Breitbart reported yesterday that exit polls in the New Hampshire primary show that turnout for 2020 Democrats among young voters and new voters is down from previous years. This is not good news if the candidate is Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders has a lot of support among young voters who have a very naive idea of what socialism means. Traditionally young voters do not turn out in big numbers. If Bernie Sanders is to have a chance to defeat President Trump in November, he needs the youth vote to turn out.
The article reports:
Exit polls by NBC News reveal that only about five percent of New Hampshire Democrat primary voters said they did not vote in the 2016 presidential election and only 12 percent said they had never voted in a Democrat presidential primary before — down from 16 percent in 2016 who had never voted in a Democrat presidential primary.
There was also no significant increase in the number of swing voters who voted in Tuesday’s New Hampshire Democrat primary, NBC News reports:
There was an expectation that the number of independents participating in this year’s Democratic primary might be higher than previous years, since the Republican contest is not competitive. That does not seem to have happened: 43 percent of primary voters report being registered as undeclared on the voter rolls, which is in line with prior Democratic contests when there were also hotly contested Republican races. [Emphasis added]
Stay tuned. The strong showing of Pete Buttigieg reflects the search of Democrats for a more moderate candidate. However, Mayor Pete has done such a horrendous job as Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, I suspect his failures as Mayor will become a campaign issue at some point. Mayor Bloomberg also has problems with the release of a speech that should cost him the minority vote. Despite what the media has told you, there are no other ‘moderate’ Democrat candidates.
One of the slimy tricks sometimes used in politics is to introduce a candidate who is not really what they seem. The candidate can be introduced as a member of one party when a little research shows that they were not a member of that party until they decided to run for office (Mayor Bloomberg of New York City is an example of this–he has just switched back to Democrat after having served as a Republican mayor of the city). Another trick is to introduce a third-party candidate designed to take votes away from your opponent–generally a libertarian will take Republican votes, a green party candidate will take Democrat votes. Another trick is to bring someone into the district early enough in the process to meet the residency requirements when that candidate has little relation to the district.
Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported:
Michigan incumbent US Representative Mike Bishop is for Jobs not Mobs. He’s being challenged by Obama lackey Elissa Slotkin who helped negotiate the failed Iran deal. She is from outside the district and appears to be a hand-selected puppet of the Far-left establishment.
Michigan Congressman Mike Bishop shows that his competitor Slotkin was sent to Michigan to run against him. She never owned property in Michigan, never paid taxes in Michigan and never voted in Michigan until the primary where she voted for herself.
Although she grew up in Michigan, Ms. Slotkin left the state for college, joined the CIA after college and worked for the Obama administration. she has also served on the U.S. National Security Council as Director for Iraq, where her portfolio included a leading role in drafting of the U.S. – Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. That agreement was never put before the Senate to ratify because it was awful. President Obama knew it would not pass. President Trump has since withdrawn from the agreement. The agreement simply put restrictions on Iran for a number of years, after which they could develop as many nuclear weapons as they chose. The agreement did not make the Middle East any safer, in fact it increased the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the area.
A vote for Ms. Slotkin is a vote for the deep state. It appears that she was sent back to Michigan for the purpose of unseating a Republican. That is the game of politics, but the people of Michigan need to know that she has not spent enough time in the state to represent them.
As you read this, please keep in mind that the Daily Currant is a satirical newspaper–the article may or may not be true. The Daily Currant reported today that the owners of Collegno‘s Pizzeria refused to serve Mayor Bloomberg a second slice of pizza. The owners were protesting Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban, which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city.
The article reports:
Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.
Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered.
“Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?” Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.
“I’m sorry sir,” he replied, “we can’t do that. You’ve reached your personal slice limit.”
I do have to admit that creating a personal slice limit might actually slow down the incidence of obesity in this county–it might also increase the number of people eating at home.
Yesterday the New York Times reported that New York Mayor Bloomberg is planning to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts. This is part of the Mayor’s effort to combat obesity.
The article reports:
The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.
Diet drinks are not included in this ban.
The article includes an interesting statement by the Mayor:
He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.
At this point in the article I would like to point out that Mayor Bloomberg is pro-choice. If asked, he would explain that the government does not have the right to interfere with woman’s healthcare. This is the same man who is intent on passing laws allowing the government to tell us what we can drink. I think the inconsistency in those two views is amazing.