Hillary Clinton gave a speech after the results of the New Hampshire primary were revealed, Feb. 9, 2016. (Photo: AP)
I come not to rebuke Hillary Clinton, who remains by far the most capable presidential candidate. I come bearing advice for her campaign. Hillary, this is something you sorely need.
1. Understand that New Hampshire didn’t owe you anything. “New Hampshire had been good for the Clintons,” we kept hearing. Its primary saved Bill’s hide in the 1992 presidential race. In 2008, it gave you a needed boost when the sisterhood, enraged at perceived sexist attacks, rushed to your defense.
But what did any of this have to do with 2016?
2. Women don’t owe you anything, either. Which side was paying Gloria Steinem to disparage younger women who chose to vote for Bernie Sanders? She said they were chasing boys; can you imagine? And what prompted Madeleine Albright to say that women should vote to help other women as opposed to helping their country?
This was an assault on female intelligence. It also mildly embarrassed women who support Clinton, not out of a desire to elect a female president but because she’s the most qualified candidate. And oh, please call off the celebrity brigade. Not everyone regards Lena Dunham as a font of wisdom.
3. Bill’s presidency was a long time ago. Bill left America in wonderful fiscal shape, and every class prospered. For we who remember the Bill Clinton years, it was a golden age.
Problem is, how many of us remember? Today’s 20-year-olds were 4 when Bill left office. Furthermore, much has happened since then, which brings us to the next item.
4. The Great Recession changed everything. In 2008, the bottom dropped out of the economy. The years that followed have proven a hard slog for young people trying to gain an economic foothold. Blue-collar workers, meanwhile, continued to lose what they had. They are all angry at Washington’s tireless service to the moneyed masters, and with reason.
Now, contrary to his spiel, Bernie Sanders is the candidate of Wall Street. That’s because if nominated, he would almost certainly lose to any Republican running against him. Note how right-wing media isn’t laying a finger on Sanders. On the contrary, by looping the pumped-up charges that Hillary can’t be trusted, the right is feeding the Sanders campaign.
You know this, Hillary. What you must do is brush it aside and speak directly to the hurting electorate. That means getting out of yourself. Let others talk about what you represent, your impressive resume or your massive capacity for hard work.
It’s nice to tell the younger liberals flocking to Sanders that you’ll be listening to them. Better, though, to say that you’re going to take on the powers crushing their economic prospects.
5. Hillary, you are the candidate, not “the Clintons.” In other words, drop the dynasty nonsense. (How’s that going for Jeb Bush?)
Chelsea should not be speaking for you. Bill is more complicated in that he’s a former president. But rein him in.
Bill should not have berated alleged Sanders followers for writing nasty things about a female liberal pundit supporting you. It came off as both paternalistic and dated. Social media has opened a cesspool of anonymous creeps working out of unclear motives. Anyone who can’t ignore that doesn’t belong in the arena.
Hillary, the voter demographics in the coming primaries and caucuses are more favorable to a candidate like you. But you still must replace some of your caution with from-the-heart fire. Open the doors and windows of the lamentably labeled “Clintonworld” and send the hangers-on packing. The more you are yourself, the better you will do.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, at the at the Holiday Inn on Feb. 1, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa, while Hillary Clinton, right, speaks on the evening of the Iowa Democratic caucus, Feb. 1, 2016. (Photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images/AP)
What if all the remaining presidential candidates really want the same things? What if they all offer essentially the same ideas couched in different words? What if these primary races have become beauty pageants largely based on personality and advertising?
What if our system of governance is so deep into the fabric of big government in the second decade of the 21st century that all the presidential candidates really believe that most voters actually want the government to care for them?
What if all major candidates in both major political parties promise a federal government that can right any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event, solve any problem and borrow unlimited amounts of money?
What if the federal government is broke? What if it is politically committed to spending more money than it collects in revenue? What if all the candidates believe in borrowing money today and again borrowing money next year to pay off today’s debts? What if rolling over federal debt never pays off or even pays down the principal?
What if none of the candidates cares about increasing the inflationary pressures and tax burdens on generations of Americans as yet unborn? What if they all want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year more than is collected in revenue? What if they all refuse to address the issue of how to pay back responsibly all the borrowed money from the past 100 years?
What if today we are the victims of this borrowing and spending mentality begun by President Woodrow Wilson and followed by nearly all of his successors up to President Obama? What if all the candidates in the presidential primaries plan to continue this self-destructive process?
