What's everyone thinking?

I'm going with
Bernie
Warren
Mayor Pete
Amy
Biden

Since their state motto is “Live Free or Die” Bernie is the easy pick. The hard pick will be who finishes 2nd among the Fellowship of Free Stuff...

Bernie
Petey
Warren
Biden
Kouchabar
Gabbard


Two of the 3 polls out today have Biden in 5th and Kouchabar in 3rd, but only a couple points apart. The other has Warren 3rd and Kouchabar 5th.

And I predict President Trump wins with over 97%.

I wasn't close in Iowa so I'll stay away from the prediction business in New Hampshire. I will offer up some predictions for Texas before Super Tuesday.

The one thing I'll be looking for is voter turnout (which for the Democrats wasn't great in Iowa, but it wasn't as gloomy as the folks here want to believe either - it was similar to 2016 so it's a safe bet to give Iowa to the Republicans again in 2020).

The bigger issue to me tomorrow is voter turnout, since this is a primary and not a caucus. Here's the official prediction from Friday by New Hampshire's Secretary of State. "Scaling back from an earlier informal projection of more than 500,000, the longtime election official said he believes 420,000 voters will turn out Tuesday -- 292,000 on the highly contested Democratic side and 128,000 on the Republican side, in which President Donald Trump faces minor opposition.

He said Friday that despite dropping his prediction by at least 80,000, the total will still be a record for a primary in which an incumbent president is running on one side or the other."

The article has some other interesting tidbits in it. New Hampshire was close in 2016, and probably is close again in 2020.

https://www.wmur.com/article/nh-primary-.../30785855#

Trump in a landslide

Trump
Bernie
Pocahontas
Pete


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

NH’s dem chair Ray Buckley was on CNN yesterday, and in not so many words predicted another poor/flat turnout similar to Iowa.

The CNN host told him that he figured there would be high turnout given how many options there still are, and Buckley said he thinks it will actually be the opposite.

The spin was that there are so many equally good options that people who can’t decide will say, “I like them all, I’m on board with whoever in November, but I’m going to stay home Tuesday.”

(02-10-2020 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  NH’s dem chair Ray Buckley was on CNN yesterday, and in not so many words predicted another poor/flat turnout similar to Iowa.

The CNN host told him that he figured there would be high turnout given how many options there still are, and Buckley said he thinks it will actually be the opposite.

The spin was that there are so many equally good options that people who can’t decide will just say, “I like them all, I’m on board with whoever in November, but I’m going to stay home Tuesday.”

And thats kind of the exact opposite of how NH has historically been. If there are multiple candidates, each with support, the numbers are very high. (For both parties) If there is a single candidate who has consolidated support, the number is low.

NH for democrats in 2012 was very low, because it was only Obama.
NH for republicans in 2016 was very high.

So, for this cycle, I would expect republican numbers to be very low, and democrat numbers to be very high. If republicans have anything better than historic low numbers, and democrats have anything but historic high numbers, its another sign that things are going very badly for them in the general.

(02-10-2020 10:11 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  NH’s dem chair Ray Buckley was on CNN yesterday, and in not so many words predicted another poor/flat turnout similar to Iowa.

The CNN host told him that he figured there would be high turnout given how many options there still are, and Buckley said he thinks it will actually be the opposite.

The spin was that there are so many equally good options that people who can’t decide will just say, “I like them all, I’m on board with whoever in November, but I’m going to stay home Tuesday.”

And thats kind of the exact opposite of how NH has historically been. If there are multiple candidates, each with support, the numbers are very high. (For both parties) If there is a single candidate who has consolidated support, the number is low.

NH for democrats in 2012 was very low, because it was only Obama.
NH for republicans in 2016 was very high.

So, for this cycle, I would expect republican numbers to be very low, and democrat numbers to be very high. If republicans have anything better than historic low numbers, and democrats have anything but historic high numbers, its another sign that things are going very badly for them in the general.

Yeah, I figured it would be slightly up from 2016, saving them from another embarrassment, but not the 2008-levels that they want.

That is out the window after hearing Buckley. He was definitely managing expectations down.

(02-10-2020 10:11 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2020 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  NH’s dem chair Ray Buckley was on CNN yesterday, and in not so many words predicted another poor/flat turnout similar to Iowa.

The CNN host told him that he figured there would be high turnout given how many options there still are, and Buckley said he thinks it will actually be the opposite.

The spin was that there are so many equally good options that people who can’t decide will just say, “I like them all, I’m on board with whoever in November, but I’m going to stay home Tuesday.”

And thats kind of the exact opposite of how NH has historically been. If there are multiple candidates, each with support, the numbers are very high. (For both parties) If there is a single candidate who has consolidated support, the number is low.

NH for democrats in 2012 was very low, because it was only Obama.
NH for republicans in 2016 was very high.

So, for this cycle, I would expect republican numbers to be very low, and democrat numbers to be very high. If republicans have anything better than historic low numbers, and democrats have anything but historic high numbers, its another sign that things are going very badly for them in the general.

I think this is a very real phenomenon that Republicans should expect.

There are going to be a LOT of Democratic voters in the general that don't even know there was a primary.

I predict another flustercuck

I'd like to see Fauxcahontas finish 5th in her neighboring state.

(02-10-2020 10:37 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  I'd like to see Fauxcahontas finish 5th in her neighboring state.

If Biden beats her there, there will be enormous pressure put on her to get out.

The issue is, I'm not sure Biden is going to beat her.

What do you think the chances of klobuchar beating biden in NH are? I think it's going to happen, and by a fairly wide margin. I think there will be gasps at biden's numbers whenever the initial results come in. I bet he gets <10%. I'll say 7%.

I'll go bernie winning with 28%, pete a close 2nd at 26%.

(02-10-2020 11:02 AM)Kronke Wrote:  What do you think the chances of klobuchar beating biden in NH are? I think it's going to happen, and by a fairly wide margin. I think there will be gasps at biden's numbers whenever the initial results come in. I bet he gets <10%. I'll say 7%.

I'll go bernie winning with 28%, pete a close 2nd at 26%.

last I heard Knoblauch (Yes I know.. it's intentional!) was arleady one within-Biden: 10% to 9%, and polling upwards while Biden's going downwards

Biden is banking on SC. I think he loses this state and pressure for him to drop increases

Sanders Pete Warren Biden Klobuchar in that order. But an increased separation between Bernie ---> Butti --------> Warren ------------> Biden & Klobuchar.

I'm hoping Amy drops out after this but bet she hangs on to SC/Nev and drops before Super T.

My guess is they won't start counting the votes until after 11 so Bernie gets cheated out of a prime time victory speech.

My prediction is that Bernie will get the most votes but will somehow not win.