New Hampshire has fallen as a real contest. It's only there to peel off the losers. Now the focus is on larger states.

It's not enough delegates to hurt Clinton and Sanders is from neighboring Vermont so he should win big. It hurts Sanders more if he doesn't win big.

Trump has his own money so he can do whatever he wants ahead of Super Tuesday. That will be the date to see who is really in the lead and can compete in several states instead of a concentrated campaign for a few delegates.

Trump isn't going to lose this one and Hillary isn't going to pull an upset.

Honestly speaking, if Sanders wins NH it is less impressive than if Clinton does. For the democrats SC Is way more important than NH SC will determine who can be a strong candidate outside of conventional liberal Northern states. For the republicans NH is more of a weeding out state. the lowest scoring candidates will be knocked from the roster, the highest 3 will go on. Most likely A combination of Rubio, Cruz, and Trump. After that SC and NV will be the most important primaries. Rubio Cruz and Trump will slug it out for minority voters in NV and for more religious voters in SC. It will be interesting to see who can pull it off. My money is on Rubio making it to the end and likely becoming the republican candidate (he can actually appeal to moderate voters in the general election) and Clinton taking the democrat side for the same reason. Please note none of my predictions are a show of support my candidate never ran (Joe Biden).

SC is a must-win for Clinton the same way that NH is a must-win for Sanders.

I am a New Hampehire independant. What it really means is that on Wednesday people will stop asking my opinion on things :)

OMG PUTIN'S BACK!

I don't know, CB. When it comes to the South, it's going to be pretty well split overall. For example, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Deep Red states. Clinton wins Arkansas easy because Arkansas has its own love affair with the Clintons (not the scandalous kind (probably)), but there's no way in hell she can beat Sanders in Oklahoma. There's absolutely no trust for her in this state.

And I think it's also split when it comes down to moderates. I think Sanders is more capable of winning the swing states than he's given credit for. He has a slew of relatively moderate positions on some things, and pretty far to the left (just short of hitting typical socialism) on others, whereas Clinton is consistently somewhere in between. Overall, people who aren't registered to either Democrats or Republicans are fed up with the system as it stands, and they expect Sanders to be more capable of changing it for them than Clinton. But people do still realize how competent as an administrator Clinton is, no matter how much they think they can trust her.

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

Up here now doing GOTV canvassing.

"...competent as an administrator Clinton is..."

Exactly where does that come from? She has had 3 jobs that I'm aware the of. 1. U.S. Senator, when she voted with the Repubs to authorize the Iraq war. 2. Secretary of State, where she clearly screwed up Libya, Syria & relations with Russia. 3. Being Mrs. Clinton.

I would argue she has bungled all three.

The deepest of red states will be welcoming territory for Sanders. Those states *HATE* Clinton with unbridled passion. Even if the Democrats in those states are more conservative overall, anti-Hillary rhetoric from the right will depress turnout for her leaving Sanders activists with a better share of the vote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/here-comes-the-berniebro-bernie-sanders/411070/

@Jimmy, on Hillary Clinton's three jobs

1. US Senator - You act as if she's the only one who voted in favour of the Iraq war, many democrats did because they were flat up lied to about what was going on there. One vote on a war does not tarnish EVERYTHING else she did as a senator, way to completely dismiss everything she's done.

2. On Secretary of State - If you're blaming #benghazi on her I have nothing to say to you other than lol.

3. On first lady - excuse me?? She was one of the most active first ladies ever, alongside trying to advocate for health care back in the day, she actually dealt with all that bullshit her husband threw at her. Please check yourself.

" If you're blaming #benghazi on her I have nothing to say to you other than lol. "

No, not Benghazi, the real scandal of her destroying Libya (she pushed hard for intervention and bragged about it afterward), once a highly developed country with high marks on HDI and now looking like Somalia and infested with Daesh.

Bro who coins BernieBro and then writes a followup article coining a bunch of ridiculous other terms including BernieBeau and Hillarealist typifies the ad hominem. He's the jokey frat-bro with no substance. *ignore*

"One vote on a war does not tarnish EVERYTHING else she did as a senator"

She's never met a war she didn't like. She threatened to incinerate Iran. She's already pushing for sanctions again on Iran. She has no diplomatic skill whatsoever. She's another GW Bush.

