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 > Posts tagged "Trump, Donald J" (Page 59)

5 Takeaways From the New Hampshire Primary

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Senator Bernie Sanders won the most votes in Iowa, even if he narrowly lost the delegate battle. He won the New Hampshire primary. His support among people of color has grown in polls, while his chief competitor for those voters, Joseph R. Biden Jr., has been fading in the overall contest. He has climbed to the lead in some national polls. And he is raising more money — and has more money — than any of his rivals who are not billionaires.

Meet the new front-runner of the 2020 Democratic primary.

After two contests, Mr. Sanders is in an indisputably enviable position. Still, there are caveats. His victory and near-victory both came with a historically low share of the overall vote. He was on pace to carry New Hampshire with less than 27 percent of the vote, which would be the lowest total ever for a winner. His vote share in Iowa was similarly sized.

But winning is winning and the moderate ledger of the Democratic primary is as fractured as ever — to Mr. Sanders’s great advantage.

Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., finished in the top two in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota surprised with a third-place showing in New Hampshire. But neither of those candidates have demonstrated any appeal to black and Latino voters so far. And a candidate who has, Mr. Biden, stumbled to a fourth-place finish in Iowa and was in fifth place in New Hampshire.

Mr. Sanders has another thing going for him: Two bases, one demographic and one ideological. New Hampshire exit polls show him carrying about half of voters under 30 — a share no other candidate can claim for any demographic slice — and nearly half of very liberal voters.

Next up on the calendar is Nevada, a caucus state that can reward candidates with energized bases and larger political organizations, which suits Mr. Sanders particularly well.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_168800433_b9fa8ce8-6af5-441d-b617-772d0104cc18-articleLarge 5 Takeaways From the New Hampshire Primary Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Republican Party Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Klobuchar, Amy Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Biden, Joseph R Jr

Joseph R. Biden Jr. spoke to supporters in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday night.Credit…Travis Dove for The New York Times

This was not the beginning that the Biden campaign had envisioned. Mr. Biden had entered the 2020 contest last spring as the well-liked two-term vice president to one of the country’s most popular Democrats, Barack Obama. He benefited from head-to-head polls that showed him as the strongest general election contender for the Democrats — a party singularly obsessed with beating President Trump.

Yet in the first two contests, Mr. Biden finished fourth and fifth. In New Hampshire, he did not receive a single delegate.

If winning is contagious, losing can be an even more infectious campaign disease. It erodes support, money and confidence in a sudden rush of voter and donor panic. And Mr. Biden now faces more than two weeks — an interminably long stretch — until the primary on the calendar his advisers have long circled as his political “firewall”: South Carolina’s. It was telling that when he ditched New Hampshire before the polls closed, he headed there instead of Nevada, whose nominating contest is next.

To the extent that the traditional structures of the Democratic establishment are set to mobilize against Mr. Sanders out of fear of his revolutionary brand of democratic socialism, it is no longer clear that Mr. Biden would be the beneficiary. Mr. Buttigieg has finished above him twice, Ms. Klobuchar’s moderate brand caught fire late in New Hampshire, and the self-funding billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg is pounding the airwaves in Super Tuesday states and offering a refuge for the restless establishmentarians.

That said, the race’s fluidity is not to be underestimated. Ms. Klobuchar was more of an asterisk than anything a few short weeks ago. A single strong debate elevated her here, and Mr. Biden still has chances to make a fresh impression.

The former mayor of South Bend, Ind., scored another impressive showing in a state where nearly everybody looks like him.

A second-place finish by Mr. Buttigieg in New Hampshire and a delegate victory in Iowa will lend his campaign major momentum. The question now is what, exactly, will happen to that energy as the contest moves to a more diverse playing field.

Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign has spent months trying to win over people of color, highlighting policy plans and a handful of endorsements from black lawmakers.

Yet in polling, Mr. Buttigieg has shown no strength with the black and Latino voters who make up a significant portion of the Democratic Party electorate in Nevada and South Carolina, the next two nominating contests. After that, the race moves to Super Tuesday, a mix of big, diverse states like California and Texas, and Southern states where black people are expected to make up a majority of Democratic voters.

Mr. Buttigieg’s team hopes that wining begets more winning, citing the experience of Barack Obama in the 2008 primary race. The next few weeks will test whether a white man can replicate the electoral success of the first black president.

After her relatively strong third-place showing in the Iowa caucuses, Ms. Warren’s campaign came to New Hampshire and made minimal adjustments, hoping the same message of unity she closed with in Iowa would lift her as rivals began taking more overt shots at one another.

It didn’t.

Her support fell. She won no delegates. And now she faces a potentially more tricky calendar, after two losses in the two states she had most banked on in February.

If Mr. Biden is still hoping to turn his fortunes around in South Carolina, Ms. Warren’s campaign does not have a similar state for safe harbor.

In a lengthy memo sent out before Tuesday night’s results arrived, the Warren campaign argued that in the “fractured” 2020 field, only three candidates were on pace to seriously contest the huge set of delegate-rich states that will vote on Super Tuesday: Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden. A few hours later, two of those candidates received less than 10 percent support in New Hampshire (her and Mr. Biden).

The good news: Ms. Warren’s campaign has a head start in the Super Tuesday contests, having built a 1,000-person staff, including Iowa and New Hampshire aides with redeployment orders.

The bad news: Her bet in organizing at the local level and embedding in communities in the first two states did not pay off.

The worse news: Campaign costs will only escalate from here, and records show that Ms. Warren’s online base of small-dollar donors has given far more in heady times than tough ones.

Klomentum? Klobmentum?

Amy Klobuchar doesn’t particularly care how you spell it, as long as voters feel it. She rose in the polls in New Hampshire at the exact right time, parlaying the chaos out of Iowa and a strong performance in Friday night’s debate into a third-place finish.

While coming in fifth in last week’s Iowa caucuses didn’t place her in the top tier of the race, her team saw room to expand her support amid the independent-leaning, more fiscally conservative Democratic electorate in New Hampshire. Her campaign mounted a furious six-day sprint through the state, partially funded by an influx of $5 million in donations received after the debate.

In the coming days, she plans to move staff members into Nevada, South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states, as well as expand her team. On Wednesday, she’s beginning a seven-figure ad buy in Nevada.

Still, she faces an immediate uphill battle. Like Mr. Buttigieg, Ms. Klobuchar has shown little strength with black and Latino voters in polling, and the next two states on the primary calendar, Nevada and South Carolina, are far more diverse, as are many of those that vote on Super Tuesday in March.

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

Trump’s War Against ‘the Deep State’ Enters a New Stage

Westlake Legal Group 11dc-trump-3-facebookJumbo-v2 Trump’s War Against ‘the Deep State’ Enters a New Stage Vindman, Alexander S United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Appointments and Executive Changes

WASHINGTON — As far as President Trump is concerned, banishing Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman from the White House and exiling him back to the Pentagon was not enough. If he had his way, the commander in chief made clear on Tuesday, the Defense Department would now take action against the colonel, too.

“That’s going to be up to the military,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked whether Colonel Vindman should face disciplinary action after testifying in the House hearings that led to the president’s impeachment. “But if you look at what happened,” Mr. Trump added in threatening terms, “I mean they’re going to, certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that.”

This is an unsettled time in Mr. Trump’s Washington. In the days since he was acquitted in a Senate trial, an aggrieved and unbound president has sought to even the scales as he sees it. Colonel Vindman was abruptly marched by security out of the White House, an ambassador who also testified in the House hearings was summarily dismissed, and senior Justice Department officials on Tuesday intervened on behalf of Mr. Trump’s convicted friend, Roger J. Stone Jr., leading four career prosecutors to quit the case.

More axes are sure to fall. A senior Pentagon official appears in danger of losing her nomination to a top Defense Department post after questioning the president’s suspension of aid to Ukraine. Likewise, a prosecutor involved in Mr. Stone’s case has lost a nomination to a senior Treasury Department position. A key National Security Council official is said by colleagues to face dismissal. And the last of dozens of career officials being transferred out of the White House may be gone by the end of the week.

The war between Mr. Trump and what he calls the “deep state” has entered a new, more volatile phase as the president seeks to assert greater control over a government that he is convinced is not sufficiently loyal to him. With no need to worry about Congress now that he has been acquitted of two articles of impeachment, the president has shown a renewed willingness to act even if it prompts fresh complaints about violating traditional norms.

