US Presidential Race

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders doesn't stand a chance in splitting Hillarys vote. Especially when he has hardly acknowledged them, and how his socialist far left leanings will not do well with their large/borderline evangelical leanings in the south west.

He really stands no chance once we move past these first few heavily white states.

The socialist tag is not much of an issue among democrats , the republicans call them left, socialists for years and medicare, social security, etc have a tinge of socialism in them.

Sanders has already got the votes of people for whom socialism should be an issue - White men, independents, etc. It's much lesser of an issue among blacks.

Polls from Alaska came where gop wins, Sanders is leading Clinton by a huge margin. He is doing well in g̱op states, getting independent, heck even getting some trump votes.

He is winning head ṭo head by a landslide against the g̱op, the voters dont vote for 1 issue.

Key think would be black votes. 20-25% is too low to win - he needs Iowa,NH and needs close to 40% of the black votes o challenge. That will be KEY

BTW he does not need to split the entire votes, he only needs a bit more black votes, he is enlarg̱ing the pie with huge turnaround, young voters and independents....

I'm not sure if you're from the US or not, but the term "socialist" is absolutely an issue in the majority of the electorate.

footyfan01 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders doesn't stand a chance in splitting Hillarys vote. Especially when he has hardly acknowledged them, and how his socialist far left leanings will not do well with their large/borderline evangelical leanings in the south west.

He really stands no chance once we move past these first few heavily white states.

The socialist tag is not much of an issue among democrats , the republicans call them left, socialists for years and medicare, social security, etc have a tinge of socialism in them.

Sanders has already got the votes of people for whom socialism should be an issue - White men, independents, etc. It's much lesser of an issue among blacks.

Polls from Alaska came where gop wins, Sanders is leading Clinton by a huge margin. He is doing well in g̱op states, getting independent, heck even getting some trump votes.

He is winning head ṭo head by a landslide against the g̱op, the voters dont vote for 1 issue.

Key think would be black votes. 20-25% is too low to win - he needs Iowa,NH and needs close to 40% of the black votes o challenge. That will be KEY

BTW he does not need to split the entire votes, he only needs a bit more black votes, he is enlarg̱ing the pie with huge turnaround, young voters and independents....

It is VERY much an issue, and Hispanics in the southwest, many of whom have family the main republican candidates admit wanting to send back by the thousands, are not going to to split behind a socialist who they think will give an easy shot to republicans having a win. They kind of have too much to lose risking that to split in any true way, and add to the fact that Hillary has put in work in their community means she is getting the vast majority of that vote.

Also he has shown to be fragile when put under any sort of attack. The man went on the air in this country and said planned parenthood of all things were part of the establishment he is taking on. Planned Parenthood is the only way many hispanic women in the southwest get any sort of healthcare for themselves and their kids. He sticks his foot in his mouth with these groups any chance he gets, and in a general election he won't just have nice hillary slighting him a little. He would crumple in the face of a barrage from trump or even a psychopath like Cruz.

RedOranje wrote:I'm not sure if you're from the US or not, but the term "socialist" is absolutely an issue in the majority of the electorate.

Probably was, 30 years back. Surely now when when Sanders is up 10-15 points atleast against all Republicans, when he is winning 60-70% of the young voter support and when most white men are voting for him. He is also getting a majority of the independents. Looks a complete non-issue when he is sweeping the Independent vote ahead of Republicans. Probably the future will decide, but I think the hardcore GOP base is the one which has a huge issue with this.

Betty La Fea wrote:

footyfan01 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders doesn't stand a chance in splitting Hillarys vote. Especially when he has hardly acknowledged them, and how his socialist far left leanings will not do well with their large/borderline evangelical leanings in the south west.

He really stands no chance once we move past these first few heavily white states.

The socialist tag is not much of an issue among democrats , the republicans call them left, socialists for years and medicare, social security, etc have a tinge of socialism in them.

Sanders has already got the votes of people for whom socialism should be an issue - White men, independents, etc. It's much lesser of an issue among blacks.

