No, this isn't Saudi Arabia or Iran. I understand that there's still some ice that needs to be broken regarding women in politics but this is the first world for God's sake. Hillary's an establishment candidate and I find it extremely biased and delusional to claim otherwise because she's a woman.

That's literally all about the Wall Street issue, the only thing he had an advantage with.

You can't dismiss all media as being biased if they declare her the winner in opinions and editorials. There's a significant amount of people who think that, while both did very well, she came across stronger and if a victor had to be chosen it would be her. There are people who think the opposite as well but so far, actual analyses of the debate are leaning toward her.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/05/hillary...stance-counts/
http://mic.com/articles/134439/hilla...ers#.slC3EG9Wp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ential-debate/

And in addition to those examples, most that say Bernie won also list Hillary as a winner. You can't just dismiss this as "media with a vested interest in Hillary winning" like Bernie's campaign and supporters all too often do. That's not the whole picture and that line of thinking seeks to delegitimize what was a legitimately substantive and powerful performance on her part.

I agree that Hillary is the "establishment candidate" (as in she has overwhelmingly more support from the party), but I am trying to make the point that there is a lot more than party establishment and I think Hillary is referring to something else when she talks about establishment, rather than trying to deny that she is her party's preference.

The media is generally very biased towards Hillary's campaign and that's undeniable, I never said all media is biased if they declare her a winner. I said that Politico just chose not to be biased and actually said what they thought was right, which is that Sanders and Clinton both had very strong performances and it was a tied game.

I feel very sorry that even if Clinton had won the debate, she'd still lose NH.

Sis, they didn't say it was a tie game. They very narrowly called him the winner on one issue, and then said that two thirds agree he'd be a general election disaster.

To echo a post you made last night, you're friggin lucky you're cute

Anyway, I don't think she'll lose NH by that much. About 8-10 points is my prediction. Thankfully all her best states come next and will give her a lot of momentum for the latter parts of the primaries.

Of course there's a lot more than party establishment, if Bernie wasn't a more consistent, more progressive and more authentic candidate, then I would have supported the establishment as well.

Like I clearly stated before, they reported other instances that they thought Hillary's answers were lame on as well as Alxelrod claims regarding Bernie.

10 points > 0.4 anyway, but let's see. This seems very surprising for the candidate whose name has been around for decades and is getting endorsements and support from virtually every Democratic politician.

Why are we still pretending that NH doesn't favor Bernie by a ridiculous amount because of his home state and NH's white liberals?

Northeasterners traditionally score 15 points higher in NH, on average, than they do nationally during primary season. NH is one of just two states that demographically favor Bernie more than Iowa; the other is his own neighboring home state. The "10 > 0.4" is just like, not relevant - different states, different situations, different contexts. And less delegates.

It's not shocking at all that she'd lose, regardless of her name being around for decades (so has Bernie's) or her endorsements (which he'd like to paint as out-of-touch establishment that has no effect on the young vote anyway). He's got a lot more going for him there.

And I'm not trying to belittle his impact there at all - he's worked hard and done very well, and it's payed off for him. But we need to acknowledge the various factors going into this and realize that a 10 point loss for her there will be neither shocking nor particularly damaging to her campaign.

Obama is desperate to save his economic record based on that speech today, while Hilary and Bernie basically run against it. That could be a big issue on this campaign trail.

Hillary is establishment and tbh I'm fine with it. I don't see a problem at all. Her establishment credentials, experience and all are some of the factors that make her campaign appealing.

Not only are you belittling his impact there, but you're also wrong.

Clinton has had a lead in Connecticut so far in this race, a state that neighbors Vermont and the vast majority of its population are white. Sanders has been running an incredible campain both in IA and NH, which led him to tie Clinton in the first and will lead him to win over Clinton in the latter. You're wrong, it is surprising too see her losing by 15-30 point margin, she's the "inevitable" establishment candidate who won NH before (you guys have used Clinton's past losing streak in IA as well to undermine Bernie's tie), who received endorsements from NH's senator, Governor and second district congresswoman (NH only has two districts) and whose name has been around for decades (and no, Bernie's hasn't, the regular Granite Stater has no idea who he was before running for president).

You are trying EVERYTHING to make her loss in New Hampshire seem less bad than it actually is, it's just not gonna work. The people of New Hampshire had the chance to listen to both candidates and they chose, wisely so.

How about we not already put NH in the Sanders column like some are claiming because they haven't voted yet, things can change, and New Hampshire in general isn't the most reliable as evidenced in 2008

Don't worry too much about it, whether Clinton wins or loses NH, the establishment media as well as ATRL will call it a win for her, or will at least try to make it sound like one.

You're trying your hardest to make it a LOT worse for her than it actually is. Connecticut is not the same demographically, it is not the same historically, and her loss is again, not that shocking there and literally everyone in politics agrees.

Furthermore, Bernie didn't tie in Iowa no matter how close it was, so let's not continue trying to construe it as such.

. Nah I can almost guarantee that if she loses NH, no matter the percentage points, she'll be dragged, hammered, republicans will come out to speak against her, her electibility will be questioned, etc. It happened with Iowa and she won! (look at how the media is portraying this. They say it's a tie but losing by 0.4 is losing)

it may be different on atrl though.

Either way while its at this point in time easy to see Bernie has the advantage, nothing is certain in politics. Let's get back to this after Tuesday

The media speaks against her quite often. If she loses, it will be all about how much momentum Bernie has given and how he's beaten the original front-runner. That's what it will be about, don't pretend otherwise. Hillary has been campaigned against for a quarter of a century and a lot more money is spent against her than against Bernie. The media isn't inherently on her side, despite that being a common go-to argument for Bernie fans (which I don't get).

Furthermore, it was a virtual tie just like I've always meant to reference it as, so let's continue trying to note out technicalities.

Thank you for ignoring my highly valid points and sticking with "it's not shocking, everyone agrees." But this race says a lot about how go from winning NH by 2.5 points against the candidate that arguably generate the most hype in election history and by 22.2 points against Edwards then losing to a 74 year-old Socialist Jew while you both are Northeastern, and your views being more in correlation with NH's purple views.

Losing by 0.4 is a virtual tie, the media isn't trying to pander to first graders who care about technicalities. (Although I've honestly seen more media call it a win for Clinton, but w/e)
The establishment media will always back her up no matter what, bookmark me on the morning of February 10.

Woo lord. The drags. Hag McCaskill laying it down.