“The president is entitled to staffers that want to execute his policies, that he has confidence in,” said Robert C. O’Brien, the national security adviser, who supervised Colonel Vindman and his brother, Yevgeny Vindman, also an Army lieutenant colonel, who was dismissed last week from the National Security Council staff even though he did not testify in the House hearings. “We’re not a banana republic where lieutenant colonels get together and decide what the policy is.”

The president’s involvement in Mr. Stone’s case generated vigorous protests and calls for an investigation into whether he improperly sought to skew the prosecution in favor of a longtime associate and adviser. Hours after Mr. Trump’s tweets criticizing the Justice Department for seeking up to nine years in prison for Mr. Stone, the department reversed gears and said it would ask for a lesser sentence.

The Justice Department rejected any link to the president’s tweets, while Mr. Trump insisted that he had nothing to do with the case. But the withdrawal of the four career prosecutors working on the case left the unmistakable impression that they thought something improper had happened.

“The American people must have confidence that justice in this country is dispensed impartially,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, wrote in a letter asking the department’s inspector general to investigate. “That confidence cannot be sustained if the president or his political appointees are permitted to interfere in prosecution and sentencing recommendations in order to protect their friends and associates.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly railed against law enforcement agencies for targeting his associates. Among those who have been convicted are Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman; Michael T. Flynn, his former national security adviser; and Michael D. Cohen, his personal lawyer. “The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them,” he wrote on Twitter shortly after midnight Tuesday morning.

By the evening, he was demanding to know why the Democratic power broker Tony Podesta had not been prosecuted and expanded his attack to Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over Mr. Stone’s case.

“Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure?” he wrote on Twitter, providing a false version of her role as well as his treatment. “How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton?”

Mr. Trump has long suspected that people around him — both government officials and even some of his own political appointees — were secretly working against his interests. His impeachment for trying to coerce Ukraine to incriminate Democrats by withholding $391 million in security aid has only reinforced that view as he watched one official after another testify before the House.

Witnesses like Colonel Vindman testified under subpoena compelling them to talk, but Mr. Trump blamed them for his dilemma. In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Mr. Trump complained at length about Colonel Vindman, accusing him of misleading Congress about the president’s July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart. In fact, Colonel Vindman’s version of the call closely tracked the written record released by the White House, but he did testify that he thought it was inappropriate to ask a foreign country to tarnish the president’s domestic political opponents.

“We sent him on his way to a much different location, and the military can handle him any way they want,” Mr. Trump said. “General Milley has him now,” he added, referring to Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “I congratulate General Milley. He can have him. And his brother, also. We’ll find out. We will find out. But he reported very inaccurate things.”

Others involved in the impeachment process may also pay a price. The administration plans to withdraw the nomination for Pentagon comptroller of Elaine McCusker, a Defense Department official who questioned the aid freeze, The New York Post reported. While the Senate has not been notified of such a move, an administration official said it was likely to happen after budget hearings this week.

Ms. McCusker could not be reached for comment, and a Pentagon official referred questions to the White House, which had no comment. Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters that he had “a feeling everything is going to be fine with the nomination.” But friends of Ms. McCusker said she was aware that her nomination was in jeopardy.

Just Monday, Ms. McCusker was the one left explaining the wielding of another Trump administration ax. Appearing before reporters in her role as the Defense Department’s acting comptroller, she sought to describe why the Pentagon was proposing to eliminate the $7 million subsidy to Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for American troops.

“We have essentially, decided that, you know, kind of coming into the modern age, that newspaper is probably not the best way that we communicate any longer,” she told reporters.

Another political appointee who may lose a nomination is Jessie K. Liu, who served as United States attorney for the District of Columbia when her office prosecuted Mr. Stone, Mr. Manafort and other high-profile cases.

She stepped down in December, when Mr. Trump nominated her to be the under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes. But on Tuesday, the White House withdrew her nomination, a person familiar with the matter said.

At the White House, Victoria Coates, a deputy national security adviser, has twisted in the wind amid feverish speculation about whether she would be pushed out. She has been the subject of a whisper campaign suggesting that she is the anonymous author of a book about being a member of the resistance inside the administration — which prompted the literary agents for the actual author to deny the claims.

Mr. O’Brien, Ms. Coates’s boss at the National Security Council, rejected the speculation in an appearance on Tuesday at the Atlantic Council. “This town is amazing when it comes to whispers,” he said, adding he did not know who the author was. “I think writing ‘Anonymous’ is inconsistent with working at the White House or working at the N.S.C., so whoever wrote ‘Anonymous’ probably shouldn’t be there.”

But Mr. O’Brien is presiding over a broader housecleaning at the National Security Council. Since being appointed last fall, he has said he wants to shrink the staff to closer to what it was under President George W. Bush. At the Atlantic Council appearance, he said he would be finished “by the end of the week” reducing the staff of policy professionals to 115 or 120 from the 175 when he took over.

The ousted officials were detailed from elsewhere in the government like the C.I.A., the Pentagon or the State Department and are returning to their home agencies. According to an administration official, the original plan was to use this downsizing as cover to remove Colonel Vindman as well without looking like a reprisal.

But in the end, the president did not want cover. He wanted to send a message — a message that Washington has received.

Helene Cooper and Michael Crowley contributed reporting.

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

New Hampshire Updates: Sanders Leads Buttigieg in Tight Democratic Primary

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_168797352_c4794137-29f8-4af1-97d7-6834992733b8-articleLarge New Hampshire Updates: Sanders Leads Buttigieg in Tight Democratic Primary Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Republican Party Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Klobuchar, Amy Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Biden, Joseph R Jr

Attendees at Bernie Sanders’s primary night party at Southern New Hampshire University Field House in Manchester.Credit…Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

  • With over half of precincts reporting in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was leading Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota was firmly in third place, several percentage points behind Mr. Buttigieg, surpassing expectations for her performance in the state.

  • Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. were well behind. Both addressed supporters early in the night, pledging to continue the primary fight.

  • Two of the lowest-polling candidates ended their bids: The entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado. Their exits winnowed the Democratic field to nine candidates.

  • There was also a Republican primary, which President Trump won handily, The Associated Press reported.

  • There are 24 delegates up for grabs for the Democrats, a relatively tiny number given that a candidate needs 1,991 delegates to win the party’s presidential nomination.

  • Follow along with the results and live coverage from our reporters here.

Here’s what you need to know:

We’re starting to get a sense of how the New Hampshire race is shaping up, with more than half of precincts reporting.

Mr. Sanders is in the lead, followed by Mr. Buttigieg. Ms. Klobuchar is mounting a surprisingly strong challenge, a few points behind in third place.

Hailing from just over the border with Vermont, Mr. Sanders was the overwhelming favorite in the contest. If the two Midwestern moderates keep the margins close, it could presage a longer battle for the nomination.

The results do not look good so far for Ms. Warren and Mr. Biden.

Ms. Warren remains far behind the top three, with numbers that have to disappoint her supporters, despite an effort by her campaign to describe her path forward in terms of accumulating delegates on a district-by-district level, rather than carrying entire states.

Mr. Biden, who worked hard to lower expectations, is stuck behind her in single digits. Two brutal losses may further undercut the central argument for his candidacy: that the former vice president is the most electable in the field.

Mr. Biden all but knew the results would be bleak. He left the state earlier on Tuesday after telegraphing his bad finish in Friday’s debate.

But Ms. Warren, as a neighboring senator, had designs more recently on a strong New Hampshire finish that could have served as a springboard toward Super Tuesday. But that nearby state factor did not seem to be helping in Massachusetts-bordering Salem, where 100 percent of precincts were reported and Ms. Warren was in fifth place with 6.9 percent of the vote.

Praising her “happy, scrappy campaign,” Ms. Klobuchar, who finished fifth in Iowa, celebrated like a victor on Tuesday night, as it appeared as though she would come in third.

“While there are still ballots left to count, we have beaten the odds every step of the way,” she declared.

With 60 percent of precincts in, Ms. Klobuchar was just shy of 20 percent of the vote — putting her on course to win delegates in the state.

“Because of you, we are taking this campaign to Nevada,” she said. “We are going to South Carolina. And we are taking this message of unity to the country.”

Ms. Klobuchar spoke about her grit, and grinned as she recounted the debate performance last Friday that appear to propel her rise in the state.

