality of any winner in decades, Mr. Richmond also criticized two other candidates, Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Buttigieg, lumping them into the same risky group and arguing that Democrats should not “take a chance with a self-defined socialist, a mayor of a very small city, a billionaire who all of a sudden is a Democrat.”

Mr. Mellman said Mr. Sanders would continue to benefit as long as there was a relative abundance of moderate candidates in the race. “The longer more of those people stay in,” he said, “the easier it is for Sanders to skate through.”

There is no sign that any of the half-dozen major candidates left in the race are headed for the exits: Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Biden will have to contend in the Nevada caucuses against Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who finished a strong third in New Hampshire, while on the left Mr. Sanders still faces a dogged competitor in Ms. Warren. Unless one candidate comes out of Nevada and South Carolina with a powerful upper hand, it is quite likely that the same atomized delegate count could continue into Super Tuesday, when 15 states and territories, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all delegates in the Democratic race, cast ballots on March 3.

Indeed, with early voting already taking place in California and other Super Tuesday states, and no dominant front-runner, the fragmentation may already be well underway.

In Arkansas, a Super Tuesday state where early voting starts next week, a poll taken after Iowa illustrated the Democrats’ dilemma: Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg were each winning 16 to 20 percent of the vote.

All of those candidates are increasingly confronting Mr. Bloomberg’s presence as a rival in the March primaries. Mr. Bloomberg skipped all four February contests but has climbed into double digits in national polls on the strength of an enormous and sustained advertising campaign, funded from his personal fortune.

On a conference call with campaign staff members on Wednesday afternoon, Howard Wolfson, Mr. Bloomberg’s senior adviser, said that internal tracking data showed that the former mayor had pulled “very narrowly” into first place across the March primary states, inching ahead of Mr. Sanders over all and tying Mr. Biden among African-American voters.

Though Mr. Wolfson did not provide specific numbers, he said Mr. Biden had “rather precipitously fallen” in the larger array of states voting next month, according to Bloomberg polling.

But Mr. Bloomberg is facing new tests as a candidate: For the first time, he may qualify for a televised debate, next week in Las Vegas, and he has come under newly direct criticism from other Democrats for his record on policing and much else.

Mr. Wolfson acknowledged as much on the conference call, telling staff members that Mr. Bloomberg would have a “bigger target on his back” as his numbers rose. He said Mr. Bloomberg would address scrutiny of his support for stop-and-frisk policing by calling it “the biggest regret of his 12 years as mayor,” and saying that the language he had used in the past to defend it did not “reflect who he is or what is in his heart.”

But the recently circulated audio recording of Mr. Bloomberg in 2015 matter-of-factly stating that “the real crime is” almost always committed by young “male minorities” quickly ricocheted across the tight-knit community of black political leaders.

J. Todd Rutherford, the minority leader of the South Carolina House, said many African-Americans had increasingly recognized that Mr. Biden did not have “what it takes” and had been ready to bolt to the former New York mayor.

“A lot of people would’ve said Bloomberg last week, but now I don’t know,” said Mr. Rutherford, alluding to the recording and declaring that the gnawing uncertainty hanging over the Democratic race was “really scary.”

Mr. Biden and other candidates have indicated that they intend to challenge Mr. Bloomberg on race in the coming days, and his resiliency, or lack thereof, on the subject could shape the primary campaign.

Yet even supporters of Mr. Biden acknowledge that if one of the moderates doesn’t take a clear lead with that faction of the party after Nevada, the eyes of many establishment-aligned Democrats will turn to Manhattan.

“The longer the waters are muddy, the better off Bloomberg is,” said former Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina, who recently backed Mr. Biden.

The campaign in Nevada is as disordered as anything else in the Democratic race, according to people closely watching the contest there. But as in New Hampshire, Mr. Biden long held a considerable advantage as the candidate perceived as the safe and electable choice, while Mr. Sanders entered the race with a strong bloc carried over from his last run for the presidency. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Biden will bleed support there as rapidly as he did in New Hampshire, or whether any other candidate will be able to take advantage of his fall.

