Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Winning by 2.5 points in a complete upset because she cried on national television. She was polling well under Obama right up until the day the votes were cast.
You assumed how much she'd lose by would be 15-30 based on polling when we've already established how inaccurate NH polls are. You talked about her establishment support but Bernie's entire mantra is about how he overcomes establishment and about how they're out of touch with actual voters and youth.
I think it's pretty fair to note that the entirety of the political world acknowledges how and why NH leans toward Bernie and agrees with the assessment that it's because of their demographics and because of his Vermont origin and career. You keep trying to minimize those things but the reality is that they heavily benefit him.
And "virtual tie" or not, her win in Iowa was a win, fair and square and without question.
|
It was still a virtual tie, without the quotation marks and that's what open-minded and mature people will care about, not her 0.4 win. Polls showed Obama winning at this point only by an average of 8 points, not 16, not 17, not 31. & it was also not far off from predicting McCain.
You also don't get to tie me in with what Bernie says; there's no question about NH's senior senator, governor and congressman representing half of the state endorsing Hillary having quite some impact on the minds of the Democrats who elected them in the first place.
Your perception of "reality" is that Bernie's 30 point polling lead over Clinton is due to his "origin" - I'll stick with the realistic version of reality, as well the version that the entire country will see when they wake up with him on the headlines the next morning (unless biased media spins it otherwise)
the Senators are OUTRAGED, can I get a hallelujah from the average Americans? 
. It's fine politics gets to all of us