“Just like so many of you out there, I know a little bit about resilience,” she said.

Mr. Biden pledged on Tuesday night that he would emerge victorious in the next two nominating contests, after dismal results in the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses.

“We’re going on and we’re going to win in Nevada and in South Carolina,” Mr. Biden told supporters gathered in a hotel ballroom in Nashua, N.H., for his primary night party, appearing via live stream from Columbia, S.C.

Mr. Biden was supposed to attend that party in person, but his campaign announced Tuesday morning that he would leave for South Carolina instead. Mr. Biden, who is not known for his brevity, spoke for under three minutes, using the time to express thanks to his supporters in the state.

“We’re going to be back,” he said. “We’re going to be back in New Hampshire. We’re going to be back there to defeat Donald Trump in November.”

Mr. Biden also addressed supporters in Columbia, emphasizing his support in the black community and noting that 99.9 percent of the country’s black voters had not yet cast ballots.

“That’s the opening bell, not the closing bell,” he told the crowd. “You cannot win the Democratic nomination for president, and you shouldn’t be able to win it, without black and brown supporters.”

Ms. Warren addressed supporters early Tuesday evening, conceding that she was likely to finish in fourth place.

She sought to play down the results, suggesting a long primary fight, and she congratulated her rivals before issuing some of her most direct criticism of them yet.

Ms. Warren mentioned her fellow candidates by name, saying that she respected Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg but that they represented small factions of the Democratic Party.

She spoke about the uptick in negative advertisements in the primary and the behavior of some candidates’ supporters. Ms. Warren framed it as “harsh tactics” not befitting a Democratic nominee.

“Harsh tactics might work if you’re willing to burn down the party, in order to be the last man standing,” she said. “We will need a nominee that the broadest coalition of our party feels they can get behind.”

She also tossed a compliment to Ms. Klobuchar. “I also want to congratulate my friend and colleague Amy Klobuchar for showing just how wrong the pundits can be when they count a woman out,” she said.

Ms. Warren’s early results were disappointing for the senator of a neighboring state, once hailed as a Democratic primary front-runner. Now, instead of leading from a position of strength, she was discussing plans to cobble together delegates throughout the country.

“I’m here to get big things done,” Ms. Warren said. “Our best chance for this party and this nation is with a candidate who can do the work.”

“Our campaign is built for the long haul, and we’re just getting started.”

Ashley Tauber, 42, a supporter of Ms. Warren, said before the speech that she expected the senator to win states that were more diverse and voted later.

“New Hampshire isn’t the full picture,” she said. “She needs more diversity of income and of thought and other races of people.”

Donald Long, 58, said he was perturbed by the rise of Mr. Buttigieg.

“Now is not the time for a middle-of-the-road candidate,” he said.

Ms. Tauber jumped in: “That’s where roadkill happens.”

Supporters filled a college gymnasium for Mr. Sanders’s primary night party. Cheers echoed around the room as the big screen, which had been displaying the Sanders campaign logo, switched to CNN. Even bigger cheers came when CNN showed Mr. Sanders in first place with the votes flowing in.

Expectations in the room were high — for good reason. The state is in Mr. Sanders’s backyard, and he won the New Hampshire primary in 2016 against Hillary Clinton by 22 percentage points. Tons of reporters were here, and the fire marshal said he was expecting to let in 1,000 supporters, then assess if there was room for more. Anything less than a victory would be a major disappointment.

A stage was set up at the front of the room, with American flags and Sanders signs. Every time new numbers came in, there was more cheering. A concession stand outside the gymnasium sold pizza and popcorn.

There was no sign of Mr. Sanders yet, but some of his senior staff members were milling around. They were in a good mood.

“I’m excited to get results on the same night people voted,” said Mike Casca, the top spokesman for the Sanders campaign, when asked how he was feeling.

At the Buttigieg headquarters in Nashua, there was optimism about the New Hampshire results and some trepidation about the future.

“I know it’s going to be more of a struggle after this,” said Tara Maden, a 49-year-old from Nashua who works for the Dartmouth-Hitchcock health care system. “He’s doing better with the minorities than he was early on and he’s getting more name recognition.”

Betty Buckley, a 52-year-old graphic designer from Pembroke, N.H., predicted second place here and trouble ahead.

“South Carolina is going to be where everyone thinks he won’t do as well,” she said. “It depends on whether he can bring out people of color. They don’t know him. But a year ago he was unknown to all of us.”

Both women described themselves as independent voters who had backed Senator John McCain, a Republican, in 2008. “Though when he picked Sarah Palin, then I was out,” Ms. Maden said.

Their support for Mr. Buttigieg helps explain both why his appeal to independent and Republican voters has served him well in Iowa and New Hampshire and why he faces more hurdles in subsequent states.

Black voters dominate South Carolina’s Democratic primary electorate — they are not voters who backed Mr. McCain. The coming weeks will show whether Mr. Buttigieg can expand his coalition beyond the older, relatively centrist white voters who have propelled his rise in Iowa and New Hampshire.

According to CNN’s exit polls, Ms. Klobuchar won a plurality of New Hampshire voters with a college degree, with 28 percent of their support, as well as white women who had graduated college, with 34 percent.

Mr. Sanders prevailed among white voters without a college degree, taking 29 percent, but Mr. Buttigieg won the most votes of white women without a degree, with 27 percent.

The exit polls, which surveyed about 2,500 voters, offered a snapshot of New Hampshire voters on Tuesday night.

Nineteen percent of those who voted in the Democratic primary called themselves “very liberal,” and 42 percent were “somewhat liberal.” Mr. Sanders won both groups. Among the 35 percent who described themselves as moderate, Ms. Klobuchar prevailed.

Mr. Buttigieg won among voters who earned more than $100,000 per year.

The collapse of Mr. Biden could be starkly seen in the preferences of voters by age. Mr. Biden was unable to win those over 65, traditionally his strongest supporters, nor did he prevail among union households, another supposed source of strength.

It was Mr. Sanders who did best with union voters, taking 31 percent, while Ms. Klobuchar was the top pick of those over 65.

In all, about one in three voters were under 45, and Mr. Sanders easily won their support. Sixty-five percent of voters were older than 45. Ms. Klobuchar prevailed with them.

About one in seven had never cast a ballot in a Democratic primary. Mr. Buttigieg, who campaigned on a message of welcoming independents and “future former Republicans,” won a plurality, with 25 percent.

On issues that mattered most to voters, Mr. Sanders won among those who listed health care and income inequality; Mr. Buttigieg was the first choice of those who cared most about foreign policy and climate change.

In terms of candidates’ qualities, a plurality wanted a nominee who can bring “needed change,” and Mr. Sanders was their favorite. Ms. Klobuchar was the top pick for those seeking someone to unite the country — a message she and Mr. Buttigieg both want to make their own.

Three in five voters said it was more important to nominate someone who can beat President Trump than one who agrees with them on issues. Mr. Buttigieg was their top pick. Mr. Sanders was the favorite candidate on issues.

The exit polls examined other attitudes about candidate qualities. Four in five said a candidate’s age was not important. About one in three said nominating a woman would make it harder to beat Mr. Trump.

Mr. Yang and Mr. Bennet ended their longer-than-long-shot bids for president on Tuesday night.

Mr. Yang made the announcement at his primary night party. Speaking to supporters inside a ballroom in Manchester, Mr. Yang said that “endings are hard” and that he had intended to stay in the race until the end.

“I am the math guy, and it’s clear from the numbers we’re not going to win this campaign,” he said. “So tonight I’m announcing that I am suspending my campaign.”

Both Mr. Yang and Mr. Bennet had spent considerable time and resources in the state. Mr. Bennet had staked all his hopes there, holding 50 town hall events there in the 10 weeks leading up to the primary and campaigning exclusively there in the final stretch, even on the night of the Iowa caucuses.

Another low-polling candidate, Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts, will decide on Wednesday whether to continue after getting less than 1 percent of the vote in New Hampshire.

“He’s going to take some time to evaluate what’s next for the campaign and will make a decision tomorrow,” Aleigha Cavalier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Patrick, said in a text message Tuesday night.

Mr. Patrick has never exceeded 1 percent in a debate-qualifying poll and was counting on New Hampshire — next door to his home state — to give him some traction.

