Democratic New Hampshire primary results thread (polls close @7pm and 8pm ET)

[ag]

The Hillbots in this thread are.... not taking it well, that's for sure.  What Stage are they in at this point?  

Get a life, Berniebot.

Why is it so hard to understand that I don't want my party to nominate an unelectable loon when we are guaranteed to retake the White House for another 8 years with Hillary? Look, the Republican party has become a joke. No matter what happens, Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to win at least 270 electoral votes against Trump and Cruz:

Let's not put states like PA and VA into play by nominating an angry old man who talks about a political revolution that's not going to happen anyway.

Last general election PA polls:

Trump 45, Hillary 43
Rubio 45, Hillary 42

Virginia:
Clinton leads by 17 over Trump, 4 over Cruz, 3 over Rubio
Sanders leads by 22 over Trump, 12 over Cruz, 10 over Rubio

So, what is your point now, Lief?

We don't need current polls.  Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are not set-in-stone Democratic states.  Especially for a candidate like Hillary who is simply not very popular with swing voters in a national election and doesn't do much to energize constituencies that propelled Obama.  

Sanders would be even less popular among the swing voters, and constituencies he energises are not very numerous in the general election. He might (might, but not necessarily will) win against Trump or Cruz, given their deficiencies, but if the Republicans nominate anybody else, his chances would be pretty dubious.

[ag]

The problem with people who seem to think that Hillary will guarantee a victory for the Democrats in November is that they're viewing this election through 2008-tinted glasses rather than 2016 ones.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

[ag]

The problem with people who seem to think that Hillary will guarantee a victory for the Democrats in November is that they're viewing this election through 2008-tinted glasses rather than 2016 ones.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

If the primary is long, we will get a candidate AFTER the filling date to run as an independent in most states.

Well, all that means is that a long primary is making Bloomberg much more likely to enter.

[ag]

The problem with people who seem to think that Hillary will guarantee a victory for the Democrats in November is that they're viewing this election through 2008-tinted glasses rather than 2016 ones.

It is not the matter of Hillary guaranteeing anything: it is the matter of Sanders endangering it. A Trump presidency should be sufficiently frightening not to risk it.

If Sanders wins, it will also make it much more likely that Bloomberg enters: and, if he enters, that he will take a lot of Dem votes. he will not win, but he can elect Trump or Cruz.

If the primary is long, we will get a candidate AFTER the filling date to run as an independent in most states.

The whole Bloomberg thing is really just an idle threat. "Vote Hillary or else!"

Well, I guess reality is, indeed, threatening.

But even if Bloomberg does not enter, Sanders makes the most unpleasant Republicans, such as Trump and Cruz, that much more electable. Nominating a radical is rarely a good idea.