2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

Christie's OUT!

[alfred russel]

With Christie likely to not be at the next Republican debate this Saturday, who else will make Rubio sweat?

They should bring him in to moderate the next debate.

[alfred russel]

Christie's OUT!

The chance of me cashing in on my GOP nomination proposition bet: "Will one candidate eat another candidate" just went way down. 

[Martinus]

So, Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem trying to get Bernie get the nomination, I see? 

[Phillip V]

So, Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem trying to get Bernie get the nomination, I see? 

My liberal women friends were mad about that.  I also witnessed their curious cheering for Sanders AND Kasich.

[garbon]

So, Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem trying to get Bernie get the nomination, I see? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/10/hillary-clinton-just-lost-women-to-bernie-sanders-but-dont-blame-madeleine-albright-and-gloria-steinem/

Hillary Clinton just lost women to Bernie Sanders. But don't blame Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem.

Perhaps the Clinton campaign's internal polling had, by this weekend, made it clear just how poorly Hillary Clinton was doing among New Hampshire women. Maybe that triggered some kind of distress signal broadcast to Clinton's high-profile female supporters and surrogates. Maybe that helped set in motion the entire Madeleine Albright-Gloria Steinem-Hillary Clinton fiasco this week.

But now, with the New Hampshire primary done, Clinton's rather dire situation with women — particularly young white women in that state — is pretty clear for all to see.

Clinton did not simply lose New Hampshire on Tuesday night to Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) by around 20 points; she also narrowly lost New Hampshire women to Sanders, too. In fact, early exit polling indicated that Clinton lost the quest for female voters to Sanders. Late Tuesday night, Sanders led her among women by around 10 points, according to exit polls reported by CNN.

That's right. The group that the Clinton campaign and — if we are honest — many a political prognosticator long assumed would form a strong contingent of Clinton's voters due, at least in some part, to the thrilling prospect of casting votes that might help to put the first woman in the White House, appears to have opted for Sanders instead.

In Iowa on Feb. 1, Clinton did manage to pull off a narrow, if contested, overall victory and won Iowa women by a more comfortable 11-point margin. Clinton earned 53 percent of Iowa women's votes, compared to the 42 percent of women who voted for Sanders in that state. But in New Hampshire, that did not hold up, at all.

At the same time, let's not oversell the importance of women in one state. In fact, there's little about Clinton's problems with female voters that clearly begin in 2016.

In 2008, Clinton lost women to Barack Obama in Iowa, claiming 30 percent of the female vote, compared to Obama's 35 percent. New Hampshire delivered a reversal of Clinton's fortunes with women that year, with 46 percent of that state's women casting a primary ballot for Clinton and 34 percent for Obama. Then, in South Carolina, a few weeks later, Obama won 54 percent of women's votes and Clinton claimed a relatively small 30 percent.

Are the tense and hard-fought days of the 2008 Democratic primary race beginning to come back to you now?

Of course, this is not 2008. It is 2016, and Clinton faces a far different opponent with a different kind of platform. Clinton herself said during her New Hampshire concession speech Tuesday night, that she had some work to do to attract young voters (actually what we know is these are primarily young, white voters).

Sanders, though, appears at this early juncture to be more polarizing for the genders than was Obama, who had clear and demonstrated appeal to female voters that often rendered a pretty small gender gap. In the early contests of 2008, men and women often voted for Clinton and Obama in similar numbers, rather than women tilting more for Clinton and men for Obama. Now, the gender gap is more real, so Clinton needs women.

Still, there is likely one bit of modestly uplifting news for the Clinton campaign that can be gleaned from Sanders's more-than-respectable performance in Iowa, overall win in new Hampshire and what appeared late Tuesday to be a victory in the contest for New Hampshire women's votes. And that is this: The populations of New Hampshire and Iowa look nothing like those in South Carolina and Nevada.

In other words, Clinton has lost women before, and she may again. And while they'll continue to be a big part of her base of support, the biggest demographic indicator of what happens from here on out is likely to be non-white voters.

[Habbaku]

I also witnessed their curious cheering for Sanders AND Kasich.

Based purely on how they've comported themselves in the campaign thus far, it'd be pretty nice to have them be the respective nominees. Would go a long way to elevating the rhetoric in politics these days.

[Admiral Yi]

The Clintons have not had good luck with endorsements from their appointees.

[DGuller]

Carly is OUT! It's turning into a massacre.

[Phillip V]

Carly is OUT! It's turning into a massacre.

Carly and Christie can have consolation sex.

[DGuller]

Great, now I have to get that image out of my head. 

[Jacob]

Great, now I have to get that image out of my head. 

Just wait until Rubio and Carson drop out...

[jimmy olsen]

Sanders got 49% of the non white vote in NH!

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nh/Dem

[jimmy olsen]

Carly is OUT! It's turning into a massacre.

As long as Bush, Rubio and Kaisch remain, the establishment will continue to lose.

[Eddie Teach]

Great, now I have to get that image out of my head. 

Just wait until Rubio and Carson drop out...

You and Phil are pervs.