Who will win New Hampshire?

[Kraken]

With nobody (or everybody) claiming momentum from the Iowa debacle, New Hampshire has the first vote that matters.

[malchior]

The 'We Might Never Know' haunts me. If Russia wanted to really start a fire they will target any of the upcoming primaries.

[Holman]

Polling gives Sanders a pretty commanding lead in NH.

Buttigieg should be strong there since Dem demographics are pretty similar in Iowa and NH. He'll probably be 2nd.

[Lagom Lite]

I would go so far as to say if Bernie does NOT win New Hampshire, he's in deep trouble.

He has polled great in NH and it's a neighbor of his home state Vermont.

[El Guapo]

The 'We Might Never Know' haunts me. If Russia wanted to really start a fire they will target any of the upcoming primaries.

On the other hand, there's a risk to Russia for unloading its ammo too early. If they do and it becomes apparent, then at least some other states will tighten things up before November (probably not as many as I would like, but *some*), which would limit their targets for November. And every operation risks a fuck up that exposes them too nakedly.

[El Guapo]

I would go so far as to say if Bernie does NOT win New Hampshire, he's in deep trouble.

He has polled great in NH and it's a neighbor of his home state Vermont.

It's also a neighbor of Warren's state (Massachusetts).

Anyway, 538 gives him a ~60% chance of getting the most votes in NH. Unclear how the Iowa results (such as they are) will change this. So it wouldn't be shocking if Sanders doesn't win NH, but given expectations he'd be facing a bad media narrative if he doesn't.

[Jaymann]

If Bernie doesn't win, his Bros and Bras will be rioting in the streets.

[malchior]

The 'We Might Never Know' haunts me. If Russia wanted to really start a fire they will target any of the upcoming primaries.

On the other hand, there's a risk to Russia for unloading its ammo too early. If they do and it becomes apparent, then at least some other states will tighten things up before November (probably not as many as I would like, but *some*), which would limit their targets for November. And every operation risks a fuck up that exposes them too nakedly.

For all we know the events in Iowa were the Russians. The folks in Iowa haven't been transparent at all about what is happening much less completed the vote. Heck would they even know? They are pretty incompetent. I still don't get how they haven't been able to add up a few numbers from each of 1800 locations. It is baffling. My point here is that the uncertainty is the potential attack. I don't think it'll be obvious at all but if I were a Russian offensive cyber unit any election is a soft target now. Whether it is a primary or the general.

Edit: As discussed in the other thread - the delay sounds like it is due to them physically moving the paper around instead of the information.

[El Guapo]

The 'We Might Never Know' haunts me. If Russia wanted to really start a fire they will target any of the upcoming primaries.

On the other hand, there's a risk to Russia for unloading its ammo too early. If they do and it becomes apparent, then at least some other states will tighten things up before November (probably not as many as I would like, but *some*), which would limit their targets for November. And every operation risks a fuck up that exposes them too nakedly.

For all we know the events in Iowa were the Russians. The folks in Iowa haven't been transparent at all about what is happening much less completed the vote. Heck would they even know? They are pretty incompetent. I still don't get how they haven't been able to add up a few numbers from each of 1800 locations. It is baffling. My point here is that the uncertainty is the potential attack. I don't think it'll be obvious at all but if I were a Russian offensive cyber unit any election is a soft target now. Whether it is a primary or the general.

We were able to figure out within a couple months that the DNC hack was part of a Russian government operation. It's not that they would definitely get caught, it's just that every time they do something like that there's always some material chance of getting caught.

[malchior]

We were able to figure out within a couple months that the DNC hack was part of a Russian government operation. It's not that they would definitely get caught, it's just that every time they do something like that there's always some material chance of getting caught.

Sure they might get caught. They just don't care. The risk is very, very low and political campaigns are incompetent at cyber security. Here is the important factor - these sophisticated attacks often go undetected for long periods of time. In the case of the DNC hack, they may have been in the DNC network for well over a year before it was detected. I've been involved in APT investigations where they were undetected for over a decade. The OPM hack was likely undetected for years and that was incredibly sensitive PII and PHI. We (as a society) are really susceptible to this. We also have a propensity for conspiracy theories. That's the risk. I'd even go so far as call it a high risk with a high likelihood to be honest.

