Bernie Sanders is walloping Hillary Clinton in the polls in New Hampshire like its no contest. And Hillary Clinton herself and some Clinton supporters, campaign aides and a lot of empty headed non-thinking members of the news media of which there is no shortage, have referred to New Hampshire's proximity to Vermont as being some kind of home field advantage for Bernie Sanders to help explain his enormous lead.
If it wasn't so dumb it would be stupid. And in many cases just typical dishonest excuse-making political spin that sometimes comes from the candidate themselves, or their supporters who find themselves on the short end of the polls and are trying to justify a defeat. Or it can also come from journalists who can't think.
There is not an iota of evidence, not a shred of truth and not a particle of reason or common sense to think that Vermont's close proximity to New Hampshire, or any state's close proximity to any other, has any influence on an electorate of a neighboring state. It's a preposterous attempt to try and explain why Sanders is clobbering Clinton by almost 30 points in the polls.
For Clinton or anyone associated with the Clinton campaign to call it a "home field advantage" is almost like being a sore loser before you've even lost.And ignores that months ago, Clinton was ahead of Sanders 57-16.
This is how much one state being close to another dictates political success or influence and explains Sanders huge lead in the polls:
There are no two states closer together, have more in common, share more or have more mutual interests that intersect than New York and New Jersey. They are separated only by the Hudson River and you can literally see New York from New Jersey and vice versa. They are connected by the Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel and George Washington Bridge and are minutes away from each other by car, train or ferry. Maybe a million residents of New Jersey commute to New York for their jobs every day.
The New York Giants and New York Jets football teams play in Giants Stadium located in New Jersey.
And with all that, this is how much New Jersey and New York being in each other's backyards would relate to political success:
Chris Christy is the governor of New Jersey. If Chris Christy ran for mayor of New York city he'd get destroyed by 50 points. If he ran for governor against Andrew Cuomo it would be no contest. Chris Christy probably couldn't get elected dog catcher in New York in a state wide election. If Chris Christy became the Republican candidate for president he wouldn't even campaign in New York because he would know it would be a waste of time.
In 1980 Ted Kennedy from neighboring Massachusettes lost the New Hampshire primary to Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. And former Massachusettes governor Mitt Romney lost the Republican New Hampshire primary to Arizona senator John McCain. Romney won in 2012 but he beat Ron Paul. That had nothing to do with home field.
That is how much a politician from one state automatically has a "home field advantage" in a neighboring state. As senator Sanders being from Vermont just showed in nearby Iowa.
Aside from the false premise and stupidity that because one state is next to another a politician from one automatically has a "home field advantage" in the other, Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary in 2008. If anything one could say it's Clinton who has a "home field advantage" since she already won there, has the Democratic establishment like senator Jean Shaheen campaigning for her and is still getting clobbered in the polls by Sanders.
That Clinton is so far behind in the polls in New Hampshire has nothing to do with where New Hampshire is on the map in relation to Vermont. It has to do with where Clinton is on the map in relation to New Hampshire Democrats and her policies versus where Sanders is and his policies. Along with their individual personal qualities and ideas and what Sanders represents in contrast to Clinton's vow to continue Obama's failed or weak policies in return for his support and the Obama controlled DNC pulling strings for the Clinton campaign wherever they can, which, among other things does make Clinton the establishment candidate, something that does not endear Clinton to more idealistic younger voters which might help explain why Sanders lead over Clinton among voters under 45 is 81-14.
The poll numbers in New Hampshire have nothing to do with geography. They are a reflection of Sanders policies versus Clinton's promised policies and her vocal and well established embrace of Obama and his policies almost all of which have failed and some of which were the product of subterfuge, dishonesty and capitulation that Clinton promises to continue, policies that she and Obama try and paint as great successes but everyone knows they aren't.
It is that contrast between Clinton and her promised policies and fealty to Obama versus Sanders policies, his independence from establishment politics, corporate interests and money, his committment to democratic principles, his integrity and appeal to younger voters that are whats being reflected in the polls, not geography. And that may not change when the geography switches to the South.
So let the excuses begin.
NOTE: on primary day CNN's Brianna Keilar gave a report about Sanders sizeable lead and how " there is no doubt that Sanders coming from from nearby Vermont plays into this". There is "no doubt" . Because she says so right?
As proved above it is the dumbest most vacuous and factually false, and journalistically empty comment she could've made, a result of just parroting the same ignorant comments other people make. Which is why CNN has become virtually worthless as a news organization and has become the Most Rusted Name in News.