another thing that ticks me off

ok, this here thing about the iowa primaries ticks me off, and it's not really about the candidates.

it is about how dismissive people are about senator sanders' polled lead in new hampshire and how dismissive they are of that, because "can he really win in any state that doesn't touch vermont?"

because, see, while vermont and new hampshire are similarly shaped and geographically contiguous, they are very, very different states politically.

vermont is a deep blue state and new hampshire swings purple to red. vermont is a concealed carry without permit state (one of two), but if you shoot someone, you have to prove it was a reasonable action and that you did not have a reasonable opportunity to retreat. new hampshire is an open carry, may-issue state, and it's a STAND YOUR GROUND STATE.

new hampshire has a significantly lower minimum wage than vermont does, it provides fewer social services than vermont does, and it sells liquor at highway rest stops.

there are tollbooths on public highways in new hampshire; there are none in vermont.

new hampshire LOVES donald trump. do i hafta say more?

democratic party strategists (largely hillary supporters) want to discount senator sanders' lead in new hampshire as "favorite son effect"

but really? they do not like him over there because he's from here. it's sort of like how in michigan they don't automatically love stuff that comes out of ohio.


there IS, maybe a geographical sanders advantage here, though: because new hampshire and vermont are close together, new hampshire voters would be familiar with senator sanders' record, the same as vermont voters are familiar with john sununu or jeanne shaheen.

john sununu couldn't get himself elected second alternate animal control officer in vermont.

so if senator sanders polls well in new hampshire, it's not because he's local. it's because new hampshire voters are familiar with his record. you should not underestimate senator sanders.