What the Dixville Notch Vote Tells Us About Kasich

Dixville Notch, NH has spoken. What are the 9 souls who have now famously made their choices telling America?

In the first place, small statistical samples are used all the time in assesing, for example, traffic at your website. And while voter behavior across a state - even a small one - or much less across an entire primary, is not quite the same proposition as visitor behavior at a site selling woodstoves; Dixiville Notch has run up (I did not say notched, ok?) quite a record since the 1968 election. At least as far as the GOP is concerned.


Yes, including the 1968 election, Dixville Notch has predicted the Republican Presidential Nominee every time - including 1980's tie between Reagan and G.H.W. Bush as a possible exception to the rule. Do ties count?

2016 is a year of unpredictable change - or no change if the unpredictable candidates are nowhere to be seen come this June. But, if the Dixville Notch primary indicator - or DiNoPi (pronounced Dino Pie) - is still a faithful predictor, then John Kasich will not just win New Hampshire.

Governor Kasich will be the GOP nominee. If this statistical anomaly continues to hold true.

That can't be, for God's sake! Right? Well, let's just say that given that Jeb Bush may possibly not even finish in the top 4 in New Hampshire and will eventually have to fold up his very expensive tent, GOP donors are in a fluid state. They love Rubio. They´re suddenly not sure about Rubio. They despise Trump. They're willing to consider Trump. They hate Cruz. They may have to make a deal with Cruz, if possible.

If Rubio is suddenly, unexpectedly in trouble, donors will move very quickly to consolidate around a candidate they feel they know and trust. This is the business end of the primary that's underway today, and time is very precious for all involved in the nomination race. Donors may just turn to Kasich who one can imagine spreading his arms out wide and saying something like: what took you folks so long?

Kasich's early debate performances were unbearable to be frank. But they never, ever lacked conviction. He really is a battle scarred veteran with more than a few victories under his modest. ever-so-humble working class belt. Or something like that. Kasich just wouldn't quit, even as many of us, almost all of us, felt his days were numbered.

Kasich is such a screamingly obvious middle-of-the-road candidate - at least in general election terms; not in GOP primary terms - that he's been almost invisible, but loud, all at the same time.

Should Kasich win New Hampshire, in a tight race with Trump, and unbelievably, the GOP nomination; one will have to ask: what the hell is going on in Dixville Notch??

Here's one possible answer. It took them two electoral cycles between the founding of the Notch vote in 1960 and their choice of Nixon in 1968, but the good people of Dixville Notch came to realize that they are a statistical metaphor for America's voting preferences in any given GOP nomination race.

Suddenly those handful of voters up there near the northern border realized that their tactics would have to be different than voters in a larger poll - in Manchester say - where you can express your political views through a number of tactical votes - this year more than ever. Each single voter in Dixville Notch perhaps has a sense of representing the preferences of large groups of voters, and votes accordingly. Look who the 9 voters chose this year: Sanders, Kasich, and Trump. Two expected choices and one surprise that does reflect Kasich's possible late surge.

Will the living, breathing metaphors for GOP voter preferences in America get it right again? Or is this whole analysis just a silly diversion? Because if they get it right again, a further look at the numbers - how much a GOP nominee wins by - suggest that the GOP will lose the election with Kasich as their candidate.

Posted by Keeley at February 9, 2016 5:58 PM
Comments
Comment #402443

What with the establishment candidates doing so well it really plays into the establishments plan for a brokered convention, IMO. The establishment will carry however many establishment candidates necessary to put the squitess on Trump through a brokered convention. They do not want Trump to win and will spend as much as necessary to see that he doesn’t.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 9, 2016 8:43 PM
Comment #402449

Fiorina dropped out. Christie will drop out soon. Someone described what Christie did to Rubio in the debate as a suicide bombing because it killed both of their chances. Kasich did well enough in NH to come in 2nd, but he put all his eggs in one basket, and he didn’t have that many eggs to begin with. Second meant 15% of the vote in a crowded field. Now, (unless a billionaire comes out of the dark money woodwork) he has just enough money for a last gasp in SC & NV. He was the only GOP candidate who worried me in a general election, so hopefully he will be washed out of the race soon.

The conservative columnist Brooks talked about how he would miss Obama’s civility and dignified demeanor. Given the nature of the Trump campaign, I am sure he is right. Just before NH someone in a Trump audience called Cruz a ‘p****.’ Trump repeated the comment on stage. That is about as rude and crass as it gets. Despite the comment he went on to win NH decisively. So this is the guy who about 1/3 of the NH GOP believe will be the best representative of the people of the United States. Hoo boy.