[El Guapo]

We were able to figure out within a couple months that the DNC hack was part of a Russian government operation. It's not that they would definitely get caught, it's just that every time they do something like that there's always some material chance of getting caught.

Sure they might get caught. They just don't care. The risk is very, very low and political campaigns are incompetent at cyber security. Here is the important factor - these sophisticated attacks often go undetected for long periods of time. In the case of the DNC hack, they may have been in the DNC network for well over a year before it was detected. I've been involved in APT investigations where they were undetected for over a decade. The OPM hack was undetected for years and that was the government classification database. We are really susceptible to this and we have a propensity for conspiracy theories. That's the risk. I'd even go so far as call it a high risk with a high likelihood to be honest.

I'm just saying that the big prize is Nov. 2020. Gunking up the Democratic primary helps Trump *somewhat*, but it's attenuated. Getting caught now could make Nov. 2020 harder, so I would think it would make sense to hold off on stuff like this (which we can fuck up on our own, clearly) and wait to do more on the day of the presidential election (and days leading up to it).

[malchior]

We were able to figure out within a couple months that the DNC hack was part of a Russian government operation. It's not that they would definitely get caught, it's just that every time they do something like that there's always some material chance of getting caught.

Sure they might get caught. They just don't care. The risk is very, very low and political campaigns are incompetent at cyber security. Here is the important factor - these sophisticated attacks often go undetected for long periods of time. In the case of the DNC hack, they may have been in the DNC network for well over a year before it was detected. I've been involved in APT investigations where they were undetected for over a decade. The OPM hack was undetected for years and that was the government classification database. We are really susceptible to this and we have a propensity for conspiracy theories. That's the risk. I'd even go so far as call it a high risk with a high likelihood to be honest.

I'm just saying that the big prize is Nov. 2020. Gunking up the Democratic primary helps Trump *somewhat*, but it's attenuated. Getting caught now could make Nov. 2020 harder, so I would think it would make sense to hold off on stuff like this (which we can fuck up on our own, clearly) and wait to do more on the day of the presidential election (and days leading up to it).

I agree about the big prize but Russian APTs oddly aren't necessarily centralized (as far as we understand them). Some are military. Some are quasi-criminal. They have different objectives and kept at arm's length for deniability. I'm saying there is a good chance they go after everything they can. Especially now that the ground is prepared.

[stimpy]

[LawBeefaroni]

New Hampshire is mere prelude. It all comes down to the United States Virgin Islands caucuses in June.

[Holman]

The 'We Might Never Know' haunts me. If Russia wanted to really start a fire they will target any of the upcoming primaries.

On the other hand, there's a risk to Russia for unloading its ammo too early. If they do and it becomes apparent, then at least some other states will tighten things up before November (probably not as many as I would like, but *some*), which would limit their targets for November. And every operation risks a fuck up that exposes them too nakedly.

For all we know the events in Iowa were the Russians. The folks in Iowa haven't been transparent at all about what is happening much less completed the vote. Heck would they even know? They are pretty incompetent. I still don't get how they haven't been able to add up a few numbers from each of 1800 locations. It is baffling. My point here is that the uncertainty is the potential attack. I don't think it'll be obvious at all but if I were a Russian offensive cyber unit any election is a soft target now. Whether it is a primary or the general.

Edit: As discussed in the other thread - the delay sounds like it is due to them physically moving the paper around instead of the information.

The Russians screwed up the app *and* made sure the Iowa Dems didn’t have enough folks on the phones?

[malchior]

The 'We Might Never Know' haunts me. If Russia wanted to really start a fire they will target any of the upcoming primaries.

On the other hand, there's a risk to Russia for unloading its ammo too early. If they do and it becomes apparent, then at least some other states will tighten things up before November (probably not as many as I would like, but *some*), which would limit their targets for November. And every operation risks a fuck up that exposes them too nakedly.

For all we know the events in Iowa were the Russians. The folks in Iowa haven't been transparent at all about what is happening much less completed the vote. Heck would they even know? They are pretty incompetent. I still don't get how they haven't been able to add up a few numbers from each of 1800 locations. It is baffling. My point here is that the uncertainty is the potential attack. I don't think it'll be obvious at all but if I were a Russian offensive cyber unit any election is a soft target now. Whether it is a primary or the general.