Reporting was contributed by Alexander Burns, Nick Corasaniti, Sydney Ember, Reid J. Epstein, Katie Glueck, Astead W. Herndon, Thomas Kaplan, Jonathan Martin and Matt Stevens from New Hampshire, Maggie Astor and Trip Gabriel from New York, and Stephanie Saul from Columbia, S.C.

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

New Hampshire Primary: Polls Have Started to Close

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_168790284_60fe3c09-b937-406f-a0e9-2d3a370f08b5-articleLarge New Hampshire Primary: Polls Have Started to Close Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Republican Party Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Klobuchar, Amy Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Biden, Joseph R Jr

Voters at a polling place at the town office in Hancock, N.H., on Tuesday.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times

  • The New Hampshire polls start to close at 7 p.m. The secretary of state has said final numbers could arrive as early as 9:30 p.m. Follow along with results here.

  • Eight Democratic candidates are mounting competitive campaigns in New Hampshire. They are: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusets, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the former tech executive Andrew Yang, Representative Tulsi Gabbard and the former hedge fund investor Tom Steyer.

  • There will also be a Republican primary, which President Trump is expected to win handily.

  • Polls show a close race between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, with Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar behind them, and Mr. Biden in the mix. The former vice president in particular could use a strong showing after a fourth-place finish in Iowa.

  • There are 24 delegates up for grabs, a relatively tiny number given that a candidate needs 1,991 delegates to win the party’s presidential nomination. But New Hampshire, the second nominating contest and first primary, can often provide a candidate with momentum before the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary later this month, as well as the Super Tuesday states in early March.

Here’s what you need to know:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Early primary and caucus states like New Hampshire usually help winnow the presidential field. It’s not clear that will happen tonight, or even this month.

The top two finishers in Iowa, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, appear likely to finish similarly here. It’s possible that one could win convincingly, or that they’ll both finish far ahead of the other candidates, potentially narrowing the race.

But it’s also plausible that New Hampshire will echo Iowa by producing such a divided result that it fails to bring the race into sharp focus. In Iowa, five candidates finished in the double digits and the top two each earned barely a quarter of the popular vote.

That lack of an overwhelming preference points to voters’ dissatisfaction with the longtime national front-runner, Mr. Biden, and uncertainty about their remaining options. For Democratic voters uncomfortable with Mr. Sanders, even a strong second-place finish for one of the other candidates could have an outsize national impact, if it signals to more moderate voters that someone else is their strongest remaining option.

Even then, there about 60 billion reasons that the race might remain in turmoil. If the early states are supposed to bring order to the race, it might be difficult for them to do that when Michael R. Bloomberg is bypassing them entirely with a self-funded campaign trained on Super Tuesday.

Here are some of the places we’re watching for early clues about how the candidates are doing.

Bedford: Four years ago, this affluent town was one of the few areas that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, and Mr. Buttigieg sees opportunity for him to gain support with his appeals to “future former Republicans.” He stopped at a polling place in the town to thank supporters just before polls closed. But it’s also possible that Ms. Klobuchar could make some in-roads.

Claremont: A working-class town close to the Vermont border, Claremont flipped from backing Barack Obama — twice — to Donald J. Trump in 2016. Results here could offer a good barometer of white working-class views in a battleground state that’s been trending slightly more red.

Manchester and Nashua: The two largest cities in the state are some of the most racially diverse areas and include a huge part of the Democratic electorate. They’re a mix of blue- and white-collar workers, with a large number of Boston transplants living in the suburbs. A candidate who can run up their margins in these cities and the surrounding areas is probably headed for a good night.

Durham: Mr. Sanders will have to run up turnout in this town, the home of the University of New Hampshire. A Sanders rally with the Strokes brought out 7,500 people on Monday night. The size of his margin in this area will give a good indication of the kind of night he may have.

Mr. Biden’s campaign has long sought to tamp down expectations about his prospects in New Hampshire, arguing that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren have home-field advantages.

But now, after a disastrous fourth-place finish in Iowa, Mr. Biden is facing the possibility of a fourth- or even fifth-place result in New Hampshire.

Such a result would destroy the Biden camp’s efforts to claim the mantle as the moderate standard-bearer in the Democratic Party, threaten his fund-raising and make it difficult to generate enthusiasm heading into Nevada.

Certainly, Mr. Biden could surprise here. And his campaign has made clear that whatever the New Hampshire result, Mr. Biden is committed to testing his theory that he will do best in later-voting, more diverse states like South Carolina.

The question is what the state of his money and momentum will be coming out of New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Aides to Mr. Sanders said on Tuesday that he had received 600,000 contributions in the first nine days of February, and topped seven million contributions over all in his 2020 campaign as of Sunday.

That means the Sanders campaign was processing an average of 66,666 contributions per day during that nine-day period. His average donation in January was $18.72.

If his average donation stayed steady in February, Mr. Sanders was raising nearly $1.25 million per day, or $11.2 million over all in nine days.

That donation pace was significantly faster than it was in January, when the Sanders campaign raised $25 million. His campaign said it had received 1.3 million donations in January, a 31-day period, which comes to about 42,000 per day.

Other top campaigns have not released their fund-raising totals for January or February.

The results of the New Hampshire primary may well be in the books later tonight before officials are done counting in Iowa, where the caucuses have been in chaos for over a week.

This past weekend, the Iowa Democratic Party released results showing Mr. Buttigieg with a lead of less than one-tenth of a percent in total “state delegate equivalents,’’ the metric it uses to declare a winner. But underlying problems have kept The Associated Press, which traditionally calls election winners, from awarding the state to Mr. Buttigieg.

On Monday, the campaigns of Mr. Sanders, who won the popular Iowa vote, and Mr. Buttigieg requested a “recanvass” of 143 precincts, about 8 percent of the total. The Sanders campaign said it did not expect the recanvass to change the outcome, but it was a necessary first step before requesting a “recount” — a deeper level of scrutiny — that could potentially reset the order. The state party chairman gave no timeline for the recanvass.

While many voters have moved on, and the impact of some unexpected finishes in Iowa — higher for Mr. Buttigieg, much lower for Mr. Biden — has been absorbed by voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere, supporters of Mr. Sanders seem to want to see things through, hoping for at least a moral victory.

Reporting was contributed by Sydney Ember, Reid J. Epstein, Lisa Lerer and Nick Corasaniti from Manchester, N.H., and Trip Gabriel from New York.

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

Prosecutors Quit Roger Stone Case After Justice Dept. Intervenes on Sentencing

Westlake Legal Group 11dc-stone-facebookJumbo Prosecutors Quit Roger Stone Case After Justice Dept. Intervenes on Sentencing United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Stone, Roger J Jr Justice Department Barr, William P

WASHINGTON — Four prosecutors withdrew on Tuesday from the case of Roger J. Stone Jr., the longtime friend of President Trump, after senior Justice Department officials intervened to recommend a more lenient sentence for Mr. Stone, who was convicted of impeding investigators in a bid to protect the president.

The highly unusual move prompted one of the government’s key prosecutors to resign altogether. It came after federal prosecutors in Washington asked a judge late Monday to sentence Mr. Stone to seven to nine years in prison for trying to sabotage a congressional investigation that threatened Mr. Trump and the president criticized their recommendation on Twitter as “horrible and very unfair.”

As he did after a jury speedily convicted Mr. Stone on seven felony charges in November, Mr. Trump attacked federal law enforcement officials, saying “the real crimes were on the other side.”

“Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!” Mr. Trump added.

Late on Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors submitted a new filing that made no specific sentencing recommendation, saying only that the earlier guidance was excessive and “does not accurately reflect the Department of Justice’s position on what would be a reasonable sentence.” The government still believes “incarceration is warranted” for Mr. Stone, they wrote.

“Ultimately, the government defers to the court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case,” said the filing said, which was signed by John Crabb Jr., a federal prosecutor who joined the case earlier in the day. None of the four prosecutors on Monday’s memo signed it.

The development was a tumultuous turn in one of the most high-profile cases brought by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, whose investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election cast a lengthy shadow over Mr. Trump’s presidency. Disagreements between United States attorneys and their Justice Department superiors rarely burst into public view, especially in criminal cases that have commanded the public spotlight for months.

Hours after the Justice Department said that it would lower Mr. Stone’s guidelines, a prosecutor on the case, Jonathan Kravis, told the court he had resigned “and therefore no longer represents the government in this matter.”