Tick Segerblom, a prominent Sanders backer in the state who is a member of the Clark County Commission, said Mr. Biden’s national plunge would upend the campaign in Nevada. He said that Mr. Sanders could count his “25 percent,” but that his ability to expand his coalition was an open question.

“Bernie is still alive and Biden is definitely a disaster,” Mr. Segerblom said. “I think Pete is going to do very well — he’ll be able to pick up the Biden people.”

Representative Dina Titus, perhaps the most prominent Biden supporter in the state, said the campaign needed to send in the political cavalry to stave off defeat.

“He could certainly use more hands — and they’re supposedly coming now,” she said.

She added that she would spend her time helping Mr. Biden with senior groups and labor unions. But the former vice president’s hope that the most influential union in the state, the Culinary Workers, would endorse him in an effort to halt Mr. Sanders has been dimmed after his poor performance in the first two states.

In South Carolina, even moderate Democrats who are sympathetic to Mr. Biden believe he’s in grave danger of losing the state.

“He’s wounded,” Tyler Jones, a Charleston-based Democratic strategist, said of the former vice president. Like other political professionals in the state, Mr. Jones is increasingly less concerned about Mr. Biden’s weakness than about the billionaire Tom Steyer’s strength — and what it means for the nominating process.

Mr. Steyer has been pouring money into South Carolina, cutting into Mr. Biden’s lead with black voters and raising the specter of Mr. Sanders’s winning another state with a plurality thanks to a divided electorate.

“A vote for Steyer is a vote for Bernie, which is a vote for Trump,” said Mr. Jones, who believes Mr. Sanders cannot win the general election and wants to stop his campaign “dead in its tracks.” But he acknowledged that urging voters to act strategically and reject Mr. Steyer was easier in theory than in execution.

Other Democrats are turning to what they believe is a more simple solution.

In early January, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York offered an off-the-cuff assessment of the Democratic race: Should Mr. Biden wheeze in the early states, many in the party would turn to Mr. Bloomberg as a Plan B.

“If Mr. Biden can’t get out of New Hampshire and Iowa, then Bloomberg has Super Tuesday,” Mr. Meeks said at the time.

On Wednesday, he was one of the three black lawmakers who endorsed Mr. Bloomberg.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Wall St. Giant Greets Sanders Victory With Venom

Westlake Legal Group 12blankfein-1-facebookJumbo A Wall St. Giant Greets Sanders Victory With Venom Warren, Elizabeth Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire High Net Worth Individuals Goldman Sachs Group Inc Democratic Party Blankfein, Lloyd C

Bernie Sanders has proposed a wealth tax on the richest Americans, criticized big businesses for turning huge profits while paying little in taxes and said he believed billionaires should not exist.

His win in Tuesday’s Democratic primary in New Hampshire has made plausible what Wall Street has for months considered a worst-case scenario: the inauguration of President Sanders.

An avowed socialist whose plans include disemboweling the private health care system and cracking down on lending and other banking activities, Mr. Sanders is considered by many traders, investors and bankers to be the only candidate less desirable than the widely loathed Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Late Tuesday, as Mr. Sanders was pulling out a close win in New Hampshire, Lloyd Blankfein, the former Goldman Sachs chief executive, wrote on Twitter that the Vermont senator would “ruin our economy” if elected president.

He succinctly summed up Wall Street’s feelings, calling Mr. Sanders just as polarizing as President Trump, while being worse for the country. “If I’m Russian, I go with Sanders this time around,” he wrote.

The post quickly attracted thousands of comments from Mr. Sanders’s supporters — some of whom invoked Goldman’s position at the center of the 2008 financial crisis.

“This is what panic from the Wall Street elite looks and sounds like,” Faiz Shakir, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, responded in a tweet on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Blankfein, who once said that he was looking forward to “unrestrained tweeting” in retirement, did not respond to messages seeking comment on Tuesday. But his tweet — his latest tussle with a progressive candidate from his own party — was read by many as a direct manifestation of big money’s growing unease with the self-described democratic socialist.

Others on Wednesday brushed off Mr. Sanders’ victory, saying he would be an untenable nominee in a race against Mr. Trump, one that could make people do the unthinkable: vote to re-elect the president.

