Is Hillary’s NH meltdown a wake-up call for Dems?

posted at 2:41 pm on February 10, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Eight years ago, Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary with 39.1% of the vote. That contest featured opponents such as Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden, later elected Vice President. In last night’s primary, Hillary got 38.4% of the vote (89.3% precincts reporting) in a two-way race against a Senate backbencher who only recently affiliated himself with the Democratic Party.

Are Democrats willing to admit now that their front-runner might be a terrible candidate?

“I know I have some work to do, particularly with young people,” she said. “But I will repeat again what I have said this week: Even if they are not supporting me now, I support them.”

The overwhelming support for Sanders — a disheveled 74-year-old who has spent two decades in Congress — among younger voters is perhaps the biggest challenge confronting Clinton’s campaign in the Democratic nominating contest. It also underscores the problem with what Clinton represents: In a year that voters are craving authenticity and a break from the political norm above all else, her nearly three decades in the political limelight is a liability.

“Hillary just seems like a normal Democrat, and Bernie seems a little revolutionary to me,” said Jonah Hunt, an 18-year-old high school senior in Rochester, New Hampshire.

For Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, or at least stave off a lengthy, damaging primary fight, she needs to win over those voters — and those she can’t win now, she’ll need on her side if she advances to the general election.

This is a joke, right? Hillary has had every advantage in this cycle. She and her allies cleared the field of everyone but Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley early by tying up the institutional donors and big-name endorsements. O’Malley’s campaign withered on the vine, while Sanders went the Howard Dean route. The Clintons dominated the race for months, during which time Hillary had the support of all those demographics. She doesn’t have work to do; she has had to work at it all along, and has lost these voters. In huge numbers.

How bad was it? Despite explicitly running on gender, Hillary lost women in New Hampshire to a 74-year-old grandpa:

The Clinton campaign was trying to stop the hemorrhage of female voters — especially young women — from its camp in the closing days. Campaigning with Clinton on Saturday, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright thundered, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” — a phrase she’s used before, but one that was specifically targeted at younger female voters who were wooed by Sanders. Feminist leader Gloria Steinem also stirred controversy when she suggested last week that younger women were supporting Sanders just so they could meet boys.

It turns out the Clinton campaign’s fears were right. According to exit polls, women made up 55 percent of the New Hampshire electorate — and they favored Sanders by 11 points.

And don’t even started on trust:

Democrats fretted early on in Clinton’s candidacy about her high negatives in polls. Respondents said they didn’t see her as someone who cared about them or someone who could be trusted. Months later, the campaign’s worries are proving correct.

A 34 percent plurality of voters said whether a candidate is honest and trustworthy mattered most to them — and among those voters, Sanders thumped Clinton 91 percent to 5 percent.

The one demographic Hillary assumed was hers and hers alone has balked at gender corralling. No one trusts her. The only reason she’s still in the race is because everyone assumed Hillary was the inevitable nominee. With this embarrassingly lopsided loss in New Hampshire, that assumption can no longer hold, and neither can the fantasy of Hillary being a competent candidate for office. If the Democratic Party can’t free themselves from that illusion, their voters don’t seem to have an issue taking off the blinders.

Next up for Democrats is Nevada, a caucus state, and South Carolina, a state Hillary and her team has assumed she would easily win over Sanders. Team Hillary’s already conceding that Nevada may be a tough fight, claiming that a lack of diversity in the caucus will benefit Bernie. But having come out of Iowa with a tie and a huge loss in New Hampshire, the perception of her inevitability in South Carolina may change, too. Don’t be surprised to see a huge Bernie surge in the next couple of weeks as South Carolina voters realize that they may actually have a real choice to make.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

Magicjava on February 10, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Please explain #VenezuelaEstaMuriendo

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 3:58 PM

You’re going about this all wrong. Any evidence you provide is always anecdotal, and any claim made by Tlaloc is so self-evident that there’s not even a need to look up studies.

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:05 PM

The $64 dollar question is, will those Black intellectuals still end up voting for her anyway?

Why am I even asking the question? Of course they will!

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2016 at 3:03 PM

Cue the media and the blogs to scream from the rooftops reminding the minority voters about Bernie being a Jew.

Rix on February 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM

Well, isn’t it convenient that YOU get to restrict the discussion to avoid losing the debate.

BTW, are you sure you want to have CANADA in the mix:

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Yeah it is convenient for me that I was smart enough to put the argument on ground I can easily win. Welcome to debate school.

As for Canada, yeah I’m fine with leaving it on the list. Lower costs, better results.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 3:58 PM

You know if you ask about your irrelevant anecdote case a few dozen more times maybe I’ll answer.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM

So a country dying is merely an ‘irrelevant anecdote’?

