QED.

...she's doing 10-15 points better than in 2008; as long as she stays above the 50% line, Sanders will be hitting the ceiling.

Your argument that she is essentially better because she is polling better? In a smaller field of candidates?

Not much of a proof and not much of an indicator of how she is "better."

...and polling is a reasonably accurate way of measuring that (still waiting for evidence of all these "secret" voters you folks believe will come out.

As for it being a two/three person race? Bottom line is those people who might have picked another candidate if available? The picked Clinton, not Sanders. Works for me.

The great and secret people called Caucus and primary voters that have cell phones and aren't over 50.

Are those the ones you seem to be referring to?

Also, you still haven't extolled on the virtue of supporting your candidate other than "she's the winniest." Fortunately a lot of us went down to Iowa last weekend and continued the ground game that the mainstream media seems to be ignoring.

What happens if Secretary Clinton loses New Hampshire and Senator Sanders manages to close the gap in Iowa?

Will they become magically irrelevant?

I am sure NBC will provide you with some polling data that ignores Sanders more. Don't worry, the mainstream media has you covered.

SHIT out of me. Bill Clinton wasn't the 'first black president'. Obama was.

Oh and Hillary? She's still Hillary.

You made a statement about the obvious - and you haven't proven a damn thing. I am tired of dumb posts that don't mean anything except that the poster can't figure out a reasonable response to the OP. Unless you can come up with a reasonable response, why bother; your just taking up space unnecessarily.

If your opinion of Hillary is so negative, why isn't it shared by the vast majority of people which voting to elect the Democratic nominee. There is one reason for that - they disagree with your opinion and so do I.

"why bother; your just taking up space unnecessarily" indeed

which does not lend itself well to lengthy discourse.

And yes, I do know what "QED" means and I stand by my previous comment. However, to elaborate, what I meant by "Hillary is still Hillary" is that, just as in 2008, she (a) carries enough baggage to fill the cargo hold of a 747, and (b) she is still equivocating and triangulating, and, to continue the aviation metaphor, she is still a human windsock. Her more recent "progressive" pronouncements are merely an attempt to cut in on Sanders' genuinely progressive positions, but it's apparent from what she has said and done in the past that she would cruise right back to the center-right if she got the nomination, and most certainly if she won the presidency.

And there's also the fact that, for an alleged "progressive," she's been awfully kissy-face for a long time with the banksters and Wall Streeters. I have yet to read a really persuasive reason for preferring her over Sanders (besides the fact that she has a lot of money, lots of big-money donors, can buy lots of ads, so that means she can win).

Of course she's better than any of the clowns in the GOP's circus car, but that's a very, very low bar. Someone randomly selected from any telephone directory would be better than Trump. For that matter, a person randomly selected from the inmate roster of any institution for the criminally insane would be better than Trump. So, yes, I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. But that doesn't mean you can blithely assume that she'll get the nomination (Why? Because she "deserves it"? I think not) or that you can write Sanders off by pronouncing that he isn't Obama. That's true. He isn't Obama. He brings other, and in some respects, better qualities.

And, by the way, when you claimed I'm "taking up space unnecessarily," you should have used "you're" and not "your."

A "reasonable response"? To a meaningless post?

Why not just say, "I like pie." Carries the same amount of substance.

"They asked me for a favor. I said the real favor, follow my advice and fire your fucking ass because a loser is a loser. "

And Hillary has baggage that's still to be unpacked.

Everyone is their own unique self.

Oh, you meant he can't win like Obama because... reasons?

Fair enough I suppose.

The differences between Obama and Sanders are startling - in a good way.

Sanders can win just like Obama did.

And thank the gods, you are right! Sanders is not Obama. He is a real progressive and not a 1980's moderate Republican.

make a statement like that. If people like you are passionate supporters of Bernie, that is proof enough for me that Bernie could never win the general election.

as yourself. Neoliberals are just moderate Republicans from the 1970's and 1980's. They talk a great talk about liberal & progressive policies and values and rarely if ever walk the talk.

Those were Obama's own words after all.

passionate, you'd vote for him. LOL

Hanging on the edge of slightly Left of Center!!

Interesting.

(read: Kennedy Democrats) in what is supposed to be a left-of-center party.

The right wing is over that way now, fellas...

All I ever see from you is whinging about Bernie's supporters.

Seems kind of an odd focus.

That's just one of many reasons I love it here.

So no, I don't agree and I find it odd that a new poster is so critical of everyone and everything here.

I guess everyone needs a hobby.

When there is so little that is positive to be said about his/her candidate.

No, he doesn't have the lofty orations of a Baptist minister (and I like that about Obama - it's a plus in my book), but when Sanders speaks, he's speaking the truth.

And, speaking the truth - even gruffly - is preferable to a good many people than flip-flopping, triangulating and flat-out lying, even when it's not cloaked in transcending tones.

is the one who sounds like a tent revival preacher. Obama sounds more like an Episcopalian, eloquent and reasonable.

And unfortunately for all of us Hillary is still Hillary.

processing campaign contributions. No, this is Hillary, v.3

Useless op

Hillary Clinton is still the same person she was in 2008.

For good or ill, she is the same candidate with the same backers.

Hillary isn't Obama either . . . but I've said that before about 20 times.