Edit: As discussed in the other thread - the delay sounds like it is due to them physically moving the paper around instead of the information.

The Russians screwed up the app *and* made sure the Iowa Dems didn’t have enough folks on the phones?

You never know.

Seriously though it's purely a thought experiment at present. They are useful in imagining what is possible. For example, I participated in a panel years ago about infrastructure soft targets after 9/11. I remember I threw out ideas some of the other panelists hadn't thought of like taking out individual bridges in remote locations which would have caused massive years long impacts and economic damage. They could have legitimately pulled them off but that enemy didn't have that sort of imagination.

The Russians are a totally different level though. I've seen them and the Chinese do things that make you respect that they are force to be reckoned with and can do significant damage if they choose to. We aren't defenseless but even then you can't underestimate the risk they pose and worse you can't apply traditional logic to their actions. I expect they are attempting to attack our elections either directly or via proxy units. They know we are exposed and I can't imagine they'll pass up on *any* opportunity even if impacts the chance to get us in November 2020.

[LawBeefaroni]

The Russians are a totally different level though. I've seen them and the Chinese do things that make you respect that they are force to be reckoned with and can do significant damage if they choose to. We aren't defenseless but even then you can't underestimate the risk they pose and worse you can't apply traditional logic to their actions. I expect they are attempting to attack our elections either directly or via proxy units. They know we are exposed and I can't imagine they'll pass up on *any* opportunity even if impacts the chance to get us in November 2020.

All they want to do is undermine the integrity of our elections. That's what they wanted in 2016. They got a whole mess of gravy on top and actually pivoted away from the election integrity angle for a bit. 2020 is going to be a flurry of interference and misinformation. Again, not to influence the outcome, but to sow chaos and doubt.

That's not my theory, that's direct from a congressman who spends a lot of time in the SCIF. Well, it's paraphrased but you get the idea. I doubt that's all Russia wants but it's all they need to do.

[Kraken]

I would go so far as to say if Bernie does NOT win New Hampshire, he's in deep trouble.

He has polled great in NH and it's a neighbor of his home state Vermont.

It's also a neighbor of Warren's state (Massachusetts).

Warren definitely needs a strong finish there -- second or a very close third. But I'm on the Bernie bandwagon for first place.

[Holman]

Some recent NH polls have been strong for Pete. Results could look a lot like Iowa.

I just saw it pointed out that Sanders won NH at something close to 60% in 2016. Yes, that was a two-person race, but his polling in the 20s now means that a whole lot of people who voted for him last time are now looking elsewhere.

[El Guapo]

Some recent NH polls have been strong for Pete. Results could look a lot like Iowa.

I just saw it pointed out that Sanders won NH at something close to 60% in 2016. Yes, that was a two-person race, but his polling in the 20s now means that a whole lot of people who voted for him last time are now looking elsewhere.

Right. I mean, a significant chunk of his 2016 support was at least partially motivated by dislike of Clinton. So anyone who voted for him on those grounds is at least going to look elsewhere.

[LordMortis]

Right. I mean, a significant chunk of his 2016 support was at least partially motivated by dislike of Clinton. So anyone who voted for him on those grounds is at least going to look elsewhere.

I considered him best in a field I didn't want to vote for at the time, though I'm not a NH voter. I've also since come to like him less in the intervening years, seeing his penchant for conspiracy claims, his voodoo numbers on policy, and his desire to succeed from cult of personality in a way I didn't see during his primary run then. Sad to say, even this far in, I'm not as educated on the field as I should be but if Michigan were Tuesday my rank would be


Warren
Buttigieg
Biden
Bloomberg
Sanders

I leave Klobuchar off be, quite frankly, because I'm too ignorant to have an opinion.

I don't think Warren is the right person for this election (whereas I thought she was in 2016, finicky, right?) but I don't resent having to vote for her or think she's a best bad choice, so that's good, right?

[Isgrimnur]

NPR

76% reporting

[El Guapo]

Interesting results. Sanders and Buttigieg will wind up tying in delegates, though Sanders will probably get a bigger media boost from "winning".

Also big showing from Klobuchar. I will say my enthusiasm for her candidacy is growing significantly, as probably the closest option in this field to "Generic, Scandal-Free Democrat".

