Catching up two days after the New Hampshire primaries

By Dave Andrusko

It’s getting wilder and woollier as the fates of Democrats competing to be their party’s presidential nominee rise and fall and (perhaps) fall and rise.

First, Senator Amy Klobuchar finished a “surprising” third in New Hampshire, behind fellow pro-abortionists Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Mayor Peter Buttigieg. Finishing fifth, former Vice President Joe Biden, also pro-abortion, hightailed it to South Carolina before the ballots were counted. [Sen. Elizabeth Warren came in fourth.]

Second, the first national poll out after the New Hampshire primary has Sanders with a 10 point lead over Biden (29% to 19%), followed by former Mayor (and former Republican) Mike Bloomberg (18%), Buttigieg at 11%, Sen. Warren at 10%, and Klobuchar at 5%.

Of course, as we all have learned multiple times, it’s what is going on in the individual states, with Nevada’s February 22 caucuses and South Carolina’s February 29 coming up soon, that matters. Ironically, where Biden has always positioned South Carolina as his “firewall” against collapse, his biggest challenge may come from, billionaire (and political novice) Tom Steyer, who, besides being pro-abortion as all the Democrats are, “has been blanketing South Carolina with ads and organization,” according to the Washington Post.

What about pro-life Presidential Donald Trump? As we discussed a great deal last week, he is on a roll with his job approval at its highest point and (as Gallup reported yesterday) “More in U.S. Say They Are Better Off Than in Past Elections.”

As is always the case with Gallup, this “more” severely underestimates how good the numbers are for President Trump. Referring to incumbent presidents , Jeffrey M. Jones writes 

In the 1992, 1996 and 2004 election cycles, exactly half said they were better off. In three separate measures during the 2012 election cycle, an average of 45% said they were better off.

So “exactly half” and “an average of 45%.”

Now? 

Sixty-one percent of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago, a higher percentage than in prior election years when an incumbent president was running.” [My underlining.]

Two other items, which the major media, who despise Mr. Trump, under-report.

First, and to the New York Times credit, Campbell Robertson wrote a long story about how “Anti-Trump forces are still hard at work in deeply conservative areas” of Western Pennsylvania , adding, “but the heady expectations of changing minds are getting harder to sustain.” 

The headline is a fair representation of her reporting: “In Trump Country, the Resistance Meets the Steel Curtain.”

Dave Ball, the vice chairman of the Washington County Republican committee, told Robertson they’ve  been aggressively organizing.

“We got a lot of people around here mobilized that had never been mobilized before.”

Second, if you want an index of excitement for President Trump, check out the turnout in New Hampshire. The New York Times’ Maggie Astor reported

[M]ore than 150,000 voters — 151,602, to be precise — turned out for the Republican primary even though its outcome was never in doubt. That is extremely high for a noncompetitive primary. By comparison, about 54,000 people voted in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012 [when President Obama was running as an incumbent], and about 57,000 voted in the Republican primary in 2004.

Actually, it was historically high.

Reporting on a rally the day before the primary, Fox News wrote that President Trump said, “Nine months from now, we are going to retake the House of Representatives, we are going to hold the Senate, and we are going to keep the White House,”  to thunderous applause. “We have so much more enthusiasm, it’s not even close. They’re all fighting each other.”

Tyler Olson added, “In the line to get into Trump’s Monday rally, many of his voters seemed to have a zeal uncommon for supporters of an incumbent president.”