What made the rude, crass comment funny is that Trump was right. Cruz really is a ‘p****.’ Guess it is all right if our political discourse drops to this level; after all, if it is good enough for the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Now the GOP campaign goes to SC, and this is a state known for dirty presidential politics. This was the state where George W Bush made his bones in 2000. The Cruz campaign has already shown its willingness to sink as low as necessary when it comes to playing dirty. As many people from both sides have already noticed, Cruz will say and do anything.

Will Carson even bother? Wonder how he feels about Cruz after the NH dirty trick. “How do you like me now,” as the old joke goes. At least Carson has enough dignity not to call Cruz a ‘p****.’

Rubio Talking Point 3000 combined his utter lack of professional accomplishments with an inability to stop repeating talking points. He just couldn’t stop himself. All the candidates repeat word tracks, talking points, stump speeches, and so on. But Rubio could NOT stop even when it as totally inappropriate.

So Trump is driving the clown car. Fiorina hopped out. Christie dumped a bottle of water on Rubio’s head and a shower of sparks erupted. “Reboot… Reboot… Reboot…” The others shoved Christie out the door when the clown car slowed down for a traffic jam on a bridge. Will Christie fit through the door? Jeb:^( is clutching a pile of cash to his chest, but bills keep floating out the window. Cruz is riding shotgun and threatening to take the wheel and kill everyone, but Trump slaps his weak hands away and calls him a ‘p****.’ And Kasich is riding in back in the jump seat wondering- is there an eject button?

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2016 4:41 PM
Comment #402450

That’s all well and good phx8 but if I were you I wouldn’t brag to much about the choices you have on your side. A socialist and a lier really big choices!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 10, 2016 5:13 PM
Comment #402451

Everyone knew Sanders would win big in NH, but he crushed HRC. That was impressive. It’s funny, watching FOX and the WSJ try to cover Sanders. They want him to be the candidate, and they have focused all of their fire on HRC, but they can’t actually let their viewers and readers know where Sanders stands on the issues. Sanders is absolutely relentless on the issues. He avoids getting caught up in the horse race issues and other side bars. But the conservative media does not want conservatives to know what he is saying, so they try to dismiss it with name calling. They call him a socialist, mention that he will raise taxes, and… mumble mumble mumble. Because if conservatives hear Sanders’ message, a lot of them will vote for Sanders.

Millenials are turning out in huge numbers for Sanders, and this is a good look at the future. The young people grew up at a very bad time for America. They saw the War in Iraq. They know what happened. They heard all that talk about tax cuts and all the jobs that would result, and then they saw the economy crash. There were no jobs, the price of health care skyrocketed, people were losing their houses, and most of the people who went to college graduated with huge debts and no employment opportunities.

Conservatives responded by doing everything in their power to obstruct and deny the Obama administration. They encouraged their base to believe a lot of things that simply were not true. They encouraged bigotry aimed at the LGBT community, they went along with half the GOP believing Obama was a Muslim and not the legitimate president.

Now the GOP has Trump. In exit polling, 66% of GOP voters thought Muslims should not be allowed into the country.

You conservatives earned Trump and Cruz. You deserve these guys.

kctim, I am totally fine with either Sanders or HRC. Both are experienced politicians who would do a good job. They carry themselves with dignity and project the kind of gravitas a president should exude.

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2016 5:29 PM
Comment #402452

It’s the free stuff phx8, they will love it until they find out how he intends to pay for all that free stuff.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 10, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #402453

phx8 writes; “…They (FOX and WSJ) want him (Sanders) to be the candidate…”

Clearly, the Democrat Party machine doesn’t want Sanders. phx8 is probably very proud of how it works.

“In New Hampshire, Sanders won 13 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 9, but the 8 superdelegates in NH will probably give Clinton the edge, despite losing the state in a landslide. Currently, Clinton leads Sanders in the delegate count 15 to 13, but the results are subject to change.

Clinton’s superdelegate advantage didn’t start in New Hampshire, though. She has had the party elite’s backing for months now.

Already in this election 362 of those superdelegates have pledged support for Clinton and only 8 have for Sanders, while 342 remain uncommitted, according to the NY Times 2016 Primary Calendar. That’s a 45-to-1 ratio and good evidence that, yes, the system is rigged, at least in the Democratic Party.”