Why don’t you head on down to Caracas and tell them that you don’t care about their suffering under the evil ideology you espouse.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM

As for Canada, yeah I’m fine with leaving it on the list. Lower costs, better results.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Canada can’t afford their health system. They moved the costs off the national books and onto the provinces to hide it.

Magicjava on February 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM

If the costs are lower, how come the government can never afford them?

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM

she tried to attract young women voters with gloria steinem and albright?? was betsy ross unavailable?

was anyone on the podium under 65?? that might be the problem.

jetch on February 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

No, you cannot defend your base ideology.

That Fact should be plain to everyone.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM

So a country dying is merely an ‘irrelevant anecdote’?

Why don’t you head on down to Caracas and tell them that you don’t care about their suffering under the evil ideology you espouse.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM

Wait let me think…no, still don’t care about your claims at all. Try not using a third world country for your example.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM

If the costs are lower, how come the government can never afford them?

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM

Pointless talking to someone who ignores math if the numbers have zeroes in them.

Magicjava on February 10, 2016 at 4:12 PM

Canada can’t afford their health system. They moved the costs off the national books and onto the provinces to hide it.

Magicjava on February 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM

Uh huh, I’m sure you managed to uncover this conspiracy all by yourself.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:12 PM

Wait let me think…no, still don’t care about your claims at all. Try not using a third world country for your example.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM

Venezuela used to be a first world country before Comrade Hugo…

ConstantineXI on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

No, you cannot defend your base ideology.

That Fact should be plain to everyone.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM

Since you refuse to engage with facts, no I guess I can’t. On the other hand the fact that you refuse to deal with reality absolves me of any cares for your opinion. So there’s that.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

While you all probably don’t care. Black intellectuals are EXCORIATING Hillary this week:

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

https://newrepublic.com/article/129433/clintons-war-drugs-black-lives-didnt-matter

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/welfare-reform-bill-hillary-clinton-tanf-poverty-dlc/

libfreeordie on February 10, 2016 at 2:52 PM

You are quite wrong. Being challenged by alternative views is why some of us come here. I read the first two, but the third link wouldn’t work for me.

In the briefest summary I can manage, this is what I was really struck by in the two articles I did read:

(*) How every problem was somebody else’s fault. There seemed to be very little introspection, and no critical questions about the numbers and causes. They complained about the political ‘solutions’ to problems but didn’t consider their own contributions to those problems. I found the articles very shallow, and to be agitative rather than pensive — good for rabble-rousing but utterly useless for increasing understanding that might help formulate solutions.

(*) The insularity and the obsession with pigmentation; the tribalism, if you will. Do these people really think that their communities are so much different from any other? That disconnection from reality doesn’t seem hopeful to me.

(*) The suggestion that Mrs Clinton is somehow like Mrs Thatcher belongs so far out into the realm of the absurd as to destroy the credibility of the author. In superficial matters such as dermal pigmentation or height, or chromosomes there is a slight similarity but in political ideology and temperament they are far apart. Fortunately that imbecilic remark came near the end of the article so didn’t interfere with my reading of the rest.

I thought the articles are valuable insomuch that they express in bold-highlighted-italics, so to speak, the superficiality of political thinking “in the wild”. I don’t mean to say that those writers are more superficial than other political pundits, but only that they communicated that shallowness in a way that I found strikingly obvious. As a consequence I understand why some people think that Mr Obama is a “deep intellectual” — if all you’ve ever seen is a bathtub like those articles then the diving-pool of Mr Obama’s pronouncements would, I suppose, seem profound. Woe betide those people if we ever get a candidate with the depth of Lake Victoria (apparently a mere 84 metres at most); cerebral neurons will rupture.

Overall then, I think those articles tend to give some insight into why the likes of Mrs Clinton is even a contender in any constituency: I presume that among her other supporters I’d find a similar tribalism, shallowness and lack of critical introspection. The solutions, I suppose, are to be found in classical education — teaching people how to parse information, how to overcome their passions, how to think rationally, and how to do sums that involve percentages. Is that even possible if the students are also growing-up in a culture that commonly espouses the views in those articles? Perhaps a few people in each generation can be torn away from their respective tribe and exposed to clearer air and brighter lights and eventually perhaps some of them will find a way to influence those they left behind.

Thank you for the links; it is necessary to see the problem in order to consider the solution. If HotAir were to post such articles they would quite justifiably get turned to ashes in the comments, probably with more heat than light, but perhaps some insight would appear in the afterglow.