And two member of Mr. Mueller’s team who helped lead the prosecution of Mr. Stone, Aaron Zelinsky and Adam C. Jed, withdrew from the case. Mr. Zelinsky also resigned from a special assignment with the United States attorney’s office in Washington, though he will continue to work for the Justice Department in Baltimore. A fourth prosecutor, Michael J. Merendo, also withdrew.

Department officials defended its intervention, saying they were taken aback by the request for such a stiff sentence, according to a law enforcement official who offered the department’s view of what happened on condition of anonymity because the Stone case was ongoing.

The prosecutors had suggested a lighter prison term in discussions with Justice Department officials, the official said. The department decided to override the prosecutors’ decision soon after the sentencing memorandum was filed on Monday evening, said Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department.

She said that department officials did not discuss the case with anyone at the White House, including the president, and were not reacting to any directive from Mr. Trump or to his criticism on Twitter.

Mr. Stone, 67, was convicted in November of obstructing an investigation by the House Intelligence Committee into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, lying to investigators under oath and trying to block the testimony of a witness who would have exposed his lies. The jury deliberated for just seven hours.

Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the House committee, said that if the president intervened in any way to reverse the decision of career prosecutors, it would be “a blatant abuse of power.”

“Doing so would send an unmistakable message that President Trump will protect those who lie to Congress to cover up his own misconduct and that the attorney general will join him in that effort,” he said in a statement.

The Justice Department was expected to revise its sentencing memorandum in a court filing later on Tuesday. Grant Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Stone, said the defense team was “looking forward to reviewing” it. Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington is scheduled to sentence Mr. Stone on Feb. 20.

In their sentencing memorandum on Monday, federal prosecutors said that Mr. Stone should serve up to nine years because he threatened a witness with bodily harm, deceived congressional investigators and carried out an extensive, deliberate, illegal scheme that included repeatedly lying under oath and forging documents.

Even after he was charged in a felony indictment, the prosecutors said, Mr. Stone continued to try to manipulate the administration of justice by threatening Judge Jackson in a social media post and violating her gag orders.

The combination of those factors justified significantly increasing the range of punishment recommended under federal sentencing guidelines from 15 to 21 months to up to nine years, they said. While the guidelines are advisory, federal judges typically consider them carefully.

Defense lawyers characterized the prosecutors arguments as vastly overblown. Mr. Stone not only never intended to harm the witness, they said, he never created any real obstacle for investigators. While the witness, a New York radio host named Randy Credico, refused to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, they pointed out, he was later repeatedly interviewed by the F.B.I., appeared before the federal grand jury and testified against Mr. Stone during his trial.

In a letter asking Judge Jackson to spare Mr. Stone a prison term, Mr. Credico said that while he stood by his testimony, he never believed Mr. Stone would carry out his threat to injure him or his beloved dog. “I chalked up his bellicose tirades to ‘Stone being Stone.’ All bark and no bite,” Mr. Credico wrote.

Mr. Stone’s defense team also said that his violations of Judge Jackson’s gag orders should not count against him because the criminal proceedings had exacerbated his “longstanding battle with anxiety” and he has corrected that problem through therapy.

The decision to seek a more lenient punishment for Mr. Stone came less than two weeks after prosecutors backed off on their sentencing recommendation for Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry. Prosecutors had initially sought up to six months in prison, then said they would not oppose probation instead of prison time.

One of the prosecutors in the Flynn case, Brandon L. Van Grack — who had taken on the case under Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, and continued to work on it after he left that office to rejoin the Justice Department’s national security division — did not sign the memo in support of probation, though he had signed earlier briefs in the case.

The intervention by senior Justice Department officials in Mr. Stone’s case serves as the first big test for Timothy Shea, who last Monday became the interim head of the United States attorney’s office in Washington, which is overseeing some of the department’s most politically fraught cases.

Mr. Shea, a former senior counselor in the office of Attorney General William P. Barr, now oversees investigations into two former law enforcement officials whom Mr. Trump has long perceived as political enemies: the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, who is said to be the focus of investigators in an unusual inquiry into years-old leaks, and his former deputy Andrew G. McCabe, who faces allegations that he misled investigators in an administrative inquiry. That case has languished.

Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

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

Democrats Get the Attention, but Trump Aims to Put New Hampshire in Play

Westlake Legal Group 11dc-trump-1-facebookJumbo Democrats Get the Attention, but Trump Aims to Put New Hampshire in Play United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Republican Party Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 New Hampshire Ayotte, Kelly A

MANCHESTER, N.H. — In 2016, Donald J. Trump came within a few thousand votes of winning New Hampshire in the general election. This time around, fueled by a stockpile of donations, his campaign is looking at New Hampshire and its four electoral votes as a key target in its efforts to expand the map.

There are some factors working in his favor. Instead of a feud with one of the Republican Party’s few female senators as well as a former governor, the president has the state party apparatus backing him. And his advisers think the policies he has implemented fit the contours of the state.

But securing victory in a state that has been won by a Democrat in every presidential election since 2000 will be a test of both the president’s durability and his political operation.

Mr. Trump’s allies say the issues are with him. The unemployment rate in the state was 2.6 percent in October 2019, lower than the national figure. Mr. Trump has highlighted his administration’s efforts to stem the opioid crisis in a state that continues to rank among the top five in opioid-related deaths.

The president’s new North American trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, affects New Hampshire businesses importing timber, syrup and dairy from Canada, campaign officials said. Officials also pointed to efforts by the Interior Department to eliminate the Seamounts Marine National Monument, located off the Atlantic Coast, as a move that appeals to New Hampshire voters because it could open up previously protected areas to commercial uses like fishing.

Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s first 2016 campaign manager and a New Hampshire resident who considered running for the Senate seat held by the Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, said that those factors, “coupled with the fact that the president should have won last time,” work in his favor — an apparent reference to the relatively little party support Mr. Trump had in his losing battle with Hillary Clinton.

Yet if the New Hampshire Republican Party now belongs to the president, it has also seen a significant decline in enrollment.

“New Hampshire is going to be a challenge for him to win in November,” said Jennifer Horn, the former New Hampshire Republican chairman and a staunch critic of Mr. Trump. “A week ago, we had more than 20,000 fewer registered Republicans than there were Election Day in 2016.”

Ms. Horn noted that Republican candidates lost large, consistently red areas in the 2018 midterm elections, and that the same thing could happen here to Mr. Trump. While other state Republicans played down concerns about the drop in party members on the voter rolls as the natural ebb and flow that happens in a state with same-day voter registration, Ms. Horn said 20,000 was “way outside the norm.”

And the state’s demographics reflect the type of place where Mr. Trump will face challenges: concentrations of working-class whites, but multitudes of college-educated voters, who polls show have been abandoning the Republican Party.

“We’ve had great success in the municipal elections, and of course we had the historic wins in 2018,” said Ray Buckley, the state Democratic chairman. “There’s a lot of energy on the ground here. We’ve built a year-round organization.”

Aware of some of the challenges ahead, the Trump campaign appears eager to get a head start.

While Pete Buttigieg was trying to emerge from the Democratic field and Joseph R. Biden Jr. was trying to stay in it, Mr. Trump turned up in Manchester for a rally Monday night and Trump surrogates fanned out Tuesday to diners and polling sites throughout the state, even though he faces only token opposition in the Republican primary.

Their mission: talk up Mr. Trump’s policies, distract attention from Democrats and set the stage for the general election.

“We’re trying to fly the Trump flag when all the action is on the other side,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who strolled into Bedford High School, just outside Manchester, to greet voters on Tuesday morning. “If the economy stays good, I think he’s very much in play here.”

Senator Rick Scott of Florida was on hand outside Manchester on Tuesday morning to paint Democrats with the brush of “socialism.” Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, spent the day at diners and high schools campaigning for his father. Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Greg Pence of Indiana, among others, stayed behind after Mr. Trump’s rally on Monday night and made diner visits and talked with local news media.

Two supporters who were scheduled to campaign on the ground for him — Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida — hitched a ride home Monday night on Air Force One instead, to deal with legislative matters in Washington or attend the transfer of remains for two soldiers killed over the weekend in Afghanistan. Taking their place were prominent New Hampshire Republicans, a change from four years ago.

Gov. Chris Sununu bound into a local high school, where he purchased a box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts from a student bake sale and stayed on message.