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/hillarys-head-start-has-a-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage#sthash.lwKeaZuy.dpuf

phx8 expounds that; “They (conservative media) call him a socialist.”

Are you telling us that he isn’t? Read a little about Sanders history in political movements. His past is not endearing to our Republic, or friendly to our Constitution.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2016 7:13 PM
Comment #402454

Right RF, the media will need to keep a close eye on the establishment as it relates to doling out superdelegate votes to the candidates.

Say, what does the Constitution say about political parties and superdelegates helping with candidate selection?

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 10, 2016 7:35 PM
Comment #402455

Roy, I can’t answer your Constitution question. I wonder if Bernie’s supporters even know about the Democrat Super delegates.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2016 7:46 PM
Comment #402456

KAP,
Sanders is not offering “free stuff.” That is a phrase intended to stop conservatives from actually considering Sanders proposals. He is very specific about what he wants to do and how to pay for it- and whether you agree with it or not, that something you can’t say about the other candidates.

RF,
Democrats have superdelegates. If Sanders wins a majority of the delegates in the primaries and caucuses, and HRC has a minority but becomes the nominee through superdelegates, she will lose. The Democrats will not go there. The superdelegates will change sides if that scenario ever comes to pass.

Sanders is a democratic socialist. Conservatives belief calling someone a ‘socialist’ automatically ends the discussion. It is a way to discourage conservatives from looking at Sanders’ proposals.

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2016 9:43 PM
Comment #402457

Of course there is nothing in the Constitution about political parties. Yet, these party officials have given themselves superdelegate powers to assist the candidate selection process.

Who are the watchdogs in the process? Party officials and the media, I suppose.

From wiki: “Superdelegates are not selected on the basis of party primaries and caucuses in each state. Instead, superdelegate standing is based on the status of current or former officeholders and party officials, including all Democratic members of Congress. Superdelegate is a term that arose in the 1970s. Clinton’s camp declared in late August that they had 1/5th of the delegates needed to win and had secured the support of 440 of the roughly 700 superdelegates, although some have questioned that statement.”

http://genprogress.org/voices/2008/04/09/14916/why-superdelegates-exist/

Good url for pros and cons.

“The primary election system as we know it didn’t exist before 1972; in fact, only 13 states held elections in the 1968 presidential contest. The winning candidate, Hubert H. Humphrey, was chosen mostly by the party machine that year, and his defeat—he lost the popular vote by less than one percent—only discouraged the general Democratic populace. In 1972, Senator George McGovern, who would later become a presidential nominee himself, led a committee that encouraged states to adopt the primary system for the upcoming election. While McGovern was successful in persuading most states to make the switch, he failed miserably in the general election, beating Richard Nixon in only Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts. Many accredited the 1972 Democratic defeat to the new primary system. Thus, in 1980, the Democratic Party established the superdelegate system to give a little bit of power back to active and former members of the party. The superdelegate institution has been in place ever since, for better or worse.”

A helluva way to run a railroad, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 10, 2016 10:15 PM
Comment #402458

For the record, both parties utilize pledged delegates to permit the establishment to have a thumb on the scale. This issue regarding “superdelegates” already had its day in the headlines 8 years ago because that race was close enough such that Obama did not win an outright majority with just his pledged delegates. Even though he had the support of a minority of unpledged delegates, it was enough to put him over the top.

The possibility of a “brokered” convention whereby the nominee is not the one with a plurality of pledged delegates remains nonzero for both parties, but I would save such speculation for later on when we have a much better idea of what is going on.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 10, 2016 10:50 PM
Comment #402459


It is a way to discourage conservatives from looking at Sanders’ proposals.

Phx8, Have you seen what Sanders economic plan would do to our Country?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html

Posted by: j2t2 at February 11, 2016 12:53 AM
Comment #402460

Sanders is right. The median income of the US would jump up dramatically. Redistributing wealth would result in far more Americans doing better, and the median income for the US would finally rejoin that of the rest of the industrialized world.

Most people do not realize what the conservative economic model has done. Low taxes, low incomes, and few benefits have produced exactly what one would expect. This model has worked very well for the richest of the rich. Everyone else has been left behind.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2016 1:40 AM
Comment #402461

Come on KAP, Sanders isn’t offering free stuff, he’s just saying he will tax others so you don’t have to pay for it yourself. LOL!

More government control. Constant infringement on individual rights. Higher taxes. Less choice. More dependency.
People have considered Sanders proposals, some of us just appreciate our freedoms and don’t wish to live like that.