YiZhangZhe on February 10, 2016 at 4:14 PM

Canada can’t afford their health system. They moved the costs off the national books and onto the provinces to hide it.

Magicjava on February 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM

Uh huh, I’m sure you managed to uncover this conspiracy all by yourself.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:12 PM

Tlaloc, you being unaware of what’s going on doesn’t imply a conspiracy. It implies you’re on the internet making posts about things you don’t understand.

Magicjava on February 10, 2016 at 4:15 PM

HuffPo sure thinks Canada’s system is doing great.

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:15 PM

Venezuela used to be a first world country before Comrade Hugo…

ConstantineXI on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

No, it wasn’t.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:15 PM

Since you refuse to engage with facts, no I guess I can’t.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

Here comes Mr. Facts again, the same person (literally, not contrivedly) who cast aside nearly 2,000 scientific studies in favor of Webster’s Dictionary.

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM

In spite of Hillary’s thumping by Bernie, she will end up with the same number of delegates due to the Super Delegate situation. While Bernie gets the moral victory, he gained nothing in terms of moving ahead of Hillary in delegate counts. That is why Super Delegates exist – to make sure the “correct” candidate gets the nomination. We would not not want to leave that to the will of the people now, would we?

tballard on February 10, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM

Since you refuse to engage with facts,

On the other hand the fact that you refuse to deal with reality

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

Ah yes, the tactic of falsely accusing someone of what you are doing.

I’ve been presenting Facts all along while you’ve been denying them.

Perhaps you should just admit you cannot defend your base ideology.

It should be clear to all that is the case.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Tlaloc, you being unaware of what’s going on doesn’t imply a conspiracy. It implies you’re on the internet making posts about things you don’t understand.

Magicjava on February 10, 2016 at 4:15 PM

It’s not just me, it’s also all the people who have done studies on the systems that somehow missed your conspiracy.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:23 PM

Venezuela used to be a first world country before Comrade Hugo…

ConstantineXI on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

No, it wasn’t.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:15 PM

Well since you accuse others:

Since you refuse to engage with facts,

On the other hand the fact that you refuse to deal with reality

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

Let us all hear YOUR facts on the matter – Be sure to include plenty EXCERPTS and Links from authentic reference sites in your answer.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:23 PM

I’ve been presenting Facts all along while you’ve been denying them.

Perhaps you should just admit you cannot defend your base ideology.

It should be clear to all that is the case.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:20 PM

Except you provided no facts at all, just endless claims about socialism that were easily rebutted.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:24 PM

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM

Here comes Mr. Facts again, the same person (literally, not contrivedly) who cast aside nearly 2,000 scientific studies in favor of Webster’s Dictionary.

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:16 PM

This is also someone who does not care about the suffering of a nation, lest it cast her base ideology of Socialism in a bad light.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:25 PM

So you want to keep making your same error but you somehow think it will get more convincing?

That seems an odd debate choice frankly.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:02 PM

You stating something is an error doesn’t make it true.

US has a higher % of survival rates of cancer than European countries (from Science based Medicine):

“Cancer patients diagnosed during 1995-99, on average, lived 11.1 years after diagnosis in the United States, compared to just 9.3 years from diagnosis in Europe.”

But that’s probably because their healthcare is so much better, right?

Or that the survival rate of cancer is highest in the US (from cancer.org):
http:[email protected]/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf

Pay close attention to Table 5 on page 8.

Or, you know, you could continue to talk about “data” like you have any “facts” to back your claim.

Teach me how to Bucky on February 10, 2016 at 4:26 PM

just endless claims about socialism that were easily rebutted.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:24 PM

By listing a bunch of countries which, by your own definition, are not socialist?

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:27 PM

Or, you know, you could continue to talk about “data” like you have any “facts” to back your claim.

Teach me how to Bucky on February 10, 2016 at 4:26 PM

So you picked out one category where we do better and try to pretend from that we do better in every category. Sorry no. Overall the studies time and again show that first world European nations and Canada have better outcomes and much lower costs.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:28 PM

Tlaloc can’t help himself talking about how great everyone else’s healthcare is.

So for the umpteenth time –

We are expensive. We have a strangely unhealthy population due to a few things – massive push for efficiency which has really created a more sedentary lifestyle as well as a government induced low fat diet push which drove huge diabetes and weight issues that the medical system has had to wrestle with.

We have the best cancer treatment results. We do more screenings for both cancers and chronic diseases. Both of which cost money and at this point may no longer actually pay for themselves. The medicare induced fee for service model proved great at conditioning both patient and provider to “do stuff” and that legacy has proved an issue.

