Post 8: Due 2/9 or 10
February 9th is the date of the New Hampshire primary. After there is a clear winner of the primary answer the following prompt:
Based on the results of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, what type of candidates do the voters want for the general election? Why? What do these results mean? Are these results representative of the country's views? Why or why not?
You have until midnight on Wed 2/10. I look forward to reading your insights. ;)
Labels: campaign, caucus, president, presidential campaign, primaries, primary
posted by Ms. Aby @ 9:06 AM
17 Comments:
In the New Hampshire primary from yesterday, Bernie Sanders won for the democrats with a whopping 60% of the vote versus Hillary Clinton who only received 38.8% of the vote (1) For the Republicans, Donald Trump won with over 30% of the vote, with John Kasich receiving only about 15% (1). Based on this primary, the voters seem to want candidates that are not afraid to speak their minds. Both Trump and Sanders are not afraid to say what they believe in, although sometimes controversial in Trump’s case. These results mean that we need to legitimately be scared that Trump may end up winning the Republican nomination, and that Sanders is a real threat to Clinton. I do not believe, however, that these results are representative of the entire country, as Sanders is the senator of Vermont and thus spends a lot of his time in that area and is very well known and well liked. Also, there are more Trump supporters on the East coast as he himself is from New York and is more well known there. Although Sanders and Trump won this primary, I do not believe that it means that the game is over, it could still be anyone’s game.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/ (1)
In the most recent primary yesterday, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders swept victories, and I was surprised to see that John Kasich came in second place for the Republicans. “Trump won about 34 percent of the Republican vote in the Granite State, doubling the results of second-place finisher John Kasich.” (1). I think that results from the New Hampshire primary for the Democrats was not too surprising as Sanders is from the Northeastern area and was a Vermont Representative for several years. At the same time, at the beginning of last year many people considered Hillary Clinton a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination, but it seems as though now Sanders is slowly closing the gap. I think that results from the New recent primary are not completely reflective of the views of the entire country and many people are predicting that Clinton still remains the favorite as the schedule turns toward Super Tuesday on March 1st. Overall, I think that when it comes down to the general elections, voters will be looking for an honest candidate.
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/02/new_hampshire_primary_2016_liv.htm
I believe that the New Hampshire primaries present a telling story, although it may not be as clear as some people first believe. Firstly, for the Republicans, Donald Trump won by a large margin, taking home over thirty percent of the vote. However, what people forget, is that amongst the establishment candidates, people overwhelmingly support non-Trump figures as their second choices [1]. As the field is whittled down, the Christie, Fiorina, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich voters will all coalesce around whichever one is left. It’s not clear that this would be enough to beat a Cruz-Trump alliance, but it would be enough that 30% of the vote would not be enough to carry a state. On the Democratic side, Sanders won handily. That being the case, I think there are a lot of problems for him going forward. Demographically, New Hampshire is one of the strongest states for Sanders in the country [3]. Additionally, when analyzing the voter breakdown last night, Sanders owes his victory to independent voters who participated, among registered Democrats it was about an even split [2]. As the process moves South to more minority states with closed primaries, it will be quite difficult for Sanders to find momentum unless he has some major breakthrough. I think in terms of voter preference, we are seeing a split within both parties. About half of each party supports more traditional, experienced, dare I say rational candidates. The other half are coming out for the anti-establishment radical candidates such as Sanders, Cruz, and Trump. I believe, hope rather, that the heart of the American people is more in line with the more mainstream views of Clinton or Kasich.
[1] : http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-trump-leads-when-it-comes-second-choice-cruz-top
[2] : http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-exit-entrance-polls/
[3] : http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-needs-a-big-win-in-new-hampshire/
Based on the results of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, the voters are indicating that they want different things based on the region of the country that they are from. Looking first at the Republican field, the voters in Iowa voted for Senator Ted Cruz, which is in line with the strong social conservative presence (1). Receiving 27.7% of the vote, Cruz was 3 points ahead of the next closest candidate, Donald Trump. In the New Hampshire Primary, Donald Trump received the majority of the vote with Ohio Governor John Kasich taking second, which was a surprise to many Republicans as until recently he had not fared so well in the Republican field (3). This indicates that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are looking for different things in their candidates, though both are in favor of a Washington outsider like Trump. This points to a distrust of current government and as a result an increased appeal for candidates who do not have political experience. In some ways this is representative of the country as a whole. Trump appeals through his rhetoric and promises of a strong America, thus appealing to those who have a fear of a deteriorating government. Trump may not be popular among conservative Christians, but he enjoys widespread support and is the current frontrunner for the Republican field.