What if the modern federal government has never paid back a loan in full without using borrowed money, and none of the candidates running for president cares about that, and all have indicated that they would continue to do the same? What if, as of today, nearly 20 cents of every dollar collected in revenue must legally be paid to lenders to the federal government as interest on their loans? What if American military leaders have argued that the government’s debt is a greater threat to national security than is ISIS?
What if, when these candidates talk about curing cancer or eradicating the heroin epidemic or providing clean water, they are doing so to tug at your heartstrings? What if they are all mimicking President Obama’s politically successful demonstrations of empathy? What if these issues — genuine problems in contemporary America — are not federal problems because they do not spring from areas of governance delegated by the Constitution to the federal government? What if health, safety, welfare and morality are the core of the states’ responsibilities and not the federal government’s?
What if all these candidates don’t care about the Constitution and its guarantees of personal freedom, its checks and balances, and its division of governmental powers, even though, before entering office, they will be required to take a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution?
What if the candidates all want to rearrange borders of countries in the Middle East using the American military? What if they all think they can use the blood of young Americans to force democratic governmental structures upon foreign peoples whose cultures have rejected repeatedly the concepts of majority rule, due process and natural rights over the course of a thousand years of religious civil wars? What if the candidates all fail to see that the more innocents we kill abroad, the more we use force to tell others how to live, the more harm comes to us — to our people, to our culture and to our freedoms?
What if all the candidates for president favor the government using torture, detaining persons without trial, continuous surveillance of all the telephone calls, emails, and text messages of all persons in America — even though these behaviors are profoundly unconstitutional, morally un-American, uniquely destructive of personal liberty in a free society and fail to enhance public safety?
What if all these candidates — in differing degrees — reject the concept of limited government? What if they all want to bribe the rich with bailouts and the middle class with tax breaks and the poor with welfare? What if these candidates and their supporters and their attitudes about the role of government in our lives have reduced government at this sad time in our history to a game whereby everyone tries to live at someone else’s expense?
What if none of the candidates recognizes that government is an artificial creation based on force and ought to be exercised minimally? What if none of them understands that prosperity comes from the free choices of investors, workers and consumers, and not from the decisions of the federal government’s central planners?
What if none of these current candidates acknowledges that individuals are sovereign, our rights are inalienable, our property belongs to us, our souls are immortal, and that the government works for us — not the other way around?
What ever happened to the right to be left alone? Where is a candidate who will defend it? What are lovers of liberty to do?
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina makes a point during the CNN Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina announces she is suspending her 2016 Republican presidential campaign just one day after the New Hampshire primary. Fiorina, who was excluded from the final debate hosted by ABC News on Saturday, came in seventh in the Granite State with 7% and earned just 11,706 votes.
“While I suspend my candidacy today, I will continue to travel this country and fight for those Americans who refuse to settle for the way things are and a status quo that no longer works for them,” she said in a statement.
Fiorina’s campaign manager, Frank Sadler, notified members of her staff in a conference call Wednesday that she was suspending her campaign effective immediately.
“The team is obviously exceptionally proud of her for not even being known by 96 percent of the electorate entering the race,” said Charlie Gerow, a top adviser to Mrs. Fiorina. “She is now clearly well-known, well-liked and well-respected today and will be a strong and powerful voice for Republican principles for a long time to come.”
Worth noting, Fiorina, who took Hillary and the Left to task over their limited definition of feminism, had a parting message for young girls:
To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn’t shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology. It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts. And always remember that a leader is not born, but made. Choose leadership.
No Spinning NH Primary Results Moving Into South Carolina, Nevada
Vermont Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump, right. (Photos: AP/Getty)
At PPD, we deal in facts and data, and our post-New Hampshire primary analysis is nothing short of a reality check for candidates, pundits and the media. That being said, right off the bat, we implore you to ignore those media pundits and take heed to what we will stress here.
Donald Trump and Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders won by large margins last night statewide and across nearly all demographic groups, but their wins will have a different impact to differing degrees in their respective races. Thus, let’s take each party one at a time.
New Hampshire Republican Primary
Like him or not, Donald Trump had a “YUUUUUGE” night on Tuesday. The frontrunner not only won the New Hampshire Republican primary, but he thumped eight other credible, viable, talented candidates by a greater margin than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defeated a much smaller, much less talented field in 2012–19% (Trump) to 16.% (Romney). That is also true for fellow-GOP nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain, who won against another smaller, relatively weaker field by only 6%.
