HomeUncategorized2/7 New Hampshire – 8th DNC Debate 2020 Live Blog and TGIF Open Thread
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

T and R, Benny!! 🙂 You are bad!! LOL I play FL Lotto once in a while. If I ever win, (ho-ho), I will figure out away to get all the major birdies in the Nest together.




Uh oh. I’ll have to read that when I have time. Making it legal in Canada may have increased demand?


Benny/LD: how do I link music tunes in this program? I am talking about the Traamps “Disco Inferno.” That’s the one with the ‘burn baby burn’ lyric.


Almost exactly like Monmouth, but here the age breakdown seems reasonable. Bernie and Buttigieg both up from last month. The rest of the field not much change. Bernie’s support is strongest


Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg remain atop the Democratic field in New Hampshire just four days before the state’s primary and after the messy results that have marred the Iowa caucuses, a new NBC News/Marist poll finds.

Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, gets support from 25 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the Granite State, while Buttigieg gets support from 21 percent.

The separation between the two candidates — within the poll’s margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.7 percentage points — is essentially unchanged from January’s NBC/Marist poll, when Sanders was at 22 percent and Buttigieg was at 17 percent.

They’re followed in the new poll by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., at 14 percent (she was at 13 percent last month) and former Vice President Joe Biden at 13 percent (he was at 15 percent).

And Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is at 8 percent support among likely Democratic primary voters — down 2 points from her 10 percent in January.

Sixty-three percent of Buttigieg’s backers say they strongly support him — up from 44 percent in January.

By comparison, 73 percent of Sanders voters strongly support his candidacy — down 3 percentage points from last month.

And 60 percent of Biden voters strongly back him, while 56 percent of Warren supporters are firmly behind her.


NH will be a battle, and Bernie has to have turnout!!!!


Union leaders again seem to be in opposition to many of its members.


Nevada’s most influential union is sending a subtle message to its members discouraging support for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren over their health care stances even though the union has not yet decided if it will endorse a candidate in the Democratic presidential race.

The casino workers’ Culinary Union, a 60,000-member group made up of housekeepers, porters, bartenders and more who work in Las Vegas’ famed casinos, began distributing leaflets in employee dining rooms this week that push back against “Medicare For All,” the plan from Sanders and Warren to move to a government-run health insurance system.

The leaflet said “presidential candidates suggesting forcing millions of hard working people to give up their healthcare creates unnecessary division between workers, and will give us four more years of Trump.”

With voting in Nevada’s presidential caucuses scheduled to start in just over a week, the union’s message to stand firm against the health care plans could signify that union leaders worry their members are considering voting for those who would unravel the union’s crowning achievement.

The union’s national affiliate, Unite Here, is staying neutral in the contest, but five of Unite Here’s affiliate unions based in California announced Friday they were backing Sanders. Another affiliate, Unite Here Local 11 out of Southern California, announced in January it was backing both Sanders and Warren.


IMHO Neveda will be a bloodsport compaired to Iowa, Bernie has to be ready for a ton of BS from the DNC and thier powerful owners. I wonder if the DNC and DNC of Neveda would go to the lenght of banning cell phones from the caucus counting process. That stragety help the Bernie crew expose the crap that the Iowa DNC pulled


With voters like these I kind of feel sorry for Warren. Lots of candidates haves lots of reasons to take on Buttigieg tonight.


In the back row of an event geared toward veterans for Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., on Thursday, a discussion broke about one of his Democratic rivals — Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Christine Bagley, 65, said Ms. Warren had been her top choice but described her as “a bit of a bulldog,” saying Mr. Buttigieg made her feel more “hopeful and inspired.” Lois Luddy, 66, had also considered Ms. Warren, but said she was too “bellicose.”

“It’s always fight, fight, fight, fight, fight,” Ms. Luddy said of Ms. Warren, repeating the word for emphasis. “Someone needs to tell her to calm down.”

Ms. Bagley shot back: “Would you say that if she wasn’t a woman?”

Ms. Warren has an electoral problem in Mr. Buttigieg. Her campaign had planned to face off against Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her top progressive rival, and known quantities like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. But it’s the 38-year-old former mayor who is playing the role of spoiler, most immediately complicating Ms. Warren’s path in early-nominating states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

These were the states in which Ms. Warren was supposed to build momentum, propelled by her base of white, college-educated liberals. She was supposed to prove that she was the person who could unite the Democratic Party and demonstrate the energy behind ridding Washington of corruption.

Instead, after Mr. Buttigieg led the attacks on Ms. Warren over her health care plan that began in October, he is snaring her primary voters — including women of Ms. Warren’s generation like Ms. Bagley and Ms. Luddy — with a platitude-heavy message of uniting the country and restoring democracy.

It has already worked in Iowa. In the run-up to the caucuses, Ms. Warren’s campaign highlighted her ability to become voters’ second choice — the supposed evidence of her status as the Democratic “unity candidate.” But as results trickled in from the state, it was Mr. Buttigieg who gained the most from the so-called second alignment, as supporters of candidates such as Mr. Biden, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and the businessman Andrew Yang shifted to Mr. Buttigieg when their top choice failed to cross the viability threshold.

With the New Hampshire primary just days away, and another Democratic debate on Friday night in Manchester, some of Ms. Warren’s own supporters are begging her to attack Mr. Buttigieg directly, as she did in the December debate, which became known for their memorable “wine cave” clash over high-dollar fund-raising.