We can over provide – prostate cancer in men being the shining example of that. We subsidize the pharmacy spending of every other nation on the planet – so we get to pay for that, as well as drug lawsuits – in our costs.

For acute conditions we are the location of treatment of choice. We have a real bad habit about end of life treatment – where most of the cost for everyone’s lifetime of health care expense gets spent. We fixated upon the very worst aspects of our health care system in obamacare and so now actually have medical prices – not utilization – driving our costs, and pressuring hospital’s financial viability – though they did bring that on themselves.

Many of the stats the socialized med folks like to tout are incomplete – infant mortality being one of the worst – where only the US counts every child born live, regardless of their condition at birth and of course the demographic that drives most of our problems are? Inner city blue urban meccas where the social welfare state has destroyed the minority families who live there.

Zomcon JEM on February 10, 2016 at 4:29 PM

KKKlinton also bought and paid for many, many super delegates, probably with KKKlinton foundation money. If that’s ever looked into she’s a goner. If she did get to be president, you can count on endless corruption charges.

Bernie is a commie. When the young skulls full of mush figure out that nothing is free, and when you hand of your personal responsibility to the government, you’ve lost it all and it’s no fun realizing you must now fix the expensive mess you made. The young commie utopians will leave, kill themselves, or open a new chapter in their lives filled with crime. That’s what hillary and bernie have to offer. Servitude, or prison to those who wont comply with servitude.

It’s not all a dem problem though, pretty much the same is offered with cruz, rubio, kasich, etc, just in slightly different flavors.

I’m happy the list of losers running is finally shrinking though.

TRUMP 2016!

Andy__B on February 10, 2016 at 4:30 PM

If a candidate is for open borders – which is essentially both Hillary’s and Bernie’s position – the influx of unskilled workers drives down the money-making ability of the American born African Americans and Latino-Americans. Further, the dilution of local tax dollars in working class communities mean porter schools for USA born children of African-Americans and Latino Americans.

Those communities need to see the light and vote republican!

Deafdog on February 10, 2016 at 3:05 PM

Actually, and I’m not sure how he gets away with this in the Dem primary, but Bernie says basically the same thing you just did. He’s not an open borders guy.

sandbun on February 10, 2016 at 4:31 PM

So you picked out one category where we do better and try to pretend from that we do better in every category. Sorry no. Overall the studies time and again show that first world European nations and Canada have better outcomes and much lower costs.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:28 PM

Socialized medicine, where death is a “better option.”

Teach me how to Bucky on February 10, 2016 at 4:32 PM

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:24 PM

By listing a bunch of countries which, by your own definition, are not socialist?

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:27 PM

Those like ‘Tlaloc’ on the national Socialist Left like to play ‘fast and loose’ with said definition to claim unearned success for socialism whilst ignoring it’s abject failures.

This is someone who also tried to pretend that Millions of deaths caused by her base ideology were not the case.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 4:32 PM

Many of the stats the socialized med folks like to tout are incomplete – infant mortality being one of the worst – where only the US counts every child born live

Zomcon JEM on February 10, 2016 at 4:29 PM

In addition to which, people critique our premature birth rate, not considering the fact that premature babies didn’t used to survive at the rate they do now. So our infant mortality rate is dropping, and our premature birth rate rising, because we’re saving more of them: a victim of our own technological success.

The Schaef on February 10, 2016 at 4:32 PM

Hillary walked away from New Hampshire with more delegates because of super delegates. How exactly is she in trouble? lol

kagai on February 10, 2016 at 4:36 PM

As for Canada, yeah I’m fine with leaving it on the list. Lower costs, better results.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Nice link…of an article…with no statistical data whatsoever.

…I could write an article about you being an idiot…poor example as it is counter intuitive to my point.

Teach me how to Bucky on February 10, 2016 at 4:50 PM

I happened to be watching CNN (yeah, I know, but sometimes I like to spy on the enemy) and Wolf was interviewing Debbie Wasserman Sultz and he asked her about the loss in NH, few women voted for her, and her trust rating is zilch. The Deb went on to modestly talk down Sander’s victory and how radical the GOPers are. I came out with the impression that the Dems are sinking every last hope on the great white hopeless liar Hillary.

timberline on February 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM

What meltdown?

Despite being the victim of a popular vote landslide in the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton is actually a winner when it comes to the number of delegates earned.

