Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
He literally tied with Hillary Clinton, former first lady and Secretary of State, someone who's been in the public eye for decades.
Bernie was unknown a year ago. If he continues to rise, he could beat her. These "poll demographics" have margins of error and in the end mean nothing. Not all minorities are voting for Hillary. Not all white liberals are voting for Bernie.
|
But they're scientifically validated and trusted generalizations of how people feel. This is pretty evident right now actually - in the past two days, Selzer and Quinnipac each had one candidate up by three which leads logically to the current near-tie. They're pretty reliable in the end.
The reason many feel this loss, if it is one - I'm not calling anything yet - is bad for Bernie is because demographically it was his third best shot. Even with a narrow win, the narrative of "insurgent Sanders challenges Clinton and establishment is damaged," partially because he couldn't win even with high turnout and a huge lead with millennials, and partially because her win with superdelegates included is much wider and her support from the establishment undeniably tilts things.
This enables her to reign in the NH polls and lose by less there. If by some miracle she pulled a win there, that would shake the Sanders campaign to the core - even though she won't, reducing her deficit in what has always been seen as a Sanders stronghold will help her a ton. She has a debate coming up in just two days now during which she will undeniably capitalize on this win if it's a win.
I'm not saying I believe that such a slim loss is by any means the end of Bernie or the greatest result for Hillary; I'm not that naive. But let's take a moment to recognize that
both campaigns will tout this as being damaging to the other if Hillary wins at all, and both will receive attention and have narratives peddled by media.