Further, with 95% of precincts reporting, The Donald earned more raw votes than Romney and McCain despite the field disparity, carried battleground and voter-rich counties by a much greater margin, and drove voter turnout to record highs. Republican turnout (275,958) clobbered Democratic turnout (245,173), again, an ominous sign for left come November. Since 1980, the winner of the New Hampshire Republican primary went on to carry South Carolina all but one time (more on that shortly).
Moving on to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who trailed behind Trump in second place with 16% of the vote. He no doubt outperformed his polling numbers and general media expectations, though not on the PPD Election Projection Model. Going into Tuesday, Kasich was on the move with a 16% chance winning the New Hampshire Republican primary. Unfortunately, for him, Trump outperformed his polling numbers by roughly 5 points and our model by 7 points.
That said, Kasich has a very small war chest and an even smaller infrastructure in the Palmetto State, where Trump leads Texas Sen. Ted Cruz 36% to 19.7% on the PPD aggregate average of polls. Prior to Tuesday’s results, Trump had a 56% chance of winning the South Carolina Republican primary, according to the PPD Election Projection Model, which will now only increase.
Gov. Chris Christie succeeded in damaging Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in the debate on Saturday before the official vote, but what the media, the campaign and other observers failed to understand is that hurting Rubio and helping himself were always two different things. After placing in sixth place at 7% with 20,291 votes, the New Jersey governor is finished. But Rubio is also badly damaged as the contest turns toward the South.
Rubio finished in an abysmal fifth place at 11% and 29,127 votes, blowing his 3-2-1 strategy. As we have repeated argued over-and-over, this strategy was build on a theory that had zero historical data or other empirical evidence to support it. Voters back winners, and in the history of modern Republican primaries, there has never been a candidate who lost both Iowa and New Hampshire yet went on to win the nomination.
Rubio’s performance was an absolute disaster nearly on par with Christie, and his path forward is almost nil barring a big win in South Carolina–which again, he is unlikely to pull off. We find almost no scenario where Rubio comes out of Nevada (Trump: 58% chance of victory) with enough momentum to blunt Trump, who leads both the Sunshine State’s sitting senator and former Gov. Jeb Bush in their own home state. The frontrunner has a 61% chance of victory in the delegate rich, winner-take-all Florida Republican primary.
Last but not least, the Iowa caucus winner–Texas Sen. Ted Cruz–performed as expected in the New Hampshire Republican primary. If you think he outperformed, as some have suggested, take another look at his face during his speech Tuesday night. He knows what we know looking at the data and the raw vote.
Cruz did not pull significant support from libertarians with Sen. Rand Paul out of the race and Trump dominated self-described conservatives, a bloc he was hoping and expecting to perform much better with on Tuesday. They accounted for nearly 7 in 10 voters, but they went for the winner. Worth noting, the Palmetto State is not as evangelical as the media portray and the Cruz campaign is hoping, and frankly looks more like New Hampshire than it does Iowa, relatively.
That’s the reason it has gone for the New Hampshire Republican primary winner in all but one primary cycle since 1980. We believe Cruz will be extremely competitive, but a combination of Trump’s strengths among Cruz’s core target voters, momentum and the dynamics of the field, it’s crystal clear the frontrunner is well-positioned to take the top spot in South Carolina on February 20.
As far as Bush is concerned, he spent $36.1 million in the Granite State, which breaks down to roughly $1,209 per vote for his fourth place finish. Enough said. Please refer to my declaration Why Bush Failed written back in December because, as predicted, nothing has changed.
New Hampshire Democratic Primary
On the other side of the aisle, the New Hampshire Democratic primary exposed a deeper, more fundamental problem for the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton is not well-liked or well-trusted, carrying only the bloc of voters making more than $200,000 and over the age of 65. That is a fundamental shift in her coalition since she defeated now-President Barack Obama in the Granite State in 2008.
No doubt, the Clintons were hoping and expecting to spin a single-digit loss, but she was on the wrong end of a Sanders stomp that has expanded to some 22 points, with 95% of precincts reporting. However, moving forward, it is still more unlikely than likely that Sanders can break into the minority voting block that will represent larger shares of the Democratic primary electorate.
Sanders’ strength is among whiter, younger and more liberal Democratic primary voters and, whether this is the high water mark for his campaign or not, will be decided in the coming weeks.