The former secretary of state is leaving the Granite State with at least two more delegates than Sen. Bernie Sanders, even though Sanders won by a margin of 60 to 38 percent of votes.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/hillary-wins-more-delegates-despite-getting-skunked/#bRetQCyGO3W5SZ4l.99

IDontCair on February 10, 2016 at 5:02 PM

I am the great Tlaloc!
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The witless wisdom of Tlaloc masterdebater extraordinaire. He will run circles, build straw figurines, call you names, change the subject, move the goalposts, make false assertions, ask for facts while not giving facts. Here is your first lesson in masterdebating, the art of self gratifying debate.

It’s neither, it’s simply a product of a party that still has significant power over its own nomination process.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:03 PM
Because your concepts of its failures is a product of your delusions. In reality a mix of capitalism and socialism is used by basically every advanced country on earth.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:08 PM
Which means hillary did about 10 points better with women than she did with other groups in that state.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:09 PM
Try to be less of an idiot. The issue with Gore was a matter of the general election. That has no bearing at all on a nomination caucus.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM
Again- every advanced country on earth uses a mix of socialism and capitalism.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:11 PM
No, they aren’t, despite your economic theories insisting they should be.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:30 PM
it’s a 1/64 chance, not exactly that rare. If you have actual evidence of fraud by all means present it to the media.
Do you have evidence? (hint- no)
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:32 PM
Maybe because there are only two nations on earth with more population than the US? Are you really this dumb?
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:37 PM
You really don’t get the difference between an election and a nomination caucus?
Really?
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:38 PM
Try to follow me here- you being too stupid to get the difference and the difference not mattering, those aren’t the same thing.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:39 PM
Which would matter if we had to prove “no fraud,” but of course the burden of proof in entirely on you.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:42 PM
No, the data really does prove you very wrong.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:49 PM
Still just an anecdote. The data shows the truth clearly.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 3:50 PM
They haven’t abandoned socialism they’re just struggling to find the right combo of socialism and capitalism that gives the best results. Just like everyone else. They were pretty heavy on socialism so it’s hardly surprising their experimentation has involved more capitalism. The US was heavy on capitalism so we’re now experimenting with more socialism.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM
Pssst- it was just a list of OECD countries. I didn’t leave anything off.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:01 PM
You know if you ask about your irrelevant anecdote case a few dozen more times maybe I’ll answer.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM
zeros scare you evidently.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:05 PM
Wait let me think…no, still don’t care about your claims at all. Try not using a third world country for your example.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM
Uh huh, I’m sure you managed to uncover this conspiracy all by yourself.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:12 PM
Since you refuse to engage with facts, no I guess I can’t. On the other hand the fact that you refuse to deal with reality absolves me of any cares for your opinion. So there’s that.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM
No, it wasn’t.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:15 PM
It’s not just me, it’s also all the people who have done studies on the systems that somehow missed your conspiracy.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:23 PM
Except you provided no facts at all, just endless claims about socialism that were easily rebutted.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:24 PM
So you picked out one category where we do better and try to pretend from that we do better in every category. Sorry no. Overall the studies time and again show that first world European nations and Canada have better outcomes and much lower costs.
Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:28 PM

Neitherleftorright on February 10, 2016 at 5:10 PM

After IA and NH it is Bernie Sanders wearing the yellow jersey. Until notified otherwise by actual vote counts, “front-runner” status belongs to Bernie and not to Hillary.

exdeadhead on February 10, 2016 at 5:20 PM

As for Canada, yeah I’m fine with leaving it on the list. Lower costs, better results.

Tlaloc on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Nice link…of an article…with no statistical data whatsoever.

…I could write an article about you being an idiot…poor example as it is counter intuitive to my point.

Teach me how to Bucky on February 10, 2016 at 4:50 PM

And she has the nerve to accuse others of not dealing in facts.

What I don’t understand is how a national socialist like Tlaloc would advocate a 400 year old ideology as she does.

Is it because they think they are goign to get something for nothing free out of it?
Or is because they hunger for power over others?

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 5:36 PM

As for Canada, yeah I’m fine with leaving it on the list. Lower costs, better results.

Kenny Bania on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

LOL-

First of all, you’re citing CBC, the Official Government Mouthpiece for the Canadian Government, to support your claim that everything is going well up there. That’s like citing Radio Pyongyang to support a claim that North Koreans are no longer eating grass for their 3 daily meals.

F-#1.

The CBC is and always has been a journalistic joke-I’ve been consuming their international output for 50 years now, and have been consuming their domestic output for the past 30 years, as I now live close enough to Canada to get the signals.

Let us count the ways that the CBC is a joke.