Polls from Alaska came where gop wins, Sanders is leading Clinton by a huge margin. He is doing well in g̱op states, getting independent, heck even getting some trump votes.

He is winning head ṭo head by a landslide against the g̱op, the voters dont vote for 1 issue.

Key think would be black votes. 20-25% is too low to win - he needs Iowa,NH and needs close to 40% of the black votes o challenge. That will be KEY

BTW he does not need to split the entire votes, he only needs a bit more black votes, he is enlarg̱ing the pie with huge turnaround, young voters and independents....

It is VERY much an issue, and Hispanics in the southwest, many of whom have family the main republican candidates admit wanting to send back by the thousands, are not going to to split behind a socialist who they think will give an easy shot to republicans having a win. They kind of have too much to lose risking that to split in any true way, and add to the fact that Hillary has put in work in their community means she is getting the vast majority of that vote.

Also he has shown to be fragile when put under any sort of attack. The man went on the air in this country and said planned parenthood of all things were part of the establishment he is taking on. Planned Parenthood is the only way many hispanic women in the southwest get any sort of healthcare for themselves and their kids. He sticks his foot in his mouth with these groups any chance he gets, and in a general election he won't just have nice hillary slighting him a little. He would crumple in the face of a barrage from trump or even a psychopath like Cruz.

Sanders is the strongest under attack I have seen. Ted Cruz or Trump are not electable with their religious dogmatic, anti-science & climate change, anti-muslim, anti-hispanic, anti-black, anti-gay rhetoric. But they way Sanders turned the data breach issue to a positive was unreal. When Chelsea Clinton attacked and as did Hillary's crony surrogates, their was a reverse back-lash. I think Hillary has been very poor with defending attacks and makes bone-headed statements including the 9/11 statement in debate, last time the killing statement for Obama. Sanders is very strong on it.

As per the hispanics, with very little name recognition, Sanders is getting 35% odd of the hispanic votes acc to most polls which is decent. They will move if he wins Iowa. He only needs a +15 swing. I think he will be neck & neck. Hillary Clinton is not electable, she is looked as "dishonest" in most polls, has a horrible unavailability rating, almost as much as Trump. She has 0 Cross-over appeal and is barely getting the independent votes, which Sanders is sweeping. Elect-ability is not an issue.

As for Planned Parenthood, Sanders clarified it as aimed at the management officials of the organization who are essentially with Hillary.

I think he is 100% right. Planned Parenthood & HRC lost huge credibility when they endorsed Clinton very early without any votes/discussions/involvement of their members.

The record of Sanders & Hillary are starkly different. Hillary is a disaster in women's rights, LGBT rights, HRC. Sanders is against death penalty, against Guantanamo, against most wars, Hillary is against all this & was pro-Iraq.

Also Hillary was very VERY anti-gay. Bill Clinton passed DOMA & Hillary campaigned for DOMA against gays and in 2008 Elections she spoke out against same sex marriage. She was not for pro-choice. Sanders was always pro-choice, voted against DOMA & fought for the LGBT community in Parliament.

Clinton has only turned pro-choice, pro-gays in last 2-3 years as the elections approach. Sanders has a 100% voting record on these issues.

BTW whenever organizations have allowed member involvement, votes like in the case of moveon, etc Sanders has won overwhelmingly. Almost every one of Hillary's endorsements has come from executive committee decisions while Sanders has the grass root base.

With Sanders being one of the most progressive candidates, a 100% voting record & decade of fights & Clinton being a phony opportunist who only recently changed, Sanders has nothing to do loose here. BTW Planned Parenthood or HRC exeuctive board has hedge fund managers & lobbyists in there.

Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, a homsexual/lesbian took on Hillary for voting against DOMA, took on Planned Parenthood, HRC & has praised Sanders multiple times for his record.

Sanders has the grassroot support bar blacks & Hillary has the entire establishment.