The next two contests are the Nevada caucus (Saturday, Feb. 20) and South Carolina (Saturday, Feb. 27) primary, where the share of white voters will drastically decrease. In 2008, Hispanic voters in Nevada backed Clinton over Obama by a 64% to 26% margin, and represented roughly 15% of the vote. Considering their growth to 20% in the overall electorate, it is more than expected we will see rapid growth in their share of the primary electorate in 2016.
In 2008, black voters, a bloc Obama carried by a 78% to 19% margin over Clinton, accounted for more than half of the Palmetto State’s primary electorate. Absent Obama, Clinton will handily win heavily religious black voters against a 73-year-old white secular socialist from Vermont.
The only person at this point who can defeat Hillary is Hillary, because the worst-case scenario for the Clinton Camp is if the establishment abandoned her in the wake of a serious scandal–like say, being charged with a felony for breaking the Federal Records Act of 1950. Unless Sanders begins to demonstrate a significant appeal among minority voters, he simply cannot win.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, left, clashes with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, right, in the final Republican debate before the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 6, 2016. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reportedly gearing up to formally suspend his 2016 presidential campaign, a report claimed on Wednesday. Worth noting, PPD has not been able to confirm the report and the Christie campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
CNN, citing two sources close to Mr. Christie, reported that “all indications” are that they expect him to end his bid for the Republican nomination, though details are still being worked out.
“Gov. Christie succeeded in damaging Sen. Marco Rubio in the debate on Saturday ahead of the vote,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris. “But what the media and other observers failed to understand is that hurting Rubio and helping himself were always two different things.”
Gov. Christie finished in sixth place in the New Hampshire Republican primary Tuesday night after investing his time and resources in the Granite State. He said Tuesday during his speech that he would go back to New Jersey Wednesday to take stock of his numbers. With 95% of precincts reporting, Christie is at 7% with 20,291 votes, the last of the governors running for president.
President Barack Obama meets with Vice President Joe Biden and other advisors in the Oval Office, Feb. 2, 2016. Meeting with the President and Vice President are, from left, Katie Beirne Fallon, Director of Legislative Affairs; Amy Rosenbaum, Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs (partially hidden); Chief of Staff Denis McDonough; Martin Paone, Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs; and Alejandro Perez, Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs and House Liaison. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
We have good news and bad news. The good news is that President Obama has unveiled his final budget. The bad news is that it’s a roadmap for an ever-growing burden of government spending. Here are the relevant details.
The President wants the federal budget to climb by nearly $1.2 trillion over the next five years.
Annual spending would jump by an average of about $235 billion per year.
The burden of government spending would rise more than twice as fast as inflation.
By 2021, federal government outlays will consume 22.4% of GDP, up from 20.4% of economic output in 2014.
I guess the President doesn’t have any interest in complying with Mitchell’s Golden Rule, huh?
While all this spending is disturbing (should we really step on the accelerator as we approach the Greek fiscal
cliff?), the part of this budget that’s really galling is the enormous tax increase on oil.
As acknowledged in a report by USA Today, this means a big tax hike on ordinary Americans (for what it’s worth, remember that Obama promised never to raise their taxes).
Consumerswill likely pay the price for President Obama’s proposed $10 tax per-barrel of oil, an administration official and a prominent analyst said Thursday. Energy companies will simply pass along the cost to consumers, Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy.com, which tracks gas prices nationwide, said in an interview with USA TODAY. ….a 15-gallon fill-up would cost at least $2.76 more per day. It would also affect people who use heating oil to warm their homes and diesel to fill their trucks.
Isn’t that wonderful. We’ll pay more to fill our tanks and heat our homes, and we’ll also pay more for everything that has oil as an input.
While middle-class consumers will see a big hit on their wallet, the Washington Postexplains that Obama wants the new tax revenue to fund an orgy of special-interest spending.
…the tax would raise about $65 billion a year when fully phased in. …The administration said it would devote $20 billion of the money raised to expand transit systems in cities, suburbs and rural areas; make high-speed rail a viable alternative to flying in major regional corridors and invest in new rail technologies like maglev; modernize the nation’s freight system; and expand the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program launched in the 2009 economic stimulus bill to support local projects. …The budget would also use roughly $10 billion per year in revenues for shifting how local and state governments design regional transportation projects. Obama would also propose investing just over $2 billion per year in “smart, clean vehicles” and aircraft.
By the way, the Administration is claiming that the big new energy tax won’t really hurt our pocketbooks because oil prices have been falling. Here are parts of a story by the Washington Examiner.
