What Does Iowa and New Hampshire Reveal About the Presidential Election?

What Do Iowa and New Hampshire Reveal About the Presidential Election?

A year ago, no one in their right mind would have thought Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would have any impact on the U.S. Presidential Election, let alone would have had a chance of being their party’s nominees. Right?!

Some political commentators have described both as a political insurgency.  This may be true on the Republican side, but it is a false notion with the Democrats. Iowa and New Hampshire voters were not representing a dissatisfaction with the Democratic party’s performance.

It is happening because, before a single vote was cast, Hillary Clinton was the chosen nominee for the Presidential election by the establishment.  It is obvious, the Democratic Party struck a deal with Clinton when Barack Obama became the nominee in 2008. She was going to get her turn.

People seem to forget, Barack Obama was not expected to win the Presidential election in 2008. After John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential running mate, he was soaring in the polls and expected to win. It was the stock market crash that caused McCain to collapse.

When we look back to how someone as inexperienced as Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination, we see it is the fact that Clinton (1) had no real vision, (2) is unlikable, and (3) has issues of trust. The Democrats like the idea of Hillary Clinton being President, but given any other choice, they take that choice.

How do we know this? Clinton never increases her support. In every election, her support in poll numbers peak early in her campaigns. As time goes on, it only ever goes down. Her key to winning is not losing so much support that she loses her election. This even happened when she ran for Senator from New York.

Today, Hillary Clinton is running only on the messages of (1) she is qualified, (2) she will do a good job, and (3) a woman would be a historic first. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is passionately running on the idea of a “political revolution.” He believes that the government establishment is in bed with Wall Street, and that the wealthiest top 1%  have enslaved the bottom 99%.

Moreover, Sanders’ message has been consistent over his entire life and political career. He did not evolve on the issues he supports. These have always been his ideals. While Clinton eagerly has accepted money from Wall Street donors, Sanders has always fought to stop the wealthy from having a disproportionate influence on elected officials.

One does not have to agree with Bernie Sanders’ political point-of-view to respect his character, integrity, and consistency. He believes what he believes because he believes it, not because that is the way the political winds are blowing.

The Democratic Party’s corrupt use of superdelegates may hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton, but she has lost and is losing ground with Democratic voters. She was not expected to have any competition for the Democratic nomination, and Iowa and New Hampshire prove she does not have an ability to combat it.

In fact, one could make a strong argument that Clinton is a completely manufactured candidate. She was handed the position of Senator from New York, in 2000, because the Democrats love Bill Clinton and loved her as First Lady. Her appointment to Secretary of State in 2009, which required a Saxbe fix, was intended to add to her credentials.

Hillary Clinton is a paper tiger, and Democratic voters see her weakness. Clinton could not have gotten where she is on her own. She rode the coattails of her husband, and has a political career that was handed to her by the Democratic establishment. On her own, she may have been an accomplished lawyer, and successful fighting on behalf of Women and Children, but there is no evidence of political talent.

The Democrats are hungry for the first woman President of the United States, but, when served Hillary, they lose their appetite. She has even more issues in a general election, with the greater American electorate even more critical of her various scandals.

Bernie Sanders is not an insurgent candidate, like Donald Trump is with the Republicans. He is the “anyone but Clinton” candidate. Had Joe Biden entered the race, he would have ran away with the nomination. I do not believe Clinton can win the Presidential election on her merits. The voters would have to vote against the Republican, as they did in 2008, for her to win.

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Andy Zeus Anderson
Guest
Hillary and Bernie are both plagued by their own ideology. Hillary thinks two things, she is owed the Presidency, and She is a woman and should be elected based on Gender instead of substance. Bernie Sanders on the other hand is not Progressive, he doesn’t believe in progress and change to future ideas, instead he is the old guard wanting the US to repeat the old ways of Socialism that has destroyed every country it touched and lead to communism in most of them. You can only go so far on the promise of free this and free that and… Read more »
wpDiscuz