“The Trump tax cuts here worked,” he said. “The U.S.M.C.A., very powerful, for a lot of our businesses that trade with our friends to the north. The regulatory reform streamlined the process.” He also credited the administration with investing $50 million in the state to battle the opioid crisis.

The last time Mr. Trump was running, John H. Sununu, the current governor’s father and a former governor himself, questioned Mr. Trump’s history of business losses and said his coarse language was “demeaning of the office he’s seeking.”

Trump campaign officials said they blamed the president’s 2016 loss in large part on his feud with Kelly Ayotte, a senator at the time who was locked in a close re-election race and tried to thread the needle by saying she would vote for Mr. Trump but not endorse him. Ms. Ayotte lost her seat, and Mr. Trump lost the state, an outcome one campaign official described as a political murder-suicide.

Monday found Ms. Ayotte campaigning for the president at a “Cops for Trump” event with Ivanka Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Reached on the phone on Tuesday, Ms. Ayotte hung up on a reporter. “I’m busy. I have to go,” she said when asked to comment on the state of the race in New Hampshire.

But the show of Republican force appeared to be having its desired effect of sparking fears among Democratic voters about the strength of their own candidates.

Mark Goodridge, 75, of Bedford, said he was voting for Mr. Biden. But he said he was anxious that he might lose to Mr. Trump.

“You see the Trump signs out there? Did you see how many are out there?” he asked, pointing to the pop-up stand of Trump campaign T-shirts and gear set up outside the school’s entrance.

His wife, Margaret, 76, chimed in. “I think it depends on who the Democrats pick,” she said. “If we get the right candidate … ” Her voice trailed off, before she added, “Which is kind of a worry.”

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

New Hampshire Primary: What Time Polls Close and What to Watch For

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_168770328_072a0f02-2655-409d-9023-d802586f3767-articleLarge New Hampshire Primary: What Time Polls Close and What to Watch For Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Republican Party Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Klobuchar, Amy Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Biden, Joseph R Jr

Voting at Broad Street Elementary School in Nashua, N.H., on Tuesday.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times

  • The New Hampshire polls started opening widely at 6 a.m. and will start to close at 7 p.m. The secretary of state has said final results could arrive as early as 9:30 p.m.

  • Eight Democratic candidates are mounting competitive campaigns in New Hampshire. They are: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusets, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the former tech executive Andrew Yang, Representative Tulsi Gabbard and the former hedge fund investor Tom Steyer.

  • There will also be a Republican primary, which President Trump is expected to win handily.

  • Polls show a close race between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, with Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar behind them, and Mr. Biden in the mix. The former vice president in particular could use a strong showing after a fourth-place finish in Iowa.

  • There are 24 delegates up for grabs, a relatively tiny number given that a candidate needs 1,991 delegates to win the party’s presidential nomination. But New Hampshire, the second nominating contest and first primary, can often provide a candidate with momentum before the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary later this month, as well as the Super Tuesday states in early March.

Stay up to date on primaries and caucuses. Subscribe to “On Politics,” and we’ll send you a link to our live coverage.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — The traditional role of the early primary and caucus states is to winnow the field of presidential candidates and bestow national momentum on one or several finalists. It is far from clear that this will happen in New Hampshire — or anytime in February.

It is reasonably likely that the top two finishers in New Hampshire will be the same as in Iowa: Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg. And it is possible that one of them will win the state convincingly, or that both of them will far outdistance any runners-up and narrow the race to a small number of options.

But it is also entirely possible that New Hampshire will echo Iowa in another way, by producing such a divided result that it fails to bring the race into sharp focus. In Iowa, five candidates finished in the double digits and the top two each earned barely a quarter of the popular vote. That was hardly an emphatic outcome, and it remains to be seen whether New Hampshire voters will be more decisive.

Of course, the lack of an overwhelming preference is also a kind of preference — one that would reflect voters’ dissatisfaction with the longtime national front-runner, Mr. Biden, and uncertainty about their remaining options. For Democratic voters uncomfortable with Mr. Sanders, even a strong second-place finish for one of the other candidates could have an outsize national impact, if it signals to more moderate voters that someone else is their strongest remaining option.

Even then, there about 60 billion reasons that the race might remain in turmoil for a good while yet. If the early states are supposed to bring order to the race, it might be difficult for them to do that when Michael R. Bloomberg is bypassing them entirely with a self-funded campaign trained on Super Tuesday.

For months, Mr. Biden’s campaign has sought to tamp down expectations about his prospects in New Hampshire, arguing that rivals like Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren have dramatic home-field advantages, given their status as neighboring-state Democrats.

But now, fresh off a disastrous fourth-place finish in Iowa, Mr. Biden is confronting the possibility of a fourth- or even fifth-place result in New Hampshire.

Despite a slate of prominent endorsements and widespread name recognition, there is the chance that Mr. Biden places behind relative newcomers from the Midwest, Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar.

Such a result would destroy the Biden camp’s efforts to claim the mantle as the moderate standard-bearer in the Democratic Party, threaten his fund-raising and make it difficult to generate enthusiasm headed into the next contest, Nevada.

Certainly, Mr. Biden could surprise here. And his campaign has already made its posture clear: Whatever the New Hampshire result, Mr. Biden is committed to testing his theory that he will do best in later-voting, more diverse states like South Carolina.

The question is what the state of his money and momentum will be coming out of New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Ms. Warren had, not so long ago, dreamed of winning the New Hampshire primary and vaulting herself toward Super Tuesday with serious momentum.

No longer, at least if polls are to be believed.

The Massachusetts senator appears instead to be engaged in a three-way fight for third place with Mr. Biden and Ms. Klobuchar.

Ms. Warren, who finished third in Iowa behind Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Sanders, the same two men she trails in New Hampshire, has spent the week trying to float above the intensifying fray and projecting strength beyond the early states. “There are 55 more states and territories after this,” she said in Concord on Sunday. “It looks like it is going to be a long battle to the nomination. We have already built out offices and have on the ground troops in 30 states.”

She may have offices and troops, but Ms. Warren also needs money and political momentum, and a weak showing in New Hampshire could rob her of both.

Mr. Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, is seeking the pole position in the Democratic primary race, after a strong finish in the flawed Iowa caucuses.

But recent polling shows him in a tight race in New Hampshire with Mr. Buttigieg, who also did very well in Iowa.

Anything short of a victory on Tuesday would be a significant disappointment for Mr. Sanders, who won the state’s primary in 2016 against Hillary Clinton with 60 percent of the vote. He probably needs a commanding win to propel him into the rest of the early states and Super Tuesday.

His financial advantage should remain: Aides to Mr. Sanders said on Tuesday that he had received 600,000 contributions in the first nine days of February, and topped seven million contributions over all in his 2020 campaign as of Sunday.

That means the Sanders campaign was processing an average of 66,666 contributions per day during that nine-day period. His average donation in January was $18.72.

If his average donation stayed steady in February, Mr. Sanders was raising nearly $1.25 million per day, or $11.2 million over all in nine days.

That donation pace was significantly faster than January, when the Sanders campaign raised $25 million. His campaign said it had received 1.3 million donations in January, a 31-day period, which comes to about 42,000 per day.

Other top campaigns have not released their fund-raising totals for January or February. Mr. said on CBS this week that his campaign was “raising about half a million dollars a day.”

A few weeks before Iowa’s caucuses, Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign was quietly letting it be known that if he didn’t have top-three finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, he’d end his campaign before heading on to Nevada and South Carolina.

Now, after a virtual tie for first place in Iowa and New Hampshire polls showing him second to Mr. Sanders, the question for Mr. Buttigieg is how far can he go.

At this point, expectations for Mr. Buttigieg, 38, are as high as they’ve been. A top-two finish would cement his status as a leading candidate, thumping Mr. Biden, the establishment choice, twice in nine days. Third or worse, at this point, would be an extreme disappointment.

Mr. Buttigieg’s team knows the road is about to get much tougher. Nevada’s caucuses and South Carolina’s primary are dominated by Latino and black Democrats — groups that have been far less receptive to his message of handing the reins of government to a new generation.

His hope, expressed to reporters, donors and supporters over the last months, is that winning begets winning. He claimed victory in Iowa before any results were posted and turned that into momentum in New Hampshire. A win or a close-enough second place here could send him west with an argument that he’s the best, or perhaps the only, alternative to Mr. Sanders.