In contrast, the Democratic field for the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary has been narrowed and more contested. With only two candidates left seeking the nomination after Martin O’Malley dropped out after the Iowa Caucus, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were seeking big wins to cement their positions as the candidate that the Democratic party should nominate. In Iowa, Clinton barely won with 49.9% of the vote and Sanders with 49.6% (1). In contrast, in New Hampshire Primary was decisively won by Sanders with 60.4% of the vote to Clinton’s 38.0% (2). This points to a changing viewpoint in the Democratic Party, with many favoring Sanders and his progressive stances. However, this isn’t necessarily representative of the nation as a whole as Clinton still leads Sanders nationally. While Sanders has been able to connect with the younger vote, many moderates still support Clinton, which will allow her to do well in the upcoming primaries.
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/iowa-caucus-results/ (1)
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466252880/new-hampshire-primary-5-things-that-explain-the-results (2)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/ (3)
After the New Hampshire primary yesterday, it was announced that Bernie Sanders won the Democratic vote, while Donald Trump won the Republican vote. Both won by a fairly large margin, with Sanders winning 60 percent of the votes and Trump gaining about 35 percent (1). This primary turned out a much more obvious winner for both parties, which drew a contrast from the Iowa caucus. In the Iowa caucus, Sanders and Clinton were in a virtual tie, and Cruz beat Trump by about three points. Clinton has a strong connection to New Hampshire voters, but she was unable to draw in enough voters to get even a close win. Sanders was a senator in Vermont and was familiar to many people in New Hampshire. He is appealing to many young voters, and even was favored by 11 percent more women than Clinton (2). Trump has been leading the vote in this state since this summer, so it was obvious that he would win the state before the results were even released. The majority of the people who voted for both of these candidates are people that are angry with the current government and want a clear change (1). In the country as a whole, the two are seen as outsiders, so it is clear that this primary will not necessarily be reciprocated in future primaries and caucuses (3). Clinton still has a lead over Sanders in other parts of the country, and the Republican party continues to be divided over multiple candidates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/new-hampshire-primary.html?_r=0 (1)
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466252880/new-hampshire-primary-5-things-that-explain-the-results (2)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/ (3)
After the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary concluded, it was clear that this is going to be an exciting and close presidential race. For the Republicans, Mr. Trump got 35 percent of the vote, with the following Republican candidates getting around 10 to 15 percent. The trailing candidates consist of John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio (1). It is clear that the Republican voters are split, but as more and more of the candidates drop out, most voters will rally together under an “anti-Trump” candidate such as Kasich, Cruz, Bush, or Rubio. These results are not all that helpful in limiting the Republican party’s candidates as there are still many who are still in the running even after the New Hampshire primary today (1). I think that these results are somewhat representative of the country’s views, but with the massive amount of independent voters in the state, it is really difficult to predict how they will vote when the general election comes, as they may sway either way (2).
As for the Democrat primary, Bernie Sanders beat Hillary by over 20 percentage points, which is a huge defeat for Hillary, but was somewhat expected. This was expected because, seeing that Bernie Sanders is from Vermont (a neighbor of New Hampshire), he is already known in that region and already has a group of supporters (3). I don’t think that this primary is representative of the whole country, mostly because it is an area which Bernie Sanders was already expected to win, so it is no surprise to me. The voters really do want someone who has new ideas and is willing to grow the government to help the people. This is the premise of Sanders’ campaign, and he has been known to be a “socialist”, by sharing the wealth (3), which, apparently, is appealing to many people. I don’t think that the majority of the Democratic party agrees with all these views, and therefore will vote for Hillary Clinton or a Republican candidate. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens in the next few primaries and caucuses.
1- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/new-hampshire-primary.html?_r=0
2- https://www.romper.com/p/who-votes-in-the-new-hampshire-primary-the-voters-dont-represent-the-us-accurately-5313
3- http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/
For those who follow the horse race coverage of the 2016 presidential election, Sanders and Trump taking home a win in the New Hampshire primary is not surprising. What may be surprising is the margin they won the primary given recent polls in the state. Some cited New Hampshire as a toss up for the Democrats while others claimed that Trump would win by a single digit margin. However, despite the crowded Republican field with nine candidates, Trump won with 35% beating second place by nearly 20 points (1). The most shocking part would be what the results spell for the Republican party and possibly for Kasich given he was forgotten by the moderators in Saturday’s Republican debate (2). Saturday’s debate may have been a turning point in the race for a number of candidates. The hecticness of the debate along with the amount of mess ups by the candidates, which included their entrance, resulted in the downfall of some candidates, namely Rubio who came in a mere fifth place in the New hampshire primary after a stellar performance in Iowa and an upsurge in popularity (1). This was due to Christie calling him out on using canned lines and Rubio saying the same line almost verbatim four times during the debate which he has said at previous debates. I think one thing can be said for sure, the nation is paying attention to gaffes and will hold people accountable. Jeb Bush surged, but mostly due to the fall of Rubio which shows how much the establishment of the Republican party is in disarray because they have yet to unite behind a candidate while those in favor of anarchy and have no issues with bigotry have fallen in line behind Trump.
What can be taken away from these results is that the general public is not happy with the the status quo and are frustrated with the apparent lack of honesty and genuineness in politics. New Hampshire itself reflects this but so does the surge in popularity Sanders had despite previous predictions that Clinton would take the nomination with little competition. Not to mention that Trump who was predicted to have a short lived lead, has been the clear frontrunner of the Republican race for the past several months. Fiorina and Christie dropping out of the race will wind down the Republican party’s choices, however, with six viable candidates, and Jim Gilmore, still in the race, South Carolina and Nevada will continue to be chaotic which can spell a number of things for the Republican party. The best the party can hope for is that more candidates drop and they unite behind one candidate or this will poorly reflect on the whole party in November’s election.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/ (1)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/ben-carson-takes-forever-to-come-to-gop-debate-stage-kasich-forgotten/article/2000961 (2)
Donald Trump won the Republican vote in New Hampshire, while Bernie Sanders won the Democratic vote. Neither case was a surprise as it was expected that they would both win this state. There were a few things that were unexpected however. Firstly nobody really could have predicted a few months ago that the vast majority of young women would favor Sanders over Hillary[2]. Another surprise was that John Kasich, who is otherwise polling near the bottom, in sixth place, would get second in the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire voters are not representative of the whole US population, however there are very few candidates that have won the presidency without having won either Iowa or New Hampshire. The voters seem to want a candidate that has no hesitation to say what they want to say, and many people want drastic change in the political system, which both of these candidates offer[1].
[1]http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466252880/new-hampshire-primary-5-things-that-explain-the-results
[2]http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/health/hillary-clinton-women-voters-generational-divide/
The Iowa Caucus ended in a win for Ted Cruz and a very slim victory for Hillary Clinton, while the New Hampshire primary recently concluded with a sound win for Donald Trump and overwhelming victory by Bernie Sanders. Based on what we’ve seen in the primaries so far, it appears that the country is still very divided on who their favorite candidates are for each party but it is significant that in both Iowa and New Hampshire, an anti-establishment sentiment is becoming clear with the success of candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. National polling shows Trump as the most likely nominee, with an average lead of 8.5 points, however, Trump has been showing a slight decline and Cruz a steady incline for the past couple months so I think the race is still tight between the two (1). Also I was surprised by Sanders’ extremely close race with Clinton in Iowa and his impressive win in New Hampshire. At first I didn’t think that Sanders would do this well or be a cause for concern to Clinton in winning the nomination, but looking at exit polling done in New Hampshire it looks like he is a force to be reckoned with; Sanders took the votes of the majority of registered Democrats and Independents, claimed 53% of the women’s vote, and won 84% of the votes from people under 30 (2). Clinton does still have a lead in national polling on the most favorable candidate for the Democratic nomination, but her lead has been weakening, inching closer and closer to Sanders (3).
(1) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
(2) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/takeaways-hampshire-primary-means-carolina-nevada/story?id=36838212
(3) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
The winners of the first two elections (the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries) have been mostly consistent with poll patterns: Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton won in Iowa, and Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won in New Hampshire (1). The results of these elections outline a few major points-- the people want a candidate who is strong, angry, and ready to fix things.
In terms of the Democrats, the electorate seems to like both Clinton and Sanders. Although Clinton is the favored candidate for the Democratic nomination, Sanders is a formidable ally: the race was close in Iowa, and he won New Hampshire by a landslide. This underlines a point about the establishment. Iowa may have voted for the more established candidates, but that does not mean that the other option is not viable (2). Populism may also play a role, in that voters are not unwilling to vote for a self-declared-socialist if that man had the means to provide change (3). This is especially true if the anti-establishment candidate is also furious about the need for change (see Donald Trump). These results may change, as the views of New Hampshire people who live close to Senator Sanders’ home state are not really representative of the U.S. population. However, this does prove a point about the decreasing need for an establishment candidate in the White House.