President Obama said the oil supply glut that has forced prices down to about $30 a barrel makes his proposal to levy a $10 per-barrel tax on crude oil timely. …the White House appears to be of the view that consumers would have an easier time paying it during record low prices.
Gee, how thoughtful of them.
But is anybody under the illusion that the politicians in Washington will repeal the tax when energy prices rise?
P.S. The folks at Politico have a story about Obama’s plan, and there’s a bit of speculation about how it could become an issue for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race.
…the proposal could be particularly awkward for Hillary Clinton, who has embraced most of Obama’s policies but has also vowed to oppose any tax hikes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.
I think this analysis is absurd.
Hillary will promise all through the campaign that she opposes tax hikes on everyone other than the rich. But then, just like Obama, she’ll break that promise if she gets to the White House.
[brid video=”27409″ player=”2077″ title=”Jeb Bush New Hampshire ‘ the Race'”]
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told supporters in New Hampshire they have “reset the race” by giving him a strong fourth place finish. Bush argued that the Republican Party needs to nominate a candidate that is transparent and tested in order to beat Hillary Clinton, adding, “I’m that guy.”
PPD Perspective
With 93% of precincts reporting, Donald J. Trump appears to have won more votes than Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008–combined! Pollsters, as we’ve suspected, are wrong on their models and need to adjust. Trump’s voters clearly vote and the GOP shattered Democrats on turnout, again. More independents are voting in the Republican contest.
This could get really ugly for Democrats in the fall, without Jeb Bush.
[brid video=”27407″ player=”2077″ title=”Trump ‘ world is going to respect us again. Believe me.'”]
Donald Trump told supporters Tuesday in his victory speech after his big win in the New Hampshire primary that the world will respect the U.S. again.
“You started it. Remember, you started it,” Trump told Granite State voters. “When I came out, I heard the tail end of Bernie’s speech. And I heard some of the beginning.”
The crowd booed Sanders when Trump mentioned his name.
“First of all, congratulations to Bernie — we may not like it, but I heard Bernie’s speech,” Trump added. “He wants to give away our country folks! We’re not going to let it happen.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaks in Boone, Iowa, on Jan. 4, 2016. (Photo: Andrew Harnik, AP)
Politicians tailor their messages to different audiences. Facing New Hampshire’s primary, Ted Cruz talked more about “free-market principles” and a “commitment to the Constitution” and said “no one personality can right the wrongs done by Washington.” Politico ran the headline “Ted Cruz, born-again libertarian.”
I’m skeptical. Campaigning in Iowa, Cruz had emphasized religion and social conservatism.
But politicians no longer just target voters state-by-state — they target by person.
Last election, President Obama beat Mitt Romney partly by doing just that. Obama had 50 people working in data analytics. Romney had four.
“The campaign manager for the Obama campaign said the biggest institutional advantage they had was its use of data,” observes Cato Institute fellow Emily Ekins.
Conservatives had data too, she says, but “Republican insiders tended to be a little bit closed-minded when it came to new methodologies.”
Not Cruz. He told my producers recently, “I bought a copy of David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager’s book, ‘The Audacity to Win,’ gave it to our senior team (and told them) we are going to nakedly and shamelessly emulate this.”
The Obama campaigns kept detailed computer records on individuals likely to vote for Obama. On Election Day, volunteers concentrated on getting just (SET ITAL) those (END ITAL) voters to vote.
Likewise, this year the Cruz campaign didn’t send volunteers to every single door to ask people for their vote. They saved precious time by knocking only on doors of likely Cruz voters who might need a nudge to go to the polls.
Cruz technology manager Chris Wilson told us that the campaign will then do “whatever it takes. We go to their house. We’ll bug them until they either turn out to vote or get a restraining order against us.”
“Restraining order” is a joke, but his volunteers do carry phone apps that even tell them what questions to ask occupants depending on whether a man or a woman answers the door.
Today, all campaigns buy data from marketers. Ekins explains that “companies amass enormous amounts of data based on transactions that you and I make — whether we opened a store loyalty card, whether we subscribed to a magazine.”
That data tells them something about how you think. Wilson told me, “Someone who buys arugula, we’ve found that they tend to be a little bit more Democratic — someone who buys iceberg lettuce tends to be more Republican.”
There is truth in data. Outside Minneapolis, according to The New York Times, a manager of a Target store fielded an angry call from a father who was furious because Target sent his teenage daughter ads for baby products. You’re encouraging my daughter to get pregnant, he complained.