Few candidates have personally felt a 48-hour momentum swing quite like Ms. Klobuchar.

With capacity crowds all weekend, more than $3 million raised over the weekend and two polls showing a surge into third place, Ms. Klobuchar carries the confidence, and media scrums, of a candidate on the rise.

Of course, she still finished fifth in Iowa. And her millions raised over the weekend pour into a war chest far smaller than that of the top two candidates.

Her success in New Hampshire will hinge on whether her blunt appeal to moderates, independents and even Trump-regretting conservatives could patch together a coalition broad enough to compete with Mr. Biden, the one-time poll leader who has admitted that he has slipped in the Granite State, and Ms. Warren, who has also seen some precipitous falls in state polling.

For Ms. Klobuchar to have a good night, she’ll need a strong showing in the rural northern parts of the state and along the seacoast.

But while her moderate roots find a home in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, the map gets harder for Ms. Klobuchar in Nevada and South Carolina, and then later on Super Tuesday, with a heavy dose of the West, South and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of ads from Mr. Bloomberg.

Perhaps no candidate would have to scale as rapidly as Ms. Klobuchar after Tuesday’s primary, should she have a strong showing. But Ms. Klobuchar vowed on Monday to continue onward to Super Tuesday no matter what.

If there’s been one certainty of the Trump era, it is that Democrats vote. A lot.

In 2018, turnout in the midterm elections reached the highest level in a century. Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. A year later, they gloated about their success winning governorships seats in two red states — Kentucky and Louisiana — with help from a historic surge of voters.

But in the first test of their 2020 might, Democrats fell down on the job. The leading campaigns were prepared for as many as 300,000 people to show up for the Iowa caucuses — 60,000 more than the record set in 2008. Instead, just 176,000 showed up, less than 3 percent more than in 2016.

New Hampshire officials predict a very different outcome in their state, where independents can also vote in party primaries. Secretary of State Bill Gardner believes more than 500,000 people will vote in the primary, a turnout of more than 50 percent of the state’s registered voters.

Already worried about their prospects against President Trump, Democrats will be keeping a close eye on those numbers. Anything short of history-making numbers are likely to be seen as a disappointment, one that may send another wave of anxiety through a party already reaching for the smelling salts.

Sydney Ember, Reid J. Epstein, Lisa Lerer and Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting from Manchester, N.H.

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

What to Watch For Before the New Hampshire Primary Polls Close

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_168770328_072a0f02-2655-409d-9023-d802586f3767-articleLarge What to Watch For Before the New Hampshire Primary Polls Close Yang, Andrew (1975- ) Warren, Elizabeth Trump, Donald J Steyer, Thomas F Sanders, Bernard Republican Party Primaries and Caucuses Presidential Election of 2020 New Hampshire Klobuchar, Amy Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Biden, Joseph R Jr

Voting at Broad Street Elementary School in Nashua, N.H., on Tuesday.Credit…Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times

  • The New Hampshire polls started opening widely at 6 a.m. and will start to close at 7 p.m. The secretary of state has said final results could arrive as early as 9:30 p.m.

  • Eight Democratic candidates are mounting competitive campaigns in New Hampshire. They are: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusets, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the former tech executive Andrew Yang, Representative Tulsi Gabbard and the former hedge fund investor Tom Steyer.

  • There will also be a Republican primary, which President Trump is expected to win handily.

  • Polls show a close race between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, with Ms. Warren and Ms. Klobuchar behind them, and Mr. Biden in the mix. The former vice president in particular could use a strong showing after a fourth-place finish in Iowa.

  • There are 24 delegates up for grabs, a relatively tiny number given that a candidate needs 1,991 delegates to win the party’s presidential nomination. But New Hampshire, the second nominating contest and first primary, can often provide a candidate with momentum before the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary later this month, as well as the Super Tuesday states in early March.

Stay up to date on primaries and caucuses. Subscribe to “On Politics,” and we’ll send you a link to our live coverage.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — The traditional role of the early primary and caucus states is to winnow the field of presidential candidates and bestow national momentum on one or several finalists. It is far from clear that this will happen in New Hampshire — or anytime in February.

It is reasonably likely that the top two finishers in New Hampshire will be the same as in Iowa: Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg. And it is possible that one of them will win the state convincingly, or that both of them will far outdistance any runners-up and narrow the race to a small number of options.

But it is also entirely possible that New Hampshire will echo Iowa in another way, by producing such a divided result that it fails to bring the race into sharp focus. In Iowa, five candidates finished in the double digits and the top two each earned barely a quarter of the popular vote. That was hardly an emphatic outcome, and it remains to be seen whether New Hampshire voters will be more decisive.

Of course, the lack of an overwhelming preference is also a kind of preference — one that would reflect voters’ dissatisfaction with the longtime national front-runner, Mr. Biden, and uncertainty about their remaining options. For Democratic voters uncomfortable with Mr. Sanders, even a strong second-place finish for one of the other candidates could have an outsize national impact, if it signals to more moderate voters that someone else is their strongest remaining option.

Even then, there about 60 billion reasons that the race might remain in turmoil for a good while yet. If the early states are supposed to bring order to the race, it might be difficult for them to do that when Michael R. Bloomberg is bypassing them entirely with a self-funded campaign trained on Super Tuesday.

For months, Mr. Biden’s campaign has sought to tamp down expectations about his prospects in New Hampshire, arguing that rivals like Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren have dramatic home-field advantages, given their status as neighboring-state Democrats.

But now, fresh off a disastrous fourth-place finish in Iowa, Mr. Biden is confronting the possibility of a fourth- or even fifth-place result in New Hampshire.

Despite a slate of prominent endorsements and widespread name recognition, there is the chance that Mr. Biden places behind relative newcomers from the Midwest, Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar.

Such a result would destroy the Biden camp’s efforts to claim the mantle as the moderate standard-bearer in the Democratic Party, threaten his fund-raising and make it difficult to generate enthusiasm headed into the next contest, Nevada.

Certainly, Mr. Biden could surprise here. And his campaign has already made its posture clear: Whatever the New Hampshire result, Mr. Biden is committed to testing his theory that he will do best in later-voting, more diverse states like South Carolina.

The question is what the state of his money and momentum will be coming out of New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Ms. Warren had, not so long ago, dreamed of winning the New Hampshire primary and vaulting herself toward Super Tuesday with serious momentum.

No longer, at least if polls are to be believed.

The Massachusetts senator appears instead to be engaged in a three-way fight for third place with Mr. Biden and Ms. Klobuchar.

Ms. Warren, who finished third in Iowa behind Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. Sanders, the same two men she trails in New Hampshire, has spent the week trying to float above the intensifying fray and projecting strength beyond the early states. “There are 55 more states and territories after this,” she said in Concord on Sunday. “It looks like it is going to be a long battle to the nomination. We have already built out offices and have on the ground troops in 30 states.”

She may have offices and troops, but Ms. Warren also needs money and political momentum, and a weak showing in New Hampshire could rob her of both.

Mr. Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, is seeking the pole position in the Democratic primary race, after a strong finish in the flawed Iowa caucuses.

But recent polling shows him in a tight race in New Hampshire with Mr. Buttigieg, who also did very well in Iowa.

Anything short of a victory on Tuesday would be a significant disappointment for Mr. Sanders, who won the state’s primary in 2016 against Hillary Clinton with 60 percent of the vote. He probably needs a commanding win to propel him into the rest of the early states and Super Tuesday.

His financial advantage should remain: Aides to Mr. Sanders said on Tuesday that he had received 600,000 contributions in the first nine days of February, and topped seven million contributions over all in his 2020 campaign as of Sunday.

That means the Sanders campaign was processing an average of 66,666 contributions per day during that nine-day period. His average donation in January was $18.72.

If his average donation stayed steady in February, Mr. Sanders was raising nearly $1.25 million per day, or $11.2 million over all in nine days.

That donation pace was significantly faster than January, when the Sanders campaign raised $25 million. His campaign said it had received 1.3 million donations in January, a 31-day period, which comes to about 42,000 per day.

Other top campaigns have not released their fund-raising totals for January or February. Mr. said on CBS this week that his campaign was “raising about half a million dollars a day.”

A few weeks before Iowa’s caucuses, Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign was quietly letting it be known that if he didn’t have top-three finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, he’d end his campaign before heading on to Nevada and South Carolina.

