[Skywalker]

It's embarrassing that Clinton is constantly caught off guard with the Wall Street comments and even more embarrassing when Sanders talks about anything relating to foreign policy. Do these ppl not train with their aides anymore?

[Moonchild]

I mean, other than the PR "I'll look into it" comment, I thought she had a decent answer.

Originally posted by Lights and Waves

The coded language in your posts is a clear sign of some deep-rooted sexism. "Her temper." Women can't raise their voices without being accused of being temperamental..

Agreed.

[Radiance]

Originally posted by MAKSIM

First poll in New Hampshire after Iowa

Bernie's 31 point lead now a 15 point lead

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...mocrats-218805

(Yes I know New Hampshire polls are not as reliable as other state polling. Interesting development though)

CNN's post-Iowa poll showed the opposite (Sanders 61-30), which illustrates how polling is extremely unreliable.

I'm interested in seeing how the debate impacted those numbers though.

[Retro]

With NH's history of upsets relative to pre-primary polling, I'm going to hold out hope for a miracle there. That debate was amazing and gave me a little more confidence in her performance there.

[Bloo]

Originally posted by B94

Hillary was so defensive & struggled by placing judgements of Sanders smearing her campaign. I cringed so many times when she released her temper. Not cute at all, and it revealed she's hiding something in her conscious. Great job Bern as usual.

Bernie yells, shouts, and curses all the time but having a temper isn't "cute" on Hillary? I sense some level of sexism.

[RatedG²]

A new poll shows Clinton's national support at 42%, Bernie at 40%

Welp. Looks like it'll be 2008 all over again. Hopefully Iowa predicts the winner again!

[Retro]

Originally posted by RatedG²

A new poll shows Clinton's national support at 42%, Bernie at 40%

Welp. Looks like it'll be 2008 all over again. Hopefully Iowa predicts the winner again!

Yeah I don't trust this at all. There was another one last month with just a 4 point difference and later than month one with almost 40.

[LuLuDrops]

Originally posted by Bloo

Bernie yells, shouts, and curses all the time but having a temper isn't "cute" on Hillary? I sense some level of sexism.

Bernie's a walking megaphone

But I guess Hillary can't get excited.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Retro

Yeah I don't trust this at all. There was another one last month with just a 4 point difference and later than month one with almost 40.

I hope you're right. While national polls don't mean much in the individual voting states, when it comes to multi-primary/caucus days they are (somewhat) good at predicting how many states each candidate carries. I just hope after she loses ins NH the media doesn't **** her up for those 11 days until Nevada. They're always so hard on her

[Damien M]

Originally posted by Mike91

I feel like it'll be a possibility at this point. The first half of the debate, I would have said no since they kept throwing blows at each other, but by the second half it became clear that they decided to quit fighting against each other and realized the both of them have more power standing together.

Bernie will bring the energy and excitement for Clinton's campaign (as well as a spotlight to call out the corruption in the system) and Hillary can bring the experience and pragmatism.

It's like the best of both worlds for democrats. The Bernie stans likely still wouldn't be happy but VP is better than nothing and at least he'll have a platform for his ideas. Same with Hillary if she loses. First female VP is still nothing to be ashamed about.

Energy and excitement? You're joking. Bernie is like 90. He'd be a horrible VP choice.
Her Veep is going to be a young Hispanic or black male. It's common sense.
A ticket with two aging white politicians just won't fly in 2016.

[hooky]

Originally posted by Damien M

Energy and excitement? You're joking. Bernie is like 90. He'd be a horrible VP choice.
Her Veep is going to be a young Hispanic or black male. It's common sense.
A ticket with two aging white politicians just won't fly in 2016.

Then Hillary is 85

Otherwise you're right. Bernie's VP will be the same (but possibly any woman- remember, we haven't had a female VP yet!)

[heckinglovato]

Hillary supporters just love to yell "SEXISM" and "MISOGYNY" at literally everything I agree, there is sexism out there against female politicians, but literally not everything is sexist. Stop.

Originally posted by RatedG²

Sanders under fire from Senate Democrats

So much for more respected than Clinton eh?!

Mess, he is factually more favored among the general public, no one denies the support she gets from establishment Democrats

And mess @ Jeanne Shaheen criticizing his foreign policy when she couldn't answer questions from a group of high school juniors/seniors and had to use the excuse that she's "busy" in order to leave. She's supporting Clinton because Clinton is part of the establishment (and no, being a woman doesn't exempt you from being an establishment candidate). Jeanne is OUTRAGED now that her endorsement was basically disregarded in NH as Sanders continued to surge there.

[Retro]

I don't see anything fundamentally unelectable about two white old people on a ticket. It may not be the best testament to diversity following a young minority President with a high profile young wife (and Joe as VP but he's old and white too), but I'll note that regardless of his age Bernie energizes the youth vote, while Hillary appeals to the minority and moderate votes far more. It would be a pretty good ticket and I don't think anyone would just not vote for them due to age or race.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by heckinglovato

Hillary supporters just love to yell "SEXISM" and "MISOGYNY" at literally everything I agree, there is sexism out there against female politicians, but literally not everything is sexist. Stop.



Mess, he is factually more favored among the general public, no one denies the support she gets from establishment Democrats

Depends on how you define "factually favored" but I could agree with that. It was just that some Bernie supporters tried to sell me the mantra of Sanders being more respected in the Senate and I was not having it


Oh @ that edit. Yes being a woman disqualifies her as being the face of the establishment. Sanders hasn't even had a clear example of who is and isn't an establishment person. Literally anyone who supports her is lumped as such. He's wrong for that

[Retro]

I'm just curious - is Bernie the only Senate Democrat (now that he's decided to join the party, pun intended, as of November) that doesn't qualify as "establishment?" Is it just him and Warren?

Because quite frankly, i think that he and many supporters are trying to imply that any elected official who makes a statement or endorsement against him is just "establishment."

[Skywalker]

https://morningconsult.com/2016/02/b...se-after-iowa/

Don't know if this was posted or not.

[Mickey]

I think Hillary is making the point that there is not just one "establishment", and the idea that someone is either part of the establishment or not is too simplified.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by The Countess

https://morningconsult.com/2016/02/b...se-after-iowa/

Don't know if this was posted or not.

This is national? It wasn't posted yet if this is the case. Interesting that Trump is still so far ahead of his candidates even after Iowa lol

[Butters]

[RatedG²]

Bernie ties Hillary Clinton

This was the source for my 44-42 Clinton lead of Sanders nationally. It was done by Quinnipiac University which is a respected pollster. However I find it eerily strange he closed a 30 point gap in like a week . Other polls (like what Meowster posted) shows her still with a significant lead. Hmm