You still haven't shown the relevance, and again it's more complex than because McGovern ran to the left. It's as facile as saying Hillary Clinton will get destroyed because there is a woman on the ticket just like Mondale-Ferrano.

He's consistently polled a lot better in New Hampshire than nationally, even back last summer. For example, in June Clinton was polling 61% to 11% nationally; in New Hampshire at that point it was 48% to 21% in favour of Clinton. Really, it's hard to dismiss proximity as a factor.

Sanders is too far to the left to appeal to swing voters, and swing voters are needed to win elections. Not sure how much more obvious this needs to be.

Dakota, you quoted a January 18 article that predated the FBI's confirmation on 2 Feb that “…it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server…” and that it “…remains unable to provide [details about the case] without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.” FBI confirms Clinton probe | TheHill


If that’s sufficient for you and the Right Honorable to dismiss any concerns about this matter and to conclude that Hillary hasn’t a care in the world about this FBI probe, fine. It may well be that the FBI, which does not conduct security reviews and is solely concerned with investigating criminal matters, has been wasting the efforts of 150 of its top investigators and raising the hopes of the RNC and the R candidates, all for shits and giggles.


I am assuming that Hillary has nothing to worry about because she did nothing wrong, and if she had, the law doesn’t apply to her anyway. She will be the next President because of demographics, which answers to no issues, as another poster pointed out recently.

How on earth did you get to that from "you might want to dial that back a little".

Back to the strawmen, I see.

And you can't dismiss NH as irrelevant just because Bernie is from VT. Again, it just shows that things aren't a simple as some people think.

I didn't.

New Hampshire is a poor reflection of the Democratic party's national demography. And primaries are a poor representation of the overall electorate.

A majority of voters support his agenda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-mostly-right/

Voters don't vote (or fail to vote) simply based upon agendas. And voters often confuse general policy statements with specific legislation and positions, such as the fact that many of those who complain about Obamacare like the provisions of Obamacare when they are asked about them individually -- their main complaint is that it includes the word "Obama".

There is a reason why the GOP is praying that Sanders will do well. They would prefer to run against a "socialist" than a foreign policy hawk.

Kasich did say a good number of sensible things, and I'm happy to see him get rewarded / recognized for them. If he were to be prez, I wouldn't be totally disappointed. Which I'm sure confirms that he has no chance. But those Republicans on this thread need to acknowledge that there are indeed some candidates we liberals aren't utterly horrified by.

So if the vote came down to Trump v Clinton, or Cruz v Clinton, you don't think it would be worth voting FOR Clinton simply to try to STOP Trump (lets assume you lived in a swing state)? I would do everything in my power to stop Trump or Cruz; Clinton may not be the best candidate but on a relative scale, Trump and Cruz are utterly awful. (ETA: and for the sake of this argument, substitute any Dem candidate for 'Clinton'; none of the Dem candidates come close to the extreme awfulness of Trump/Cruz).

Sanders won independents in NH 72-27 against Clinton. He also won moderates as well.

Let's face it so far none of the results have gone how they've been predicted, so why is it assumed that will change?

I thought Hillary won New Hampshire, she got the most delegates?

15 to 13

New Hampshire doesn't resemble the rest of the country. Not sure how many times that I need to point this out.

Again, you miss the point. All the groups that Clinton was expected to win in NH went to Sanders. Sure you can keep dismissing it as not important, but I'll be the Clinton campaign aren't.

Also, I know you're not that naive as to know the most important part of the NH primary result is the media message, and Sanders crushing Clinton is not a good message for her.

I've no doubt you'll read this as me thinking that this means Sanders has this nomination tied up, as you usually do. I don't, what I do see is that is a good sign of more diverse support for Sanders than was expected. Nothing more.