Originally Posted by Boomhauer

The least corrupt out of all these candidates seems to be Bernie. Trump ..er maybee 2nd to Bernie. Hillary made made $250K per speech to GoldmanSachs and won't release the minutes of the speech.

Originally Posted by zargof

You don't really help your cause with the continued facile comparisons to McGovern. It shows you're either ignorant or disingenuous.

McGovern lost because:

1) His VP pick was nuts. Literally, he had the psych report to prove it.
2) Hubert Humphrey was working to get Nixon elected.
3) The unions turned against McGovern because he supported "the gays".
4) That little matter of Watergate.

Also, I note that you recently said that it didn't matter that Clinton was risking losing the Sanders supporters because of her divisive surrogates. Which is it? Does is matter or not?

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

McGovern lost because he was too far left to hold together the Democratic coalition or appeal to swing voters.

Those progressives who are nutty enough to stay home instead of voting for the Democratic party nominee obviously don't want a seat at the table, which by its nature must represent a coalition of interests and not just the interests of what may be 10% of the population. Why should anyone who leads the Democratic party bother to listen to those who won't support them?

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius

As you all know, the FBI has assigned 150 agents to investigate Hillary's use of a private email server for State Department business. IF the FBI should recommend an indictment AND the DOJ should decline, it will be fascinating to see whether Comey and anyone else would then resign on principle. [It probably wouldn't hurt Comey (who also served as Deputy Attorney General under W) to resign.] Should a Republican win the Presidency, and Comey had resigned, he would be on the shortest of lists to be named the next Attorney General. We'll see how this drama plays out, potentially the second biggest political story of 2016.

Originally Posted by username.exe

Politico are reporting that Christie is about to suspend his campaign.

Originally Posted by zargof

Just saying it doesn't make it true. It's pure revisionism. Besides it was a very different country then than it is now, so it's not relevant.

As for progressives staying at home. It doesn't look like they stayed at home last night does it.

Originally Posted by dakota44

You might want to dial that back a bit.

Here's what's wrong with Jeb Bush saying Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation | PolitiFact

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

Again, primaries in low population white states don't equal the election.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

Again, Bill Clinton lost the 1992 New Hampshire primary and Hillary Clinton won the 2008 New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire sifts out losers, but it doesn't choose winners.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

The reasons for McGovern's defeat aren't a mystery. Americans were not ready in 1972 for a president who favored draft dodgers. Democrats had labeled him as a "Goldwater of the Left" prior to the election, and sure enough, Nixon's percentage of the popular vote in 1972 was similar to LBJ's win over Goldwater in 1964.

Originally Posted by zargof

Bill was able spin second place as a comeback after a poor showing in Iowa, Hillary used her victory to drag the nomination out a lot longer than it would have been if she had lost.

Also, Romney, McCain, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Carter, Bush 41, Nixon, Reagan all won NH, so it's not nothing.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

Clinton won the New Hampshire primary in '92.

I agree that it's "not nothing". But I would be wary of attaching that much significance to the result given that Sanders is the senator for the neighbouring state. It's going to be much more interesting to see what kind of support Sanders gets in South Carolina in the light of this victory. Right now Clinton is about 30 points ahead, but that's on dated polls.

Originally Posted by zargof

No he didn't, he came second to Paul Tsongas.

Also, the whole neighbouring state thing is nonsense.

Why Have New Hampshire Democrats Gone Gaga for Bernie Sanders? | Mother Jones

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

McGovern would have lost even if had a different VP.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

I stand corrected. But the fact that Tsongas won New Hampshire, came very close to winning Maine (along with his overwhelming home state victory in Massachusetts) lends weight to the point that being from a neighbouring state to New Hampshire certainly has an impact. I wouldn't be so dismissive of that.