2020 New Hampshire Primary Open Thread

UPDATE 6:35PM: AP reports that Sen. Michael Bennet’s presidential campaign is over.


UPDATE 6:20PM: With 20% reporting, Sen. Bernie Sanders is in the lead with 27.7% ahead of Pete Buttigieg by a narrow margin, and Amy Klobuchar having a surprisingly good night moving into 3rd place with 20.5%.

As of this writing, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado is 87 votes to the good. That’s total votes, not a typo.



31 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. MADCO says:

    Vote Blue, no matter what.

  2. bullshit! says:

    I've heard Elizabeth Warren's crowds have been great. Please let her move up.

  3. RepealAndReplace says:

    Thurston has 61 votes out of 17,797 (0.3%).

  4. RepealAndReplace says:

    Bennet just dropped out. We get our senior senator back full time.

  5. MattC says:

    I like Amy. I like Pete too.
    Seems like they are 'moderate' or perceived to be.
    But Bernie is the obvious front runner. Not my first choice – but I'll vote for him if he is the nominee.

  6. JohnInDenver says:

    The Bennet campaign autopsy is going to be painful….

    Iowa caucus efforts apparently got 164 first arrival preference, and ultimately 4 final alignment votes (out of 175000+ cast).

    In New Hampshire, with ~80% of the precincts in, Bennet got 650 (of 225,000) votes … 0.3%.

  7. itlduso says:

    Buh bye, Warren.  Guess you should have never answered that question regarding increasing taxes to pay for Medicare for all (not to mention the other trillions of dollars for your other plans). 
    Let that be a lesson to Bernie:  Never explain how you are going to pay for the $50 Trillion cost of your plans!  Never!

    • MattC says:

      If he runs the table, will you vote for him without dumping on him?

      • RepealAndReplace says:

        If he wins the nomination, even a raging moderate like I will vote for Bernie.

        Here is how I got to that point:

        1. Trump must leave.

        2.  If Bernie somehow managed to win the general election (a big if) and if he managed to keep the House in Democratic hands – he won’t have the Senate. That will probably remain red, or if the Dems win a majority of seats, a handful of senators in the middle will call the shots (Angus King, Joe Manchin, Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar).

        3.  Even if Bernie had an ideological majority in the Senate, all those right-wing judges Trump has been appointing will strike down all Bernie’s loony ideas which he may try to implement by executive orders.

      • itlduso says:

        Of course I will work as hard as possible to elect the Dem nominee.  I'm no Bernie Bro, or remember the PUMAs in 2008 who didn't vote for Obama because Hillary lost? 

        My obvious point is that Sanders will be a huge load to carry to victory in November if he's our nominee.  I believe he'll drop like a rock, or like a Warren, once it is finally exposed how much taxes will need to be raised on all taxpayers to fund his $50 Trillion in plans.   Have you noticed how the NV Culinary Workers union have started trashing his Medicare for all plan that would void the good health plan they've negotiated?

        • Pseudonymous says:

          What happens when a member of that union takes a different job or wants to move into a management position?  Of course, many other unions in Nevada support Sanders.  We’ll see how folks vote, I guess.

          By the way, I was covered by a plan that was similar to Culinary’s.  Paid $100 total for a week-long hospital stay.  Zero would have been better.  Far better for the tens or hundreds of millions of folks who had to pay more or couldn’t pay at all.

        • Pseudonymous says:

          By the way, you do understand that well more than half that huge number you keep quoting is money America already spends, right?  Whether healthcare is paid for through taxes or as premiums, deductibles, and out of pocket expenses is generally irrelevant.  Either way, they're mandatory healthcare payments.

          Even Koch's think tank said that total healthcare expenditures over 10 years of single payer would be $2 trillion less than with our current system, and that's with us insuring everyone, and not leaving tens of millions out in the cold.

          • itlduso says:

            Sanders' plan costs $30-$40 Trillion per Steve Rattner. (BTW – a $10 Trillion unknown difference?  A Trillion here and a Trillion there and we're starting to talk about real money.) 

            Maybe it comes down to who is paying.  I suspect Sanders' plan, like Warren's, will transfer the costs to employers, but also to employees in higher payroll taxes and income taxes.  Some people might have net lower out of pocket costs, but many others will not.  And, this country isn't particularly good at nuance these days.  Sooner or later, someone needs to (or will) force Sanders to explain how he's paying for all of this.

            • harrydoby says:

              While I don't think we can or should jump immediately to Medicare for All, I think you are missing another huge cost to consumers of our current system

              Formally, employers pay about 70 percent of insurance premiums and workers the remaining 30 percent. But in practice, workers are paying the whole thing. The costs might seem invisible to workers, but in fact their health benefits are reducing their take-home pay every week. Why? Because for an employer, what matters is the total cost of employing someone. This cost includes salary but also benefits such as health insurance. If an employer believes your work is worth $50,000 to the company but has to pay $13,000 for your health care, your salary is going to be no more than $37,000.