1. They refuse to call Terrorists “Terrorists”.

From the CBC Ombudsman site:

Jennifer Harwood, Managing Editor of CBC News Network:

It is a long standing practice to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” when they are attributed by others. She explained that the practice is “to describe the act or individual, as ‘bomber’, ‘militant’, ‘extremist’ or ‘gunman,’ for instance, and let the viewer, reader or listener make his own judgment about the nature of the event. The purpose of journalism is to reflect reality, to inform, and to give viewers and listeners enough information so that they can reach their own conclusions.”

She pointed out that the use of the word can be highly politicized and therefore it is preferable that there be a consistent practice to be as specific as possible in describing an event without labelling it. She pointed out that many other leading news organizations also avoid using the words “on their own as a form of description without attribution.” CBC has been following this practice for over 30 years.

But just last year, that very same CBC defended their use of the words “xenophobes” and “haters”. First, the original report:

The vision of thousands of refugees coming to Canada may upset many people, but that’s all right. Change and the challenge of change take a while to reach a comfort level. There will be that small minority of xenophobes who can’t abide the notion of strangers in their midst. That’s all right too. Yes, there are haters in this country, as there are in any other place, in any other time.

Now, the laughable CBC Ombudsman “response”:

Mr. Enright was not labelling anyone who disagreed with him as “xenophobes” and “haters.” She said he stated “there is a small minority of xenophobes.”

…She added that there was no intention to stifle free and open debate and that future programs would feature responses from listeners who disagreed with Mr. Enright’s point of view, “but who do not exhibit the blanket condemnation of an entire religion or race of fellow human beings.” It was those who do that Mr. Enright was characterizing as xenophobes, not those who have other reasons to disagree with allowing in a large number of refugees.

F-#2.

2. Last summer, the Canadians sent a research expedition to the Arctic to study “climate change”. Unfortunately for them, that expedition was forced to turn back-after it ran into too much ice.

Here’s how the CBC Maytagged the story:

A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”

Notice how the CBC carefully refused to inform its gullible consumers what the actual stated purpose of that expedition was? Pravda would approve.

Unfortunately for the CBC, a scientist who was actually on that icebreaker sent out the real story. And guess who he sent it to? Daily Kos.

From July 10 to August 20 I will be aboard the CCGS Amundsen working with a group of scientists to better understand how climate change in the Arctic is affecting important physical, biological and chemical processes and conditions in the marine environment.

…From time to time I will update on our progress and share a little about life and work on a science icebreaker.

Dr. Goebbels would approve!

F-#3.

3. In 2013, the CBC ran an ad on Craigslist for a new anchor. The original ad read:

Any race except Caucasian”

That ad provoked widespread outrage, and the CBC was forced to pull it. As the Canadian National Post told us:

A new version of the ad removes the race reference, but maintains the sex and age restrictions and that applicants “must be able to carry a tune,” “ability to dance or move well is a bonus,” and should be “not afraid to show a silly side,” among others.

The revised casting call was issued and the Craigslist ad deleted Monday after critics on Twitter started questioning the restriction.

F-#4.

However, I was able to find one piece of “honest” CBC reporting. From 2011, CBC’s Rex Murphy:

As the bad economic news continues to emanate from the United States — with a double-dip recession now all but certain — a reckoning is overdue. American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barack Obama’s rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign — and it hasn’t reclaimed them since.

Much of the Obama coverage was orchestrated sycophancy. They glided past his pretensions — when did a presidential candidate before “address the world” from the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin? They ignored his arrogance — “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” And they averted their eyes from his every gaffe — such as the admission that he didn’t speak “Austrian.”

The media walked right past the decades-long association of Obama with the weird and racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. In the midst of the brief stormlet over the issue, one CNN host — inexplicably — decided that CNN was going to be a “Wright-free zone.” He could have hung out a sign: “No bad news about Obama here.”

-snip-

The media trashed Hillary. They burned Republicans. They ransacked Sarah Palin and her family. But Obama, the cool, the detached, the oracular Obama — he strolled to the presidency.

Palin, in particular, stands out as Obama’s opposite in the media’s eyes. As much as they genuflected to the one, they felt the need to turn rottweiler toward the other. If Obama was sacred , classy, intellectual and cosmopolitan, why then Palin must be malevolent, trashy, dumb and pure backwoods-ignorant.

Every doubt they hid from themselves about Obama, every potential embarrassment they tucked under the blanket of their superior sensibilities,they furiously over-compensated for by their remorseless hounding of Palin — from utterly trivial e-mails, to blogger Andrew Sullivan’s weird speculations about Palin’s womb, musings that put the Obama “Birther” fantasies into a realm near sanity. (We are now seeing an echo of that — with a new book promoting all sorts of unconfirmed gossip about Palin, including her alleged sexual dalliance with a basketball star.)