Yes, amidst the Arab Spring, Clinton single-handedly destroyed Libya on her own. Definitely no outside factors involved in what has happened.

I think she was right to push for intervention instead of standing by a tyrannical dictatorship. Sure, the after effect was unfortunately, but there is no way to properly predict that result.

i don't understand why bernie is expected to do well 'because he is from next door state'. who on earth makes up their mind on best presiment based on where the candidate lives? is this for real or
just spin?

The decision to intervene led to the government collapsing, Isis controlling Sirte, Mali destabilizing, and Boko Haram raising havoc throughout northwest Africa. It is absolutely possible predict the result. People were predicting the result before it happened. Bombing countries and then washing your hands of the "unpredictable" results is not an example of "competence".

@Putin33 and she's definitely so diplomatically wrong in supporting the Iran Nuclear deal right? That just yells incinerate :p

"i don't understand why bernie is expected to do well 'because he is from next door state'

It's just a matter of name recognition. You're more likely, supposedly, to know about politicians who come from your own region. If you know who the person is, then you're more likely to support them, all things being equal. Unless they're known for notorious reasons.

"@Putin33 and she's definitely so diplomatically wrong in supporting the Iran Nuclear deal right?"

Chances are low a deal would have been struck if she were still SoS. She already is calling for renewed sanctions on Iran for having the temerity to develop a missile defense system. Because everybody is allowed to defend themselves except the enemies of the United States.

She bragged in the first debate about how all Iranians are her enemy.

@Maniac: New Hampshire and Vermont are very similar states demographically. They are also relatively small and homogenous, so it is no wonder Sanders (at VT native) is expected to do well. Those two states also have a history of supporting Independent candidates, so Sanders has many factors which appeal to them.

I think in many cases, two neighboring states will be similar, but that only goes so far, especially when you get to large states out west (coastal or mountain).

@Putin fair enough, I've never liked tough rhetoric like that but maybe she feels she has to be more aggressive and prove something.

My underlying point of my comment towards Jimmy was really "fuck you for dismissing everything she's done just because you clearly don't like her"

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/05/leaked-emails-from-pro-clinton-group-reveal-censorship-of-staff-on-israel-aipac-pandering-warped-militarism/

I started a fight :)

Trprado

I asked why you believe Clinton competent. Instead you assume I am a hater simply for asking why the confidence in her competence.

If she is as competent as you say, her work on health care in the 90s would have resulted in Hillarycare rather than what we have now.

She presents herself as a champion for women, yet back in Bill's playboy days, she actively attempted to cover up the philandering charges & besmirched the character of all of those women.

As a senator I know of no accomplishment on her part.

Secretary of State? A big red reset button, really. A few years later, welcome to Crimea Putin. As for Benghazi, laugh if you will, but at the very least she cooperated in the President's reelection lie about some film being the cause of that attack. Emails revealed on her private server prove that point, whether you believe that or not.

Oh yeah, the private server, not to worry, everybody puts their personal convenience above national security.

99% chance of bernie winning. That's what a generally accurate statistics program says.

Nah I think Jim Webb has this whole thing in the bag. NH is pure Webb Country.

I didn't say those things. DO said those things. But I mean, competent administrator is how a very decent portion of the populace views her. By credentials alone she is almost universally considered the most qualified. But that's not really American. America is about ideological rather than administrative victories, and Sanders would be considered an ideological victory by also a decent portion of Americans.

As First Lady, she actually was huge and successful. A large amount of people who remember the Clinton presidency think of her as the real power behind the seat, and the ones that voted that way then expect a lot of the same 90s prosperity from Clinton 2016. As senator, who can you think of as "succussful" as senator? She won over an entire state, let alone the largest and most financially powerful at the time. To be in the United States Senate is to be accomplished. But Sanders is also in the Senate. What, in this, has he really accomplished that she hasn't? And for her years as Secretary of State, several officials, including both Obama and Sanders, consider her time in that role to be "successful" and a good job.