For much of the presidential campaign, Pete Buttigieg has championed the importance of the popular vote. In a town hall nearly a year ago, Buttigieg proclaimed: “One thing I believe is that in an American presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins.”

Yet after the Iowa caucuses, where Bernie Sanders clearly got thousands of more votes, Buttigieg has been trumpeting victory — on the basis of a metric that can subvert the popular vote, the state delegate haul from Iowa’s equivalent of the electoral college.

After days of failed technology and counting chaos, the Iowa Democratic Party has now released 100 percent of the state results. The current tally shows Buttigieg trailing Sanders by 2,631 votes, yet leading by 2 “state delegate equivalents” — a margin of 0.1 percent on that metric. Yet the official tally includes many documented and uncorrected errors and what the state party deems “inconsistencies in data.” The Associated Press has refused to call the election, and Democratic party chair Tom Perez has demanded a “recanvass” or recount. Despite the tenuousness of these results, the Buttigieg website now proclaims: “It’s official: Pete won the Iowa Caucuses!”

Rolling Stone asked the Buttigieg campaign if they saw any contradiction in their candidate claiming victory, while losing on the metric Buttigieg has argued should count. The campaign responded with an embrace of Iowa’s arcane process, highlighting that “the nominee is selected by delegates” and that “SDEs determine delegates.”


Well Petey is full of –you know whats comming 🙂


^^^^ 🙂 ^^^^!


This glass is basically double the size of a pint glass of the mojito and had a few of them tonight, so apologizing in advance if I get snarky tonight during the debate, bad bad day at work today and Iowa pissed me off to no end!!! so not a good combination!!!




Nathan Robinson documents the many many many things wrong with Pete.


It is a sad reflection on American politics that Pete Buttigieg is taken seriously as a presidential contender. After all, the question voters should ask themselves when choosing a candidate is: what have you done with your life that can give me confidence you mean what you say? Every politician will tell you what you want to hear at election time. Anyone can look at the mood of the electorate and craft policies that will be popular. But so few leaders actually deliver on their lofty promises, and you need to know what kind of person they really are, whether they can be relied on to fight for you when it counts. You need someone who has been consistent in sticking up for the right thing.

Pete Buttigieg, as I have documented at length before, has spent his life doing little more than try to advance himself to higher and higher levels of status and power. When he was at Harvard, he passed by the “social justice warriors” (his term) fighting to get a living wage for the school’s janitors, so that he could go and have pizza with governors and media elites. As a newly minted Rhodes Scholar, with the privilege to do almost anything in the world, he chose to go to McKinsey, a totally amoral consulting firm that advises dictators and drug companies on how to optimize their evil. There, he almost certainly helped craft layoffs and insurance rate hikes at Blue Cross (instead of denying this, he pivots quickly to trashing single-payer healthcare). He worked on McKinsey’s contract with the Department of Defense in Afghanistan, which funneled millions of dollars of taxpayer money to the consulting firm for seemingly doing almost no work. (The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan could not find anything that McKinsey had produced for the $18 million the government gave it except a 50-page report highlighting the economic development opportunities in Afghanistan.) When asked about it, Buttigieg simply says it’s all a secret.

Unfortunately, this kind of politics is downright dangerous. More than ever, we need someone who isn’t a hollow careerist putting on a “folksy” image, but who cares passionately about fighting for justice. The threats of climate change and war are too great to leave in the hands of someone who doesn’t seem to care about the lives of working people. Buttigieg has already dialed back his ambition on climate change, and his plan falls woefully short of what is necessary, even if we could trust him to passionately fight on the issue, which we can’t. (The McKinsey approach to climate change will probably involve “optimizing climate mitigation for maximal economic growth” or something.)

Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary offers the chance to repudiate this kind of politics once and for all, for voters to show that they demand something real and substantive, and someone who has shown over their career that they actually give a shit about ordinary people. Let us hope New Hampshire voters seize the chance to show this man that they will not be manipulated, that they see what Pete is doing and have no intention of rewarding it.


Turnout was up only a little bit in Iowa except for the under 30s. The age group that was down was the 45-64, Buttigieg’s strongest group. Hopefully this continues in NH.


The weekend before Iowans caucused, Sanders predicted that he would only win with a historically high number of Iowans showing up on Monday night. “I believe if there is a low voter turnout, we will lose this election. If there is a high voter turnout, we are going to win this election,” Sanders told Iowans gathered in Des Moines the Friday before the caucus. “Our job is to create the highest voter turnout in the history of the Iowa caucuses.”

As it turns out, no such record turnout came to pass. The turnout was barely above 2016 levels and far short of the huge levels seen in 2008.

Yet Bernie won anyway. As I noted in this space two weeks before the caucuses, it was an open question how many young voters would show up: “In 2016, under-30 voters accounted for just 18 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers. In 2008, under-30 voters made up 23 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers. If 2020 turnout is closer to 2008 than 2016, that could swing the election to Sanders.” Despite the modest overall turnout, that’s exactly what happened. According to Iowa entrance polls, voters under 30 comprised 24 percent of the caucus-going electorate — up six points from 2016 and one point better than 2008, when young voters carried Barack Obama to victory. Those voters preferred Sanders to Buttigieg by nearly 30 points, 48 percent to 19 percent, as did voters age 30–44 by ten points, 33 percent to 23 percent.

Skip to toolbar