Posted by: kctim at February 11, 2016 9:12 AM
Comment #402463

Kctim, the conservatives have led us to a regressive wealth distribution scheme,(or capitalism as practiced)that hasn’t worked for years, infringing upon the individual rights of the rest of us. Why is it alright for these individual rights to be infringed upon yet you complain when Sanders suggests a plan that returns to the rest of us our individual rights.

Your depiction of freedom as being exploited economically by the aristocracy is laughable considered they used their wealth to manipulate the representatives of the people of this country for their personal gain. To suggest that by correcting these laws used to enslave many to conservative capitalism is some sort of dependency on government or exploitation of individual rights is misguided IMHO.

It seems to me our choice is more control by “we the people” or more control by the oligarchy which IMHO is a no brainer. Why do you argue against self government favoring instead government by the aristocracy?

Using the myth of “he will tax others so you don’t have to pay for it yourself” is disingenuous kctim. Those that benefit will continue paying taxes as their incomes rise under Sanders plan. This type of misinformation is typical of the authoritarian right wing, why do you buy into it?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 11, 2016 11:46 AM
Comment #402465

J2, individual rights have absolutely nothing to do with dollars, so Sanders fairy-tale plan returns nothing to us.

The people’s laziness gave government the power to confiscate our property at will and people are using that power of government to get a piece of it. Sanders Utopian desires to change that is meaningless because the money would only be funneled to more government, not back to the people. They are also not possible without a compliant Congress.

“Why do you argue against self government favoring instead government by the aristocracy?”

I don’t. I argue against liberal government because I favor Constitutional government. Because the ‘we the people’ and ‘self government’ that you promote actually suppresses the minority in order to please a simple majority.
It’s ‘We The People,’ J2, NOT ‘we the few people who agree.’

“Using the myth of “he will tax others so you don’t have to pay for it yourself” is disingenuous”

No, actually it’s fact. While people will definitely continue to pay taxes, that amount cannot pay for all that Sanders promises and taxes will have to be raised on others in order to pay for them.
Others are being taxed to pay for what you cannot pay for yourself.

You can stop with the “aristocracy” and “authoritarian” rhetoric J2, I don’t buy into it. There isn’t anything wrong with success and the right is not the party that supports enforced obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom.

Posted by: kctim at February 11, 2016 12:19 PM
Comment #402466

kctim,
Here is an example that makes the situation with health care coverage clear. It is based on the cost per capita for health care in Europe versus the US.

Would you rather have the choice of paying a flat $15,000 per year for health care coverage to a private insurer (or not have coverage) which includes a $5,000 deductible, or pay $10,000 per year to the government and have coverage cradle to grave? (Payment to the government would be based on a percentage of income). Remember, medical coverage under a private insurer would pay for NOTHING until $15,000 in costs have already been incurred.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2016 12:21 PM
Comment #402467

Phx8, I would rather have freedom of choice.

My premiums and deductibles have basically doubled and I still would rather have freedom of choice.

Even if your extreme example became the norm, I would still rather have freedom of choice.

What other freedoms are you willing to give up just to save a dollar?

When you give up freedom, you give up control. Do you really want other people controlling your life? Dictating what you can and cannot eat or drink? What you can or cannot read? What you can or cannot do?

Posted by: kctim at February 11, 2016 12:57 PM
Comment #402468

PHX8 writes; ” The superdelegates will change sides if that scenario ever comes to pass.”

You know this for fact? If so, please link to the verification.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment #402469
individual rights have absolutely nothing to do with dollars,

Really kctim? Then why complain about the dollars then? I mean paying premiums/taxes in dollars seems to me to be the responsibility that comes with the rights you mention.

It seems to me kctim, these arguments always boil down to the tyranny of the minority versus the tyranny of the majority. SO I ask you, kctim, when you accept the social contract and the responsibilities that go along with the rights protected by the Constitution aren’t you accepting the will of the majority unless the will of the majority is unconstitutional as determined by the SCOTUS?

Without this agreement we are left with anarchy or libertarianism which IMHO is governing by the tyranny of the strong over the weak.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 11, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment #402470

phx8 wrote; “It (Sanders Socialism) is a way to discourage conservatives from looking at Sanders’ proposals.”

Not true. I am a conservative and I have watched and listened to Sanders. I have gone to his website.

Sanders brand of Socialism sounds appealing to many in the same way that Medicare and Social Security does. The problem with Socialism, under any description, is that it is a Ponzi Scheme that eventually fails and usually takes the country down with it.