Rough, rough night for Biden. He needs to turn things around, fast. Probably the best that can be said is that the media is probably ready for a "Biden Comeback" narrative, though he'll need to make something happen to light the spark for that.

[Zarathud]

It's easy to see Kloubichar and Biden voters consolidate around Buttigieg at some point in the future to beat Bernie.

This is Bernie's backyard and he's played well here before. I can see Bernie getting to 35-40% and stalling out.

[Defiant]

In terms of the expectations game, this might help Buttigieg and Klobuchar more than Sanders (who wasn't trying to downplay expectations), though I think it's mostly just going to result in more uncertainty going forward (and a quickly increasing chance of a brokered convention).

One thing that does help Sanders is that it doesn't look like Warren will get any delegates, which could result in a Warren exit sometime soon (unless she does well in Nevada?)

[Defiant]

We need ranked choice voting.

[Lagom Lite]

We need ranked choice voting.

You're assuming these "center" voters would not switch to Sanders. I don't think that's true. I also don't think all Warren voters go to Bernie if she drops out. Some might for example go to Klobuchar on the basis that they want a female nominee. There is plenty of polling that asks the question what the top second choice of all of these candidates supporters are - many have answered Sanders. The support of dropped out candidates would also go to other candidates besides Sanders, of course, but to believe the votes wouldn't get distributed around in a way that also benefits Sanders is naive.

[Holman]

This is good news. NH primary turnout exceeded 2008 (the previous record).

(Iowa was flat with 2016 and lower than 2008, leading to fears of diminished enthusiasm.)

[Isgrimnur]

NPR

95% reporting

[Defiant]

I'd point out that both 2008 and 2016 had the highest and second highest turnout in the general election in the last 50 years, so we probably don't want to read too much into primary turnout.

[Kurth]

We need ranked choice voting.

You're assuming these "center" voters would not switch to Sanders. I don't think that's true. I also don't think all Warren voters go to Bernie if she drops out. Some might for example go to Klobuchar on the basis that they want a female nominee. There is plenty of polling that asks the question what the top second choice of all of these candidates supporters are - many have answered Sanders. The support of dropped out candidates would also go to other candidates besides Sanders, of course, but to believe the votes wouldn't get distributed around in a way that also benefits Sanders is naive.

In what world would it make sense that the center-moderate voters would switch to Sanders? Unless you think there's a high percentage of Biden voters that are just going for the oldest, whitest candidate they can find, in no sane world would they move from Biden to Sanders. Same with Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Their main appeal right now is tied up in the fact that they are centrist democrats, and their supporters are not going to jump on the Sanders "Revolution" train. They don't want revolution. They want things to go back to normal.

[Lagom Lite]

In what world would it make sense that the center-moderate voters would switch to Sanders?

Because American voters aren't always concerned with policy. Don't take my word for it, look at the polls for "second choice". The top second choice for Biden voters are, believe it or not, Bernie Sanders. If you go through the list you'll see that Sanders is the top second choice for many voters, even when their first choice has a completely different outlook or platform.

It doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm European. I look at policy first, ideology second and personality a distant third.

[Smoove_B]

Has anyone come up with a solid explanation as to why we place so much attention on the results of two states where 90%+ of the demographics identify as White? How can anyone realistically speculate what this all means moving forward? Again, it reinforces (to me) the absurdity of our electoral process.

[noxiousdog]

Has anyone come up with a solid explanation as to why we place so much attention on the results of two states where 90%+ of the demographics identify as White? How can anyone realistically speculate what this all means moving forward? Again, it reinforces (to me) the absurdity of our electoral process.

Because it's first and sets a narrative with over and under performing expectations.

[Jaymann]

White is tight.

[Kurth]

Has anyone come up with a solid explanation as to why we place so much attention on the results of two states where 90%+ of the demographics identify as White? How can anyone realistically speculate what this all means moving forward? Again, it reinforces (to me) the absurdity of our electoral process.

No. And there is none, at least, not an explanation that makes any rational sense if the goal is a fair and representative primary process.

[pr0ner]

I would like to add that I think Iowa and New Hampshire should matter even less this year, as Bloomberg doesn't really enter the race until March 3.

[Z-Corn]

White is tight.

"So the genie turned me into a tampon!"