Now, after a virtual tie for first place in Iowa and New Hampshire polls showing him second to Mr. Sanders, the question for Mr. Buttigieg is how far can he go.

At this point, expectations for Mr. Buttigieg, 38, are as high as they’ve been. A top-two finish would cement his status as a leading candidate, thumping Mr. Biden, the establishment choice, twice in nine days. Third or worse, at this point, would be an extreme disappointment.

Mr. Buttigieg’s team knows the road is about to get much tougher. Nevada’s caucuses and South Carolina’s primary are dominated by Latino and black Democrats — groups that have been far less receptive to his message of handing the reins of government to a new generation.

His hope, expressed to reporters, donors and supporters over the last months, is that winning begets winning. He claimed victory in Iowa before any results were posted and turned that into momentum in New Hampshire. A win or a close-enough second place here could send him west with an argument that he’s the best, or perhaps the only, alternative to Mr. Sanders.

Few candidates have personally felt a 48-hour momentum swing quite like Ms. Klobuchar.

With capacity crowds all weekend, more than $3 million raised over the weekend and two polls showing a surge into third place, Ms. Klobuchar carries the confidence, and media scrums, of a candidate on the rise.

Of course, she still finished fifth in Iowa. And her millions raised over the weekend pour into a war chest far smaller than that of the top two candidates.

Her success in New Hampshire will hinge on whether her blunt appeal to moderates, independents and even Trump-regretting conservatives could patch together a coalition broad enough to compete with Mr. Biden, the one-time poll leader who has admitted that he has slipped in the Granite State, and Ms. Warren, who has also seen some precipitous falls in state polling.

For Ms. Klobuchar to have a good night, she’ll need a strong showing in the rural northern parts of the state and along the seacoast.

But while her moderate roots find a home in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, the map gets harder for Ms. Klobuchar in Nevada and South Carolina, and then later on Super Tuesday, with a heavy dose of the West, South and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of ads from Mr. Bloomberg.

Perhaps no candidate would have to scale as rapidly as Ms. Klobuchar after Tuesday’s primary, should she have a strong showing. But Ms. Klobuchar vowed on Monday to continue onward to Super Tuesday no matter what.

If there’s been one certainty of the Trump era, it is that Democrats vote. A lot.

In 2018, turnout in the midterm elections reached the highest level in a century. Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. A year later, they gloated about their success winning governorships seats in two red states — Kentucky and Louisiana — with help from a historic surge of voters.

But in the first test of their 2020 might, Democrats fell down on the job. The leading campaigns were prepared for as many as 300,000 people to show up for the Iowa caucuses — 60,000 more than the record set in 2008. Instead, just 176,000 showed up, less than 3 percent more than in 2016.

New Hampshire officials predict a very different outcome in their state, where independents can also vote in party primaries. Secretary of State Bill Gardner believes more than 500,000 people will vote in the primary, a turnout of more than 50 percent of the state’s registered voters.

Already worried about their prospects against President Trump, Democrats will be keeping a close eye on those numbers. Anything short of history-making numbers are likely to be seen as a disappointment, one that may send another wave of anxiety through a party already reaching for the smelling salts.

Sydney Ember, Reid J. Epstein, Lisa Lerer and Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting from Manchester, N.H.

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

Justice Dept. to Seek Shorter Sentence for Roger Stone, Overruling Its Prosecutors

Westlake Legal Group 11dc-stone-facebookJumbo Justice Dept. to Seek Shorter Sentence for Roger Stone, Overruling Its Prosecutors United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Stone, Roger J Jr Justice Department Barr, William P

WASHINGTON — Senior Justice Department officials intervened to overrule front-line prosecutors and will recommend a more lenient sentencing for Roger J. Stone Jr., convicted last year of impeding investigators in a bid to protect his longtime friend President Trump, a senior department official said Tuesday.

The move is highly unusual and is certain to generate allegations of political interference. It came after federal prosecutors in Washington asked a judge late Monday evening to sentence Mr. Stone to seven to nine years in prison on seven felony convictions for trying to sabotage a congressional investigation that threatened Mr. Trump.

Early on Tuesday, Mr. Trump declared the sentencing recommendation “horrible and very unfair.

“The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”

Both the Stone sentencing recommendation and the president’s tweet took officials at Justice Department headquarters by surprise, according to a department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the Stone case was ongoing.

The recommendation was higher than what the United States attorney’s office had told Justice Department officials it would suggest, according to the official, and the department decided soon after the filing to override the prosecutors’ decision.

The department had not discussed the recommendation with the White House or Mr. Trump, the official said.

“The department finds the recommendation extreme and excessive and disproportionate to Stone’s offenses,” the official said.

The Justice Department was to clarify its position in a court filing later on Tuesday. Mr. Stone’s sentencing by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington is scheduled for next week.

Federal prosecutors said in their sentencing memorandum Monday that Mr. Stone, 67, should serve up to nine years because he threatened a witness with bodily harm and interfered with a congressional investigation. They also cited the fact that he violated a judge’s gag orders after he was charged in a federal indictment.

They also said that he had lied under oath and forged documents as investigators sought to understand how the 2016 Trump campaign tried to benefit from stolen Democratic documents.

Defense lawyers argued that Mr. Stone not only never intended to threaten the witness but also created no real obstacle for investigators.

The decision to seek more leniency for Mr. Stone also came less than two weeks after prosecutors backed off on their sentencing recommendation for Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry. Prosecutors had initially sought up to six months in prison, then said they would not oppose probation instead of prison time.

One of the prosecutors in the Flynn case, Brandon L. Van Grack — who had taken on the case under Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, and continued to work on it after he left that office to rejoin the Justice Department’s national security division — did not sign the memo in support of probation, though he had signed earlier briefs in the case.

The intervention by senior Justice Department officials in Mr. Stone’s case serves as the first big test for Timothy Shea, who last Monday became the interim head of the United States attorney’s office in Washington, which is overseeing some of the department’s most politically fraught cases.

Mr. Shea, a longtime trusted adviser to Attorney General William P. Barr and former senior counselor in Mr. Barr’s office, now oversees investigations into two former law enforcement officials whom Mr. Trump has long perceived as political enemies: the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, who is said to be the focus of investigators in an unusual inquiry into years-old leaks, and his former deputy Andrew G. McCabe, who faces allegations that he misled investigators in an administrative inquiry. That case that has languished.

Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

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

Justice Dept. to Seek Shorter Sentence for Roger Stone, Overruling Its Prosecutors

Westlake Legal Group 11dc-stone-facebookJumbo Justice Dept. to Seek Shorter Sentence for Roger Stone, Overruling Its Prosecutors United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Stone, Roger J Jr Justice Department Barr, William P

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department will back off its sentencing recommendation for Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump’s former campaign adviser and longtime friend, a senior department official said Tuesday, with senior department officials intervening to overrule front-line prosecutors who tried the case.

The move is highly unusual and is certain to generate allegations of political interference. It came after federal prosecutors in Washington asked a judge late Monday evening to sentence Mr. Stone to seven to nine years in prison on seven felony convictions for trying to sabotage a congressional investigation that threatened Mr. Trump. Early on Tuesday, Mr. Trump declared the sentencing recommendation “horrible and very unfair.

“The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”

Both the sentencing recommendation and the president’s tweet took officials at Justice Department headquarters by surprise, according to a department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the Stone case was ongoing.

The recommendation was higher than what the United States attorney’s office had told Justice Department officials it would suggest, according to the official, and the department decided soon after the filing to override the prosecutors’ decision.

The department had not discussed the recommendation with the White House or Mr. Trump, the official said.

“The department finds the recommendation extreme and excessive and disproportionate to Stone’s offenses,” the official said.

The Justice Department was to clarify its position in a court filing later on Tuesday.

Federal prosecutors said in their sentencing memorandum Monday that Mr. Stone, 67, should serve up to nine years because he threatened a witness with bodily harm and interfered with a congressional investigation. They also cited the fact that he violated a judge’s gag orders after he was charged in a federal indictment.

They also said that he had lied under oath and forged documents as investigators sought to understand how the 2016 Trump campaign tried to benefit from stolen Democratic documents.

Defense lawyers argued that Mr. Stone not only never intended to threaten the witness but also created no real obstacle for investigators.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

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