Our Medicare and Social Security is failing. It must be continually propped up with short-term solutions. It has many of the same problems as our Postal System.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2016 2:40 PM
Comment #402471

j2t2 writes; “Why do you argue against self government favoring instead government by the aristocracy?”

Conservatives aren’t arguing against self-government. We want more of it. What we have now is bureaucracy supporting aristocracy supporting bureaucracy, ad infinitum.

Socialist argue in favor of a flood of money coming from more successful producers to those less successful or even non-producers.

Trickle-down economics doesn’t work, but bucket-down economics will work. Sure…when pigs fly.

Let’s ponder for a moment the success of Socialism. The Left tells us it will be more fair, more just, and more economical. OK, suppose that is true. Why stop with health care and education. Let’s apply these wonderful Socialist principles to everything we need and desire in life. Socialize everything and live in paradise.

Let’s put everyone in the government wagon. With no one to pull, the wagon goes nowhere.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2016 2:58 PM
Comment #402473

Yes J2, really.
The amount of property you have has absolutely nothing to do with your individual rights. I do not ‘complain’ about paying premiums/taxes, I ‘complain’ about being forced to pay premiums, and about oppressive taxation stolen to run lives instead of government.

“when you accept the social contract and the responsibilities that go along with the rights protected by the Constitution aren’t you accepting the will of the majority unless the will of the majority is unconstitutional as determined by the SCOTUS?”

Life, liberty, and property are natural rights, J2, not contractual.

Posted by: kctim at February 11, 2016 3:53 PM
Comment #402474

Hillary needs the black vote to possibly win the Democrat nomination. No doubt she will tout how well Blacks do under Liberalism. It will just be another BIG Liberal lie.

“…under Ronald Reagan’s policies, median African American household incomes increased by 84 percent (compared with 68 percent for whites)? The poverty rate dropped during the 1980s from 14 percent down to 11.6 percent. The black unemployment rate dropped by 9 percentage points. The number of black-owned businesses increased by 38 percent and receipts more than doubled.”

Median family income for black Americans has declined a whopping 10.9 percent during the Obama administration. It has declined for other groups as well — 3.6 percent for non-Hispanic whites and 4.5 percent for Hispanics - but the figure for blacks is huge. This decline does not include losses suffered during the financial crisis and the recession that followed, but it instead measures declines since June 2009, when the recession officially ended.

That’s not the only bad news for African-Americans. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8 percent. The black labor force participation rate, which rose throughout the 1980s and 1990s, has declined for the past decade and quite sharply under Obama to 61.4 percent. The black unemployment rate, according to Pew Research, stands at 13.4 percent. Among black, male, high school dropouts, PBS’ Paul Salmon reports, the unemployment rate is a staggering 95 percent.”

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/23/is_obama_good_for_black_americans_119685.html#ixzz3ztg2nBoK
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2016 4:28 PM
Comment #402475

RF,
As I read the Wikipedia article on superdelegates, and from what I can glean from other articles, superdelegates may pledge to vote for a candidate, but can break that pledge. Superdelegates are government and party officials- Democrats- and it is hardly surprising that most of them would pledge themselves up front to HRC. Technically, Sanders is not a Democrat. A situation where a candidate won a fewer delegates in primaries & caucuses, yet was chosen by superdelegates to be the nominee, has never happened. If Sanders won a majority of votes, but superdelegates put Clinton over the top, it would be controversial, to say the least. Most likely one would be forced to choose the other for VP. That would actually be a pretty good outcome for Democrats.

The GOP situation is much more complex. If no candidate reaches a majority on the first ballot, all delegates would be free to vote as they choose. Given the way Trump has been able to run for office at virtually no expense, if he thought he should have been the nominee but was denied, he would probably run as an independent. Mayor Bloomberg from NYC has said he would run if Sanders & Trump were the candidates, but that seems very unlikely.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2016 6:14 PM
Comment #402476

I agree with your description of superdelegates. I don’t like this arrangement, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2016 6:29 PM
Comment #402477

Don’t agree RF. We could begin to build a 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att designed to implement CFR. If any real reform is to be had it will take a new 3rd party to leverage power against the dem/rep corpocracy, IMO.

Has to come from a grass roots effort, much like Sanders has put together. Going forward, Sander’s base should concentrate on local, state and federal elections to push their cause. Same for putting a new 3rd party in power.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 11, 2016 8:20 PM
Post a comment