              Cost-shifting medical payments from employers (and employees) to single payer (financed through taxes, deficits or GDP growth leading to higher revenues), this major boost in disposable income would produce a virtuous cycle of growth and improved income equality.

              • itlduso says:

                I'm confused how the Medicare for all plan would work for employers.  As you say, they currently pay in a huge amount for health insurance premiums.  What happens when that is eliminated? 

                • harrydoby says:

                  The cost-shifting from employers and employees to single payer would accomplish a few things:

                  1.  Freer movement in the job market leading to more competition for talent

                  2.  Higher wages and disposable income due to (1) above leading to GDP growth

                  3.  Higher entrepreneurship and innovation leading to GDP growth

                  4.  Carrot and stick approach to static industries that may not otherwise pass along medical payment savings leading to higher disposable income and GDP growth

                  5. Employers, no longer have to offer or even manage health insurance benefits, freeing up resources and finances that can be redirected to other beneficial corporate purposes.

            • Pseudonymous says:

              Bloomberg's money guy?  The one who said that the purpose for Bloomberg running is to stop Sanders?  I'll take his analysis with a grain of salt.

              I don't know that I agree that any candidate will be forced to fully explain every policy they have, but we'll see.  I've been wrong before about elections.  I certainly was about who would win the presidency in 2016.

  8. Voyageur says:

    Dare we say it?  There is still a possibilitty of a woman president.  Go Amy, take state!

  9. OpenSpace says:

    If Bernie wins nom, we are f*****.   Need to choose one non-socialist very very soon.

    • Duke Cox says:

      Why? You don’t like socialism?

      You don’t like the Veterans hospitals?

      You don’t like our socialist military?

      What do you know about socialism?

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        I loves me all that, and even a whole lot more . . .

        But, you need to admit that it’s gonna’ be a very hard nut to crack trying to convince a majority of voters now after 70 years of American indoctrination and propaganda about the evils of “socialism” that it is all wrong — especially at a time when the fate of the country is so in jeopardy if we don’t get it right this year?

        I like Bernie’s ideas.  I dislike Bernie.  (No need trying to convince me otherwise right now, my mail-in ballot arrived yesterday and went out for Warren this morning.). I’m pretty fucking worried that maybe Bernie is a philosophical luxury (and a personality disaster) that we just can’t afford right now when the stakes are so high?

        It took a calamity to get FDR into office.  Ttump is admittedly an orange calamity on steroids, but too many of the voters we need don’t see it that way — the way the depression was an obvious, personal calamity in the early a 1930’s  — right now.  Yet.  (I pray we never have to see “yet” . . .)


      • NOV GOP meltdown says:

        The term " socialism " has been so thoroughly weaponized.  Millions of Americans who have been flooded with bullshit and lies for decades about the evils of things that level the playing field, work in their own interests, or make upward mobility more possible won't give a hot sack of crap about it.  They'll just pull the lever for the non-socialist red blooded American unabashed capitalist. 

        Everyone here already knows all this already I guess.  Its going to be a tough sell if we have Bernie, and the stakes are higher than they have ever been.


        • Duke Cox says:

          Indeed. Your concerns are shared by many, and I agree with your assessment about the stakes.

          I am an old guy. If I make it another 20 years, I will be damned lucky. The future is for the young …they love Bernie because he is thinking of them. I am going to support the young ones. We are not going to defeat T***pism by compromise and triangulation.

          They will not give up. We have to beat them decisively.


    • Genghis says:

      Dude! We are already well and truly fucked. Recall that back in 2016, we elected Donald Trump as POTUS, ffs. Trump has already appointed some 25% of the Art. III federal judiciary, and through those appointments will be forcibly cornholing us from beyond the grave even if he gets bounced. The U.S. Justice Department is basically on fire right now. Wealth disparity has reached a point that would embarrass a Gilded Age robber baron, and the disparity still isn't enough for the powers that be. We're well into a golden age of white collar crime the likes of which we've never seen. A rich fuck has 0.00% chance of getting prosecuted for such a crime unless he fucks over another rich fuck. People are more joyously complicit in their own exploitation than ever, a favorite example being folks who don't have two nickels to rub together fawning over Trump because of the stock market. And, as always, increasingly deregulated capitalism —> poverty —> fascism.

      So yeah, the Dems nominating someone who calls himself a democratic socialist is irrelevant to fuckery. We're there, and it may well be irreversible. Pretending that 2016 was some sort of aberrant glitch ain't gonna cut it.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.