For the Republican side, these results mean that the electorate wants the candidate who is the most adamant about winning or making change. Ted Cruz, the winner in Iowa, is very angry toward the Democrats and Obamacare, outlining this in his speeches and such. After the New Hampshire primaries ended, there were five viable candidates left who had received fair numbers in the election: Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush, although Carson has not given up on his presidential bid (4). All of these people made an effort and were very against something in their societies. The voters also appear to vote for a candidate that is popular and appearing most in the news, making the future of certain candidates unpredictable (5). Trump believed he would win Iowa, but Ted Cruz got in his way. The voters also want a candidate who will be readily accessible and frequently holding rallies. John Kasich won second in New Hampshire due to the fact that he held 106 town halls, nearly ten times more than Trump (4). The results of the primaries are very representative of the angry people of America, but it is unclear whether these results are representative of the American population. These results show a leaning towards the angry, revolutionary side of the field.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-09#NH-GOP (1)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/12149402/new-hampshire-primary-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-live.html (2)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/11/new-hampshire-primary-results-underscore-the-power-of-populism-walkom.html (3)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/10/trump-kasich-cruz-rubio-bush-what-nh-results-mean-to-still-alive-five.html (4)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-caucuses-results-trump-presidential-race/story?id=36668713 (5)
The top contenders in both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primaries were for the most part as expected, however it was certainly a much closer race than expected.
In Iowa, the Republicans winner was Cruz with 27.6% of the votes (1), Although Trump and Rubio weren’t far behind, earning 24.3 and 23.1% respectively.(1) As for the Democrats, the votes were so much closer then what many were expecting, Clinton ended up winning Iowa but by a mere less then a percent, 49.9% to Sander’s 49.6%(2)
In the New Hampshire primaries Trump won the Republican field with 35.2% while Kasich came in second with 15.8%, which was a win for him condidering he beat out other top condenders like Cruz and Rubio. Sanders came out with an overwhelming win in New Hampshire, he has been gaining the support. larof young Americans for a while now, but has proven here that he actually has the ablitiy to get the young votes out, and get them to actually vote. He even got the most votes in a New Hampshire primary, ever.(3) Sanders also seems to be gaining a large support from feminist which may be worrying to Clinton, considering a large part of the appeal she is trying to sell in her campaign is that she may be the first woman president.
1.http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa
2.http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/bernie-sanders-iowa-results-gain-error-recount-hillary-clinton
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-orlin/bernie-sanders-won-the-mo_b_9228324.html
I believe that after Sanders and Trump won the New Hampshire Primary it will become a battle.
Based on the results from the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, I think that voters want someone who will “mix up” how Washington is being run right now (with the current career politicians). Americans are looking for someone who is different and not afraid to speak for what they believe in. On the Republican side of the nominations, it seems that Trump is making a big impact. Even though he did not win the Iowa Caucus, he was a close second (1). For New Hampshire, John Kasich got the second most amount of votes after Trump with 15.8% of the votes (Trump got 35.3) (2). I think these votes are not very representative of the country’s view. Trump had an advantage because many people on the East coast know of him from his businesses that reside out there. Same with John Kasich in that he is from a more Eastern state, so I think that it makes sense for him to receive more vote in New Hampshire. However, John Kasich is quite moderate and I think people who are on the edge of which side to go (either liberal or conservative) may vote for him no matter the state (3).