From... OpenSecrets.org

Mitt Romney's Top Contributors 2012 Cycle

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

Goldman Sachs $1,045,454
Bank of America $1,017,652
Morgan Stanley $920,805
JPMorgan Chase & Co $835,596
Wells Fargo $693,576
Credit Suisse Group $645,620
Deloitte LLP $615,874
Kirkland & Ellis $523,041
Citigroup Inc $491,249
UBS AG $464,760
PricewaterhouseCoopers $456,900
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $378,025
General Electric $343,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Elliott Management $315,925
Bain Capital $288,470
Rothman Institute $259,500

Not what I'm looking for in a president for the 99%.

Just because Barack Obama won over Hillary (though it wasn't quite a blowout) doesn't mean that Sanders is going to also come from behind and win. I mean, he could, of course, but the polls at the moment do not suggest that. Once we get through some primaries and see who wins where, we will have a clearer picture, however.

Sanders is not Obama. Iced tea is not sirloin steak. Cheddar cheese is not a cement mixer. I guess your point is that Sanders is trying to do the same thing Obama did when he upset Clinton in the primaries, but Sanders does not enjoy the same advantages as Obama had. That's true, but Sanders has other things going for him, things that don't appear to be helping him much right now, and Clinton has the media paying attention to her, and has the party regulars all lined up, and has other advantages that make a Sanders upset unlikely. But it could happen. For example, all those voters who respond to the polls as "likely Democratic primary voters" might not be as devoted to Clinton as their responses suggest, and many of them might stay home on voting day. If that happens, and Clinton does not win Iowa by 20 percentage points, there is a certain amount of uncertainty that creeps in. If she fails to deliver the expected knockout blow in South Carolina, it undermines the whole idea that she has a lock on 95 percent of the black vote. And so on. There are number of possible zigs and zags, although they're unlikely. But line them all up in a particular sequence, and it's a very different picture than the one we see right now.

As more unlikely things that have to happen in sequence to obtain a certain result, the chance of that result will occuring become vanishingly small.

Even when you have to string likely events together, the chance of a particular result grows very small very quickly. Take flipping a coin. The probability of getting a heads is 50% However the probability of getting a heads each time on two flips is 25%. For three flips it is 12.5%, got four flips it is 6.25% and so on. However, when the probability of each occurrence is far less then 50% and you string those together, the probability of the desired event becomes much smaller very quickly for ever occurrence in the string.

For that reason I really don't like Bernie's chances at all.

It's not a coin toss, but one event does influence the following event, so your point is a good one. In a series of cause-and-effect events, changing the outcome of one event alters the whole series. But how? New Hampshire probably does not cunt for much, so Bernie's only real shot is to come close in Iowa, and I think that means nine points or less. If Clinton wins Iowa by 15 or more, which appears likely, Sanders will not be able to bounce back.

is far far different from "Yes, we can!"

The former is just colossal whining, the latter was empowering and energizing.

Is a hell of a lot more effective than a dreamy 'Yes we can!'.

Or not, sounds more like projection actually.

Obama's message was very positive. He focused on the good. He was a very uplifting candidate.

Bernie's message, on the other hand, is very negative. Almost everything is a disaster according to him and he's constantly on the attack...looking to pin blame.

Two very different approaches.

Obama's proved to be very successful. Bernie's approach will turn out to be a colossal failure.

Sanders says exactly what he means. No pussyfooting.

Seems people just need to grow the hell up. Funny thing is, the millennials seem to have no problem getting it. It's the boomers who are stuck.

I'll take his criticism of the status quo over her dirty gutter politics any day.

At least Bernie hasn't stooped to Hillary's level, and he never will.

Even if he loses I will be able to hold my head high because I supported the progressive who put his principles over winning.

....why did Obama appoint her to be his SOS?

I supported Obama over Hillary and was critical of her, but Obama got over the primaries and so did I.

The only people who haven't gotten over it are Bernie supporters who want to use the 2008 primaries as a cudgel against Hillary and many of Bernie's supporters openly express their disdain for Obama anyways.

But Bernie is no Obama.

I'm not sure why Obama appointed her as SOS but I suspect it had something to do with her withdrawing from the race.

Obama appointed her to be his SOS because he felt she was the best person for the job at the time.

He said she did a great job as his SOS, and I'm in agreement with him.

Two great picks by Obama.

it in 2012 when he won again.

And, he will continue to have that message when he's out there campaigning with the 2016 Dem nominee.. and I'm hoping that is Hillary who will very much build on his legacy.

Obama was turned into a Third Wayer. Won't happen to Bernie, elected or not.

Obama had John Edwards pulling the "anybody but Hillary" vote, as well.

That plus Obama's ground game is what gave Obama Iowa.

Also, Obama had leads in the Iowa polls as early as July/August of 2007 as did both Clinton and Edwards.

There is no similar thing happening with Sanders...who has steadily trailed Clinton by double digits in Iowa.

He doesn't weasel talk and can be trusted to work his ass off to TRY and accomplish what he says he will.


By the way, did Barack ever find those comfortable shoes?

Bernie, Obama. Obama, Bernie. Bernie, Obama...

Yeah I'd vote for Bernie Sanders.

The political realities are different. We would be lucky if voters give Democrats a third term in the WH. Obama was young, bi-racial, had a dynamic wife and two lovely young daughters. People saw in the Obamas an AA version of the Kennedys.

Sanders wasn't even a Democrat, and made a point of bashing the party for years, until recently. His age would also be an issue, he will be 75 on election day.

The comparison has little merit.

Go ahead. Enumerate, CajunBlazer.

Not even close. Clean out your own house before you presume to tell me to clean mine.