As a result, the press gave the great American republic an untried, unknown and, it is becoming more and more frighteningly clear, incompetent figure as President. Under Obama, America’s foreign policies are a mixture of confusion and costly impotence. It is increasingly bypassed or derided; the great approach to the Muslim world, symbolized by the Cairo speech, is in tatters. Its debt and deficits are a weight on the entire global economy. And the office of presidency is less and less a symbol of strength.

To the degree the press neglected its function as watchdog and turned cupbearer to a Styrofoam demigod, it is a partner in the flaws and failures of what is turning out to be one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the American presidency.

Now there’s a CBC story I can agree with! Howzabout you, Comedy Gold?

F-#5.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2016 at 5:38 PM

YiZhangZhe on February 10, 2016 at 4:14 PM

Not sure how you can call Donna Murch or Nadasen’s work “superficial” they are meticulously researched. All you do is say the work is superficial, you don’t offer any evidence of that.

libfreeordie on February 10, 2016 at 6:01 PM

As for Canada, yeah I’m fine with leaving it on the list. Lower costs, better results.

Kenny Bania on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

LOL-

First of all, you’re citing CBC, the Official Government Mouthpiece for the Canadian Government, to support your claim that everything is going well up there. That’s like citing Radio Pyongyang to support a claim that North Koreans are no longer eating grass for their 3 daily meals.

Del Dolemonte on February 10, 2016 at 5:38 PM

Heh! That was worth reading just for that part.

Torcert on February 10, 2016 at 6:07 PM

Canada does almost worst at everything medical than the US – hell their elected officials come here for treatment. Our northern hospitals serve as safety valves for emergency procedures because they don’t have enough capacity for their own population.

Zomcon JEM on February 10, 2016 at 6:24 PM

libfreeordie on February 10, 2016 at 6:01 PM

I’m glad for the summary. It saved me some time. I used to read those “studies” all the time. Then I discovered that in that realm, the research, even as vacuous as it is and as this also seems to be, is typically made up. Data which falls outside the initial theory is discarded. It is almost as if it is anti-science. But it is in science clothing and people cite it like it is gospel.

Zomcon JEM on February 10, 2016 at 6:45 PM

Hillary won something like 4 out of 300 precincts…and one of the four she won had only 3 Democrats voting. 2 voted for her and the other one voted for Sanders.

#Winning.

Lime in the Coconut on February 10, 2016 at 7:01 PM

As for Canada, yeah I’m fine with leaving it on the list. Lower costs, better results.

Kenny Bania on February 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM

I heard the BBC say the same thing about the NHS for years and years. Too bad the data proves otherwise.

Oh, and Trump is delusional about Scotland’s healthcare system. Scotland’s NHS is block-granted money from London and runs the healthcare system itself. A boy in some parts of Glasgow has a life expectancy that is 28 years shorter than a similarly situated male child in England or Wales and will often die far earlier than a boy in India and the Philippines.

The survival rates for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes are abysmal across the NHS in comparison to other OECD countries.

But, hey, it’s ‘free!’ healthcare.

Did you know that we, supposedly, have ‘free!’ dental care, too? That’s why, when it comes to perfect teeth, everyone in the world automatically refers to the Limeys.

Lime in the Coconut on February 10, 2016 at 7:08 PM

Has Monica Lewinsky’s impeached ex-boyfriend’s wife been indicted yet?

Galtian on February 10, 2016 at 7:41 PM

With the Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party stands to be the biggest losers in this political fiasco. Not much doubt that Hillary Clinton lies for a living or at the kindest will always tell you what she thinks you want to hear. The Democratic power structure may still like hearing that but “We The People” do not. Some are very vocal about an armed revolt. A Minority perhaps but there is still an over whelming majority that are also fed up with this business. Why else are these people voting for a Socialist and a Showboat Candidate. Simple if nothing else they are saying the truth. This is what “We The People” are voting for.

jpcpt03 on February 10, 2016 at 7:41 PM

Is Hillary’s NH meltdown a wake-up call for Dems?

Nope.
Because like it was pointed out in another thread, thanks to the superdelegate system, Hillary could just sit on her fat, obnoxious, entitled ass, lose every primary in the nation, and still be coronated Queen of the Democrats.

justltl on February 10, 2016 at 8:25 PM

Assuming she’s not put in prison in the meantime, of course.

justltl on February 10, 2016 at 8:26 PM

For people who hate long posts, please skip right over. This one is mostly for libfreeordie.