Just as Trump is “passionate” per say in how he talks, Sanders is passionate too. He really makes younger age groups feel important, which in return is earning him more votes from the younger adults. In Iowa, Clinton barely won: she beat Sanders by only .3% (1). She lost by 22.4% in New Hampshire (2). Although it is not for sure, I think that this is more representative of how the country thinks. Sanders is the Senator for Vermont, so it was expected that he would receive more votes from a neighboring state. However, Clinton also would usually do well in New Hampshire, and did not. I think this goes to show that she is losing support all over the country. As of right now, especially from a young adult point of view, I think Sanders is going to be winning a lot of votes coming up in the next primaries and caucuses.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa (1)
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/new-hampshire (2)
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/02/latest_south_carolina_polls_br.html (3)
With Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump winning the New Hampshire primaries, people are looking for someone who will shake things up in office. Trump, who has been questioned on if he can turn poll numbers into actual votes, responded to the win with “Wow, wow, wow, we are going to make America great again!” (1) Both Sanders and Trump have been known to speak their mind and give their opinion on historically controversial topics. New Hampshire has a very large population of independent voters which is not an accurate representation of the American population. (2) Around the country these two are viewed as outsiders so I don’t believe that this primary will reflect what the nation as a whole wants. With both Trump and Sanders being from the east coast, they are well known and have more supporters in the area
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/
(2)https://www.romper.com/p/who-votes-in-the-new-hampshire-primary-the-voters-dont-represent-the-us-accurately-5313
With Trump and Sanders both coming in close seconds in Iowa, and then both winning in New Hampshire, the position of the American voter is starting to become pretty clear. American voters on both sides of the aisle are tired of the “establishment” and are supporting candidates who want to shake up the system, for better or for worse. As of right now, it has become clear that Sanders and Trump--both considered long shots at the start--are definitely in the running, if not in the lead. However, while many people are probably currently freaking out about the crazies we’re going to elect, these early results are far from representative of the electorate’s views across the nation. Iowa and New Hampshire are two states with relatively small and homogenous populations who are known to have certain beliefs and tendencies.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/
While I do not believe the New Hampshire primary correctly indicates what the outcome of candidates will be going into the general election, I do think the Iowa caucus was representative of the nation as a whole. Donald Trump had a substantial victory for the Republican party in the primary held in New Hampshire, and while I am aware that he does have a strong backing throughout the country, being nearly 15% higher than his biggest competition [1], I do not think that his potential nomination for the Republican party will come as such a landslide win closer to the election. Bernie Sanders’ victory was not as big of a surprise to me, however, because of its proximity to his home state and the close race between him and Clinton. I think the Iowa caucus better predicts how the rest of the primary elections will turn out, at least as far as the Democratic party goes. I think the extremely close race between Sanders and Clinton will continue until the true nominee is selected for the general race.
[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
As the Lunar New Year enters into the year of the monkey, American politics enter the year of the anti-establishment. A year ago from today, nobody would have predicted that a self avowed socialist from Vermont, one of the country’s most prodigious neurosurgeons, and the host of Celebrity Apprentice would be some of the top candidates in 2016. People are mad as hell and are demanding an outsider to shoo away the corruption and cronyism that supposedly plague the nation's capital. The victory of both Trump and Sanders in New Hampshire signify that both parties are having a huge identity crisis that makes this election extremely unpredictable.
For the Democrats, the Hillary campaign is left scratching their heads on how their sure deal candidate is now neck and neck with a relatively obscure senator. After virtually tieing in Iowa, Sanders strong lead in New Hampshire could be spelling out another 2008 situation for the Hillary Campaign. Although Clinton tries to appeal to younger voters, she can not compete with the one thing Sanders has over her, he’s not establishment. True, Sanders has been in politics a long time, but his ideologically strong voting record and his socialist independent flair wins out over Clinton’s “I’m an outsider because I’m a woman” contention. It doesn’t help Clinton's campaign that she has been historically friendly with big banks and that she is nearly as uncharismatic as Richard Nixon himself only further displaying her as establishment. This split has Democrats around the country feeling that their brain wants Hillary but their heart wants Sanders (FiveThirtyEight).
The Republican candidates are not blind to this trend of populist anti-establishment either, with many of the republicans are vying for who is more of an outsider. In this, Donald Trump is the single greatest enigma in recent U.S. politics. Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign is rolling in it’s grave seeing how successful Trump’s campaign is no matter what he says. Where historically people have looked for the candidate most “presidential,” this year, Republicans are fawning over the loudmouthed, unapologetic, mean spirited, conspiracy spouting Trump who handedly won in New Hampshire (Atlantic). As “establishment” candidates like Bush and Rubio fall over themselves, Trump’s only real competition is the more devout, more extreme, and more politically experienced Cruz who caught many off guard when he won Iowa. Painting himself as an outsider with an insider’s know-how, Cruz tries to convince the nation that he is the best candidate to nominate if you want to stick it to the establishment. That’s the big trend in 2016, anti-establishment rhetoric. Although Iowa and New Hampshire are not good representations for the nation, the national polls hardly look any different with Clinton and Sanders almost tied while Trump and Cruz dominate the Republican field (RealClearPolitics). People are mad, and with said anger, are looking for the candidate who will best send their message of unhappiness with the status quo.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/republicans-cant-have-it-all/431463/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home