And match my prediction - Sanders will get around 50% or more of the hispanic votes if he wins Iowa & NH

Michael Bloomberg to run as an independent if it's Trump vs Sanders. Genius.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Michael Bloomberg to run as an independent if it's Trump vs Sanders. Genius.

Would cut a section of moderate democrat votes from Sanders and a section of gop votes who hate trump, probably a bit more sanders but not enough to win or take a huge chunk of 1 party to cause that party to loose

I'm not sure. I think there are many people who, faced with 2 ideological extremes, would vote for the lone moderate option. I certainly would, if I were American.

footyfan01 wrote:

RedOranje wrote:I'm not sure if you're from the US or not, but the term "socialist" is absolutely an issue in the majority of the electorate.

Probably was, 30 years back. Surely now when when Sanders is up 10-15 points atleast against all Republicans, when he is winning 60-70% of the young voter support and when most white men are voting for him. He is also getting a majority of the independents. Looks a complete non-issue when he is sweeping the Independent vote ahead of Republicans. Probably the future will decide, but I think the hardcore GOP base is the one which has a huge issue with this.

Betty La Fea wrote:

footyfan01 wrote:


The socialist tag is not much of an issue among democrats , the republicans call them left, socialists for years and medicare, social security, etc have a tinge of socialism in them.

Sanders has already got the votes of people for whom socialism should be an issue - White men, independents, etc. It's much lesser of an issue among blacks.

Polls from Alaska came where gop wins, Sanders is leading Clinton by a huge margin. He is doing well in g̱op states, getting independent, heck even getting some trump votes.

He is winning head ṭo head by a landslide against the g̱op, the voters dont vote for 1 issue.

Key think would be black votes. 20-25% is too low to win - he needs Iowa,NH and needs close to 40% of the black votes o challenge. That will be KEY

BTW he does not need to split the entire votes, he only needs a bit more black votes, he is enlarg̱ing the pie with huge turnaround, young voters and independents....

It is VERY much an issue, and Hispanics in the southwest, many of whom have family the main republican candidates admit wanting to send back by the thousands, are not going to to split behind a socialist who they think will give an easy shot to republicans having a win. They kind of have too much to lose risking that to split in any true way, and add to the fact that Hillary has put in work in their community means she is getting the vast majority of that vote.

Also he has shown to be fragile when put under any sort of attack. The man went on the air in this country and said planned parenthood of all things were part of the establishment he is taking on. Planned Parenthood is the only way many hispanic women in the southwest get any sort of healthcare for themselves and their kids. He sticks his foot in his mouth with these groups any chance he gets, and in a general election he won't just have nice hillary slighting him a little. He would crumple in the face of a barrage from trump or even a psychopath like Cruz.

Sanders is the strongest under attack I have seen. Ted Cruz or Trump are not electable with their religious dogmatic, anti-science & climate change, anti-muslim, anti-hispanic, anti-black, anti-gay rhetoric. But they way Sanders turned the data breach issue to a positive was unreal. When Chelsea Clinton attacked and as did Hillary's crony surrogates, their was a reverse back-lash. I think Hillary has been very poor with defending attacks and makes bone-headed statements including the 9/11 statement in debate, last time the killing statement for Obama. Sanders is very strong on it.

As per the hispanics, with very little name recognition, Sanders is getting 35% odd of the hispanic votes acc to most polls which is decent. They will move if he wins Iowa. He only needs a +15 swing. I think he will be neck & neck. Hillary Clinton is not electable, she is looked as "dishonest" in most polls, has a horrible unavailability rating, almost as much as Trump. She has 0 Cross-over appeal and is barely getting the independent votes, which Sanders is sweeping. Elect-ability is not an issue.

As for Planned Parenthood, Sanders clarified it as aimed at the management officials of the organization who are essentially with Hillary.

I think he is 100% right. Planned Parenthood & HRC lost huge credibility when they endorsed Clinton very early without any votes/discussions/involvement of their members.

The record of Sanders & Hillary are starkly different. Hillary is a disaster in women's rights, LGBT