The manager apologized and later called back to apologize again. But this time the father apologized, saying she is pregnant! Target knew before Dad did.
Now politicians use similar data. Wilson says he can track where individual voters stand “on moral issues, immigration, national security, on gun rights.”
Ted Cruz adds that they then go beyond “where” people stand to target voters based on “why.”
“If you’re a single mom, if you’re carrying a revolver in your purse ’cause you don’t want to get mugged, a duck-hunting ad is not going to do a thing to connect with you,” Cruz told us. “Just on the Second Amendment, we have a dozen different messages.”
This offended some people who watched my recent TV special about this. pathgirl888 tweeted: “Watching @JohnStossel re Tech Revolution. #Orwellian manipulation of IA voters … creepy.” Others complained, “Cruz Camp is monitoring everything” and “INVASION OF PRIVACY!”
But it’s not just Cruz who does this. The Obama campaign reached into its supporters’ Facebook accounts and asked them to persuade their friends to support Obama. Facebook then changed its policies to give “friends” more privacy protection, but it’s safe to assume all future presidents will be elected with help from this sort of technology.
We asked an Iowa voter if he minded being targeted by Cruz. He said, “No, I think it’s excellent. Use every tool we can, because we have to defeat those people. They’re using them.”
The tech revolution is changing almost everything.
Donald Trump speaks beside former U.S. Senator Scott Brown at a campaign rally in Portsmouth, N.H., in January. (Photo: Reuters)
Donald Trump has won the New Hampshire Republican primary decisively, carrying Concord and Manchester counties with roughly a 20-point margin. Trump, the flamboyant billionaire real estate mogul, carried voters on every major issue, dominated among independents (undeclared), and tied Ohio Gov. John Kasich among late-deciding voters at 21%.
With nearly 80% of supporters digging in weeks before the election, The Donald’s support overwhelmed the surging Kasich, who is currently in second. PPD projects he will hold on to second place after placing eight in the Iowa caucus.
Trump led in 77 consecutive polls and the PPD aggregate average of New Hampshire Republican primary polls since July and was pegged at 72% likelihood on the PPD Election Projection Model, the most accurate forecast in 2014.
With Florida Sen. Marco Rubio trailing in behind Kasich, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, his 3-2-1 strategy failed and his campaign is in big trouble. In 45 years, no Republican candidate has ever lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to earn the nomination.
Now, the Republican contest heads to South Carolina, where Trump leads his closest rival Sen. Cruz 36% to 19%. While Cruz plans to compete hard in the Palmetto State, The Donald heads South with the momentum. Even though most pundits talk about the state as if it was closer to Iowa than New Hampshire, it has a strong track record of following the winds of New Hampshire. Of course, one of the most noteworthy exceptions was 2012, when former Speaker Newt Gingrich defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Gov. Romney stumbled badly in the debate right before the vote and Gingrich shined. Ultimately, Romney won the nomination. Despite the narrative, the Palmetto State is not as conservative or as evangelical as it once was but, even when it was, it has swung with New Hampshire all but once in recent GOP nomination history.
New Hampshire Republican primary exit polls showed more than four in 10 Republican voters say they’re angry with the way the federal government is working. It was a similar 42 percent in Iowa. Of the 43% are angry, 37% chose Trump while 17% chose Cruz. He also carried 57% of those who say they wanted a political outsider. Four in 10 Republican voters chose their candidates in the final days, but Trump and Kasich each pulled 21%, with Bush and Rubio behind at 13%. Trump carried 29% of the independent vote, which is double-digits above his closest rival (Kasich: 17%).
The bottom line, Trump dominated across the board on the most important issues, including winning two-thirds of those who said “telling it like it is” was pivotal to their vote. The national frontrunner defeated a crowded field by a similiar (likely larger when the votes are tallied) margin than Gov. Romney defeated a smaller, weaker field in 2012. Romney carried the state over Ron Paul 39.3% to 22.9%, while Trump currently leads Kasich 34% to 15%.
On turnout, Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders touted the “record turnout” and slammed the Republican Party in his victory speech. However, as a fact-check, Republican turnout once again appears to have handily beaten Democratic turnout by at least 30,000 votes. Independents voted disproportionately with Republicans and the party voted at a higher rate. According to PPD’s Party Affiliation, Ideology by U.S. State Map, which was just released this week, the Republican Party has an ID edge of 8.8%.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
