New Hampshire Doesn’t Change a Thing

By | February 9, 2016

The headlines seem to be some variation of “Hillary is in big trouble!” Or how Trump and Sanders dominated. OR how this will dramatically change the race…blah blah blah…

The truth is that Donald Trump has been leading in New Hampshire for months. If he had lost tonight it would have spelled big trouble for his campaign and their message of “winning” since he would have had back to back losses. But even if he had been beaten by some miracle, his campaign is about to head into much friendlier waters: South Carolina, followed by the “SEC Primaries” on Super Tuesday. He holds a comfortable lead in nearly all of them, including Rubio and Bush’s home-turf of Florida.

And Bernie’s victory in New Hampshire is perhaps even less impressive. He outspent Hillary there 3 to 1, and has been ahead of her since August. It’s safe to say she didn’t commit her full resources in the state hoping to wipe him out on Super Tuesday. [On Super Tuesday, the only state he’s ahead in is Vermont…his home state.]

In fact, if Bernie had lost New Hampshire it would mean his candidacy would be effectively over. Yet the media is talking about it like David just put a whomping on Goliath. Hillary has not led him there in six months yet this is a surprising result to the media? Or in any way worth crowing about to the Sanders camp?

It seems like the only states he’s likely to win in February and March are New Hampshire and Vermont. But the media thinks the Clinton campaign is panicked? Oh well, I guess you can never underestimate the obsession to make this into a horse race and keep it going as long as possible. Although, Democrats may foil their plans…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.