Mike Novogratz, a Goldman Sachs alumnus who runs the merchant bank Galaxy Digital, said Mr. Sanders’s oppositional nature had prompted “too many friends” to say they would vote against him in November. “And they hate Trump,” he said.

Mr. Sanders’s narrow victory in New Hampshire has helped position him as the candidate with the most enthusiasm from the party’s most liberal wing. Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., who finished just behind him, and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who surged to third, split the centrist vote on Tuesday.

Mr. Sanders’s surge has come at the expense of Ms. Warren, who some on Wall Street have warmed to. Ms. Warren, a self-described capitalist who says she wants to work within the system to affect change, appears to many to be more malleable: In recent months, she has already walked back aspects of her “Medicare for all” plan, a universal health care initiative similar to Mr. Sanders’s. She also has a history as a onetime Republican who wrote scholarly research on bankruptcy law as a professor and adviser to big corporate clients.

But either candidate would represent a stark reversal from Mr. Trump’s economic agenda, which has been centered on cutting taxes and rolling back regulations. Perhaps as a result of that, their campaign contributions from finance-industry workers have fallen well short of more moderate peers, like Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar, according to year-end figures collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Last year, Mr. Sanders proposed the creation of a wealth tax on the richest Americans to help pay for his own “Medicare for all” health program, universal child care and an overhaul to the housing market that would include big subsidies for first-time home buyers. The proposed tax on the assets of households with a net worth above $32 million — about 180,000 households in total — is projected to raise $4.35 trillion over a decade.

He pairs those proposals with a combative tone.

Frustrated over what he views as an “outrageous” degree of inequality in the United States, Mr. Sanders has said billionaires should no longer exist here. And a recent Sanders campaign ad took particular aim at Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, calling him “the biggest corporate socialist in America today,” an overpaid executive who embraces a brand of socialism “that has eroded our society.”

Vin Ryan, founder of the venture-capital firm Schooner Capital and a supporter of Ms. Warren’s, said he believed Mr. Sanders’s unrelenting approach would hurt his chances against Mr. Trump.

“Bernie Sanders, I think, is a lightning rod,” Mr. Ryan said. “And he’s going to be killed with the socialism by the Republicans.”

As much as many independent voters don’t like Mr. Trump, he said, they could be motivated to vote for him anyway by “pocketbook issues” and the relatively healthy economy that has marked his first term.

That has some in finance expecting that a general election involving Mr. Sanders would result in the president’s largely pro-business policies extending for four more years.

“The lack of any stock market reaction to Sanders’s surge suggests that investors either still don’t believe he can win the Democratic nomination against the more centrist candidates or, alternatively, that Sanders will win the nomination but, in doing so, his lack of appeal to independents makes it even more likely that Trump will be re-elected,” Andrew Hunter, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note to clients.

That could change, however, if Mr. Sanders shows signs of having a broader appeal as the primary season continues.

“If Sanders is the Democratic nominee and polls show a reasonable chance of him winning the election, then we expect a sharp market sell-off, especially for financials,” said Brian Gardner, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. “Part of the reason is that investors have discounted Senator Sanders’s chances. At some point investors might reassess this scenario and it is not, in our view, priced into the market.”

Mr. Blankfein, who left the top job at Goldman Sachs in 2018 after a 12-year tenure, has sparred with Mr. Sanders before, including over corporate stock buybacks, which Mr. Sanders wanted to limit.

The antagonism goes back years: In 2012, Mr. Sanders targeted Mr. Blankfein in a speech from the Senate floor, labeling him the “face of class warfare” for supporting cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Blankfein, a registered Democrat, supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and has donated to Republicans in the past. At a CNN conference in October, he said he did not see himself reflected in the current party.

But as unloved as Mr. Sanders currently is in the finance industry, not everyone agreed with everything the former Goldman boss had to say.

Mr. Ryan, the Schooner Capital founder, said he didn’t think Mr. Blankfein’s suggestion of Russian favoritism — tongue-in-cheek as it was — invoked the right issue.

That notion is “nuts,” Mr. Ryan said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

After New Hampshire, What Comes Next for Elizabeth Warren

MANCHESTER, N.H. — It was 24 hours before the biggest contest of her political life. Senator Elizabeth Warren didn’t want to talk about it that way.