Not sure how you can call Donna Murch or Nadasen’s work “superficial” they are meticulously researched. All you do is say the work is superficial, you don’t offer any evidence of that.

libfreeordie on February 10, 2016 at 6:01 PM

Meticulous research doesn’t preclude superficiality. I’m quite willing to believe that they have got their “facts” mostly correct, but to get beyond superficiality they’d need to get into the hows and whys, and also discuss the boundaries of those “facts” to establish where they begin to get hazy. There were assertions galore, but anybody who has followed even the politics of an office dispute for more than an hour knows that behind every assertion are some tangled realities and matters that have more than one legitimate interpretation. None of this was addressed in any way.

As just one example of superficiality I offer this (from thenation.com article):

He was wrong to dismiss reparations as “divisive,” as though centuries of slavery, segregation, discrimination, ghettoization, and stigmatization aren’t worthy of any specific acknowledgement or remedy.

Note, I assume that Mr Sanders really did use the word “divisive” in the context claimed. I haven’t checked but I see no reason to doubt it.

Mr Sander’s entire argument, whatever it was, has been summarized as “dismiss reparations as divisive”. There is no discussion of why Mr Sanders said what he said, or of exactly what it was that he “dismissed”. There is no discussion of his intended meaning in the word “divisive”: Who or what did he think would be divided, and why did he think it was a problem? Without this information there is no context for by which to assess the dismissal.

Similarly there is no explanation of the form of his alleged error. What exactly was wrong? Why was it wrong? To what extent was it wrong? The claim of error is unsubstantiated in any way.

Her article presents a list of grievances as being worthy of reparations but doesn’t explain why. She writes as if it is self-evident and un-contestable but it is neither:

All of those grievances could be expressed today, even in the USA, by people with paler shades of skin. Is the author concerned about the grievances in a general sense or only as they apply to her family/clan/tribe. Whichever it is, a non-superficial discussion needs to state it and explain why that is her concern, and why it should be anybody else’s.

Ms Alexander proposes that her grievances should be carried back for centuries. Well in the past 450 years there’s been an incomprehensibly large amount of sorrow unjustly inflicted on people. A non-superficial discussion needs to explain why some people who are alive and well-provided for in the richest nation on earth are more wronged than anybody else on the planet whose ancestors were treated badly.

Moreover, to exactly which people do these grievances apply. Certainly not every dark-skinned person in the slums of the USA can claim to have been descended from a southern cotton-picker. Lots of “African Americans” have migrated into the USA long after slavery in North America ended and many of those recent immigrants are likely descended from African slave traders, particularly if they are of Ethiopian or Arab extraction. A non-superficial discussion should explain if and how these people are included in the group of aggrieved people needing reparations for slavery, and if they are not, how they can be distinguished and made to pay their fare share of the reparations.

I could write much more but I hope the above is sufficient to show why I perceive no depth or substance in this article.

I’m curious about the following though:

Upon reading my earlier message you noticed, quite correctly, that I hadn’t substantiated or justified my assertion of superficiality. If you can recognise that I provided “no evidence” for my claim of superficiality why can you not recognise that Ms Michelle Alexander hasn’t substantiated her assertions?

Meanwhile let’s look on the bright side: Unlike the author of that other superficial article earlier in the day — the one about Mr Putin being “on the ropes” — at least Ms Alexander didn’t torture us with mixed metaphors.

YiZhangZhe on February 10, 2016 at 8:41 PM

Hillary is campaigning as the champion of the little guy. She did the same thing running for NY Senator, when she promised to revitalize the depressed upstate region. Ask the upstaters how that worked out for them.

paul1149 on February 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM

Would loved to have been a fly on the wall when Kills saw the incontinent old commies final numbers and let loose with a string of invectives while hurling crockery around the room.

Too bad there’s no video to reconfirm what the Arkansas State Police said they had to contend with when she was in the Governor’s Mansion.

AppraisHer on February 10, 2016 at 10:50 PM

Next up for Democrats is Nevada, a caucus state, and South Carolina, a state Hillary and her team has assumed she would easily win over Sanders. Team Hillary’s already conceding that Nevada may be a tough fight, claiming that a lack of diversity in the caucus will benefit Bernie.

And Hillary is “diverse” in what way besides being in the top one percent of one percent of liars??

Sherman1864 on February 11, 2016 at 4:34 AM

Hey Bania, getting back to your laughable “response” to my Iowa post on page 1 of this thread, tell us again why some election votes are more equal than others…

“EVERY VOTE MUST COUNT!”

~ Every Democrat in America, November-December 2000

“EVERY VOTE MUST NOT COUNT!”

~ Every Democrat in America, 2016

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2