She was making the media rounds ahead of the New Hampshire primary when she dialed into a progressive SiriusXM radio show, Signal Boost. A voter asked her a straightforward enough question: Who did she see as her biggest 2020 competitor — and why was she better than them?

Ms. Warren demurred.

“I know there’s only going to be one winner,” Ms. Warren said. “I’m not — I’m not turning away from that. But I am turning away from the idea of seeing each other as if I win, you lose. You know, if you win, I lose.”

The next day, they won. She lost.

How Ms. Warren ended up as a fourth-place finisher in New Hampshire now at risk of receding from the national political conversation — her primary-night speech was not carried live by any of the major cable networks — is the story of a candidate who spent the past crucial week unbending to the realities of a competitive primary happening around her.

She evinced little sense of urgency after a third-place showing in Iowa that was a disappointment even as it left her a contender. She resisted calls by allies to confront her opponents and their weaknesses head on. She spoke relatively little at a turning-point debate on Friday after she had dominated airtime at such gatherings last year.

When she did speak — be it onstage, to voters or to reporters — she mostly stuck to her familiar and comfortable script of “big, structural change” that powered her rise but has not prevented her subsequent fall. Some people around Ms. Warren were talking about being at peace with how the campaign had been run.

Video

transcript

Sanders Won, Klobuchar Surged: What We Learned From New Hampshire

New Hampshire was the first clean test for the Democratic candidates. Here’s an analysis of the results, and what they mean for the race.

So we finally have actual election results from the state of New Hampshire. They are clear, and they are authoritative and they are a little bit complicated. “Hello, America.” “We are here to stay.” “Our campaign is built for the long haul.” “We’re going to Nevada. We’re going to South Carolina. We’re going to win those states as well.” Bernie Sanders has won the state by a little bit. Two other candidates who had quite a strong night — Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. Not such a good night for Joe Biden or for Elizabeth Warren or for anybody else. “New Hampshire.” “New Hampshire.” “New Hampshire.” “We’re here together.” “New Hampshire.” “You all up here in New Hampshire.” After the debacle in Iowa, national attention has focused even more intensely on New Hampshire as the first real clean test of political momentum in this race. “People are still undecided.” “Uh, Bernie.” “Bernie Sanders, all the way.” “Mayor Pete.” “Amy Klobuchar.” “Oh, Joe Biden.” “I’ll just probably decide Tuesday, five minutes before I go in to vote.” New Hampshire is a classic swing state. “Ronald Reagan is the winner in the state of New Hampshire.” “Bill Clinton won it.” “It’s neck and neck.” “New Hampshire goes to Obama.” In 2016, Hillary Clinton prevailed over Donald Trump, but by a tiny margin. It’s a state that’s very much in play for 2020. “Four more, Trump. Four more years!” New Hampshire might gauge whether a candidate is able to appeal to certain other constituencies they will need in the general election. We have seen over the last week a real rivalry emerge between Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg. “Hot, fresh and vegan. Get your Bernie-on-a-stick.” New Hampshire is really home turf for Bernie Sanders. He comes from right next door in Vermont. And he also drew strong support, as he did in 2016, from younger voters and more liberal voters. “Young voters want Bernie because he’s fighting for their future. He’s not fighting for his future. He’s in his future.” [cheering] Bernie Sanders came into New Hampshire claiming momentum out of Iowa, based on his lead in the popular vote. “Finally, the votes were counted in Iowa. Took them a little while. We won the vote by 6,000 votes.” He has been somewhat more aggressive with his primary opponents here … “We don’t have a Super PAC.” … talking about the difference between himself … “We don’t want billionaires’ money.” … and candidates in the race, like Pete Buttigieg, who take money from billionaires and other big donors. “We are running a campaign for working people, funded by working people. And that is why we are going to win here in New Hampshire and all over this country.” [cheering] The biggest thing this might mean for Bernie Sanders is that he has clearly reasserted himself as the dominant leader on the left wing of the Democratic Party. And then there’s Pete Buttigieg. “Back in the Obama campaign, we called it ‘no drama Obama,’ and I haven’t come up with the right rhyme for Buttigieg.” [cheering] Pete Buttigieg has claimed, among the moderate candidates, a sense of momentum in New Hampshire that other folks were not able to take. “We can’t risk dividing Americans further. The idea that you’ve either got to be for a revolution or you got to be for the status quo leaves most of us out.” His message here has been pretty similar to his message in Iowa, but really focused on the idea that he’s the candidate who can win crossover support in the general election. “We need a politics that brings all of us in because all of us need a new and better president.” After finishing at the top in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Buttigieg now has a tremendous opportunity to put himself forward at the national level as the leader of moderate Democrats. Announcer: “Senator Amy Klobuchar!” The word that Amy Klobuchar supporters are using to describe what happened here is ‘Klomentum.’ She came to New Hampshire after a fifth-place finish in Iowa without a whole lot of wind in her sails. “It’s been funny suddenly seeing media come to all of our events.” [laughter] Things just turned around for her dramatically. If Klobuchar had not finished so strong in New Hampshire, it might have been the end of her campaign. “If you are tired of the extremes in our politics, and you are tired of the noise and the nonsense, you have a home with me.” She gets the chance to fight onward to Nevada and South Carolina and Super Tuesday. I would not make any plans that are based on knowing a Democratic nominee anytime soon. Well, I am going to Las Vegas next, so I probably would have a chance to do that.

Westlake Legal Group 11nh-ledeall-sub-videoSixteenByNine3000-v2 After New Hampshire, What Comes Next for Elizabeth Warren Warren, Elizabeth Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Democratic Party

New Hampshire was the first clean test for the Democratic candidates. Here’s an analysis of the results, and what they mean for the race.CreditCredit…Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Then, hours before the polls closed, her campaign released a nearly 2,000-word memo on her path ahead, talking delegation accumulation and detailing her rivals’ flaws: Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was at risk of collapsing, Senator Bernie Sanders had a “ceiling” and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who had won the most delegates in Iowa, was in for a struggle as people in more diverse states headed to the polls.

The road to the Democratic nomination is not paved with statewide winner-take-all victories,” the memo stated.

By the end of the evening, Mr. Sanders had won in New Hampshire, with Mr. Buttigieg a close second and Senator Amy Klobuchar in third. Mr. Biden, fifth here, has staked his campaign on the support of black voters in South Carolina, where he flew before the race was called Tuesday.

Ms. Warren’s campaign cannot say what state it will win next.

“My job,” she said on Monday, “is to persist.”

Persisting and winning, needless to say, are very different things.

The state of the Democratic race remains fluid. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg outpaced the fractured field with historically low totals in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Mr. Biden’s campaign is on the ropes. Ms. Warren has more delegates than Ms. Klobuchar or Mr. Biden, she polls higher among nonwhite voters than some rivals, and she maintains an enthusiastic base of supporters and high-profile surrogates.

On Wednesday, television stations in South Carolina began reporting cuts to planned advertisements, a possible sign of cash flow difficulties, even as the campaign said it was placing ads in Maine and Nevada. Allies have started to rationalize Tuesday’s defeat as something positive: That losing in stunning fashion is better than a marginal loss, because it will force campaign leadership to make the strategic shake-ups they have long resisted.

“I don’t exactly get the game plan other than to try and outlast a number of people and emerge an acceptable choice to progressives and moderates at the same time,” said David Axelrod, a former top strategist for President Barack Obama. “It’s a narrow, narrow path they’re trying to navigate here. And they’re in a race against time and they’re in a race for money and at some point you have to emerge.”

Inside Ms. Warren’s operation, the plan has been to position herself as the “unity” candidate, the politician best equipped to pull together the party’s various factions, especially supporters of Mr. Sanders who, if he is not the nominee, may be particularly hard to bring into the party fold. The Warren campaign is readying for a war of attrition, banking on her high favorability ratings, many small donors, and 1,000-strong staff spread across 30 states, including those that vote on Super Tuesday, to survive.

From the start, Ms. Warren had bet big and early on putting grass-roots organizers in the community. But the first two results showed a limited dividend. In the end, she was overtaken in New Hampshire by Ms. Klobuchar, who chartered a plane of 20 aides from Iowa to double her staff here just for the final week.

On Tuesday, her campaign manager’s memo pitched her as the “consensus choice.” But by night’s end she sat behind an array of candidates in various political lanes: Mr. Sanders among progressives, Mr. Buttigieg among those pitching unity, and Ms. Klobuchar among those looking to elect a woman.

If Mr. Biden has demonstrated the challenges of running as the “electable” candidate who loses, Ms. Warren is now facing the task of selling herself as a “consensus” pick after she received less than 10 percent of the vote in New Hampshire.

Her performance in the first contests has ignited new scrutiny of the close-knit team of advisers who were almost universally heralded as helming the primary’s most well-run campaign as recently as last summer. After Iowa, Ms. Warren’s staff made virtually no adjustments in New Hampshire to her messaging, other than a small addition to her stump speech about her history of winning “unwinnable fights,” a nod to the difficult political moment she now faces.

“I’m surprised that she didn’t choose to engage in New Hampshire,” said Jennifer Palmieri, a former communications director for Hillary Clinton, whose book “Dear Madam President” Ms. Warren has read as she makes her own pioneering run for the White House. “She may either be on a trajectory where she only cares about the ideas or has some other plan.”

Among a campaign staff headquartered in Boston, some frustration is beginning to set in. Differences are largely not generational or ideological, but exist among a cadre of midlevel and state staff who feel key decisions are kept to a small inner circle.

At her watch party in Manchester Tuesday night, the mood among those gathered turned from joyous to grim. Televisions showing election results were cut off. News traveled, person to person, that Ms. Warren was likely to finish without delegates. Supporters showed a sense of defiance, with some blaming media bias.

A frustrated John Tehan, 61, who traveled to the party from Ms. Warren’s home state, Massachusetts, said her finish was “disappointing.” He wished Ms. Warren had fought to speak more in the recent debate.

“I don’t know if it was just the debate — but that didn’t help,” Mr. Tehan said.

Ms. Warren addressed the crowd almost immediately after polls closed and her standing became clear. She spoke of the respect she had for Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, and sought to reassure supporters that she was up for what she saw as a primary fight ahead, pointedly congratulating “Amy Klobuchar for showing just how wrong the pundits can be when they count a woman out.”

Then she went on to criticize the tone that the rest of the field had taken — the direct attacks in a weekend of sparring when she remained above the fray.

“The fight between factions in our party has taken a sharp turn in recent weeks, with ads mocking other candidates and with supporters of some candidates shouting curses about other Democratic candidates,” she said. “These harsh tactics might work if you are willing to burn down the rest of the party in order to be the last man standing.”

From the start, Ms. Warren had centered her candidacy on her ideas, and last week she told Time magazine she would even “lead the parade” for her rivals if they were elected in her stead and adopted her myriad plans.

She sought to answer the ever-elusive “electability” question through a blistering pace of policy proposals, including her signature wealth tax aimed at gaining revenue by increasing taxes on the country’s richest individuals and corporations; a proposal to break up big technology companies; and a plan that would cancel most student debt. Ms. Warren also backed progressive ideas such as the Green New Deal to combat climate change, and a “Medicare for all” health care system.

She surged ahead in Iowa — leading in a November poll from The New York Times and Siena College.

It would not last. In the final months of 2019, moderate rivals began to target her relentlessly, particularly regarding her support for Medicare for all. Mr. Buttigieg called her “extremely evasive.” At a Democratic primary debate in October, even candidates struggling to gain traction found Ms. Warren a welcome target.

Ahead of Iowa, with internal data showing about half her support came from 2016 supporters of Mr. Sanders and half from supporters of Mrs. Clinton, the Warren campaign chose to present her as a unifying figure.

In New Hampshire, one 30-second ad, entitled “Courage to Unite,” featured testimonials from a former Republican, a Clinton supporter and a Sanders backer. The ex-Sanders supporter was Ron Abramson, who was bracing for defeat in the hours before the polls closed Tuesday.

“There’s this tension between being nimble and being reactive,” he said of Ms. Warren. “She’s not going to scream from the rooftops, and sometimes it makes it hard to get attention if you don’t do something dramatic.”

He had hoped to see more — yet he was unsure if it would have worked anyway.

“I don’t think her skills and her operation were as well-suited to the moment, in terms of raw strategic calculation, as someone else,” Mr. Abramson said. “I also think if she had tried to do it, it would have fallen flat.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bernie Sanders Would ‘Ruin Our Economy,’ Says Ex-Goldman Sachs Boss

Westlake Legal Group 12blankfein-1-facebookJumbo Bernie Sanders Would ‘Ruin Our Economy,’ Says Ex-Goldman Sachs Boss Warren, Elizabeth Sanders, Bernard Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire High Net Worth Individuals Goldman Sachs Group Inc Democratic Party Blankfein, Lloyd C

Bernie Sanders has proposed a wealth tax on the richest Americans, blasted big businesses for turning huge profits while paying little in taxes and said he believed billionaires should not exist.

After his win in Tuesday’s Democratic primary in New Hampshire solidified Mr. Sanders’ status as a contender for the nomination, one Wall Street billionaire fired back.

Lloyd Blankfein, the former Goldman Sachs chief executive, took aim at Mr. Sanders on Twitter, saying the Vermont senator would “ruin our economy” if elected president.

He added that Mr. Sanders did not care about the military and was just as polarizing as President Trump.

“If I’m Russian, I go with Sanders this time around,” he wrote, referencing that country’s efforts to support Mr. Trump in 2016.

The post quickly attracted thousands of comments from Mr. Sanders’s supporters — some of whom invoked Goldman’s position at the center of the 2008 financial crisis.

“This is what panic from the Wall Street elite looks and sounds like,” Faiz Shakir, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, responded in a tweet on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Blankfein’s comments reflect the growing unease among corporate players and investors about the likely Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination. The narrow victory in New Hampshire has helped position Mr. Sanders as a front-runner with the most enthusiasm on the party’s most liberal wing. Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was second and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota surged to third, with those two candidates splitting the centrist vote.

Mr. Sanders’ performance through the first two primary contests has pushed him ahead of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts in the race to grab voters looking to shake up the status quo.

Both candidates have been watched warily by Wall Street for months because they would represent a stark reversal from President Trump’s economic agenda, which has been centered on cutting taxes and rolling back regulations.

Last year, Mr. Sanders proposed the creation of a wealth tax on the richest Americans to help pay for his “Medicare for all” health program, universal child care and an overhaul to the housing market that would include big subsidies for first-time home buyers.

Mr. Sanders, when asked if billionaires should exist in the United States, said, “I hope the day comes when they don’t.”

Mr. Blankfein, a former investment banker who left the top job at Goldman Sachs in 2018 after a 12-year tenure, has not let the attacks on corporate America go unnoticed and has tussled online with both Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren.

In November, Mr. Blankfein took aim at Ms. Warren after being featured in one of her campaign ads, saying “vilification of people as a member of a group may be good for her campaign, not for the country.” In February 2019, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Blankfein sparred on Twitter over corporate stock buybacks, which Mr. Sanders wanted to limit.

The antagonism between Mr. Blankfein and Mr. Sanders goes back years. In 2012, Mr. Sanders targeted the then-chief of Goldman Sachs in a speech from the Senate floor, labeling him the “face of class warfare” for supporting cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Other business chiefs have weighed in. Leon Cooperman, the billionaire money manager of the Omega Family Office, a critic of Ms. Warren, said in an Oct. 30 letter to her that was made public that her “vilification of the rich is misguided.” Bill Gates, another billionaire, expressed his concern in November about a wealth tax.

Hillary Clinton, the former Democratic presidential nominee, has also criticized Mr. Sanders. Footage from an upcoming documentary about her showed her ripping into Mr. Sanders, saying, “Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician.”

Mr. Blankfein, a registered Democrat, supported Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and has donated to Republicans in the past. He said in October at a CNN conference that he did not see himself reflected in the current party.

Mr. Blankfein, a rare tweeter, used his first Twitter post to slam Mr. Trump for leaving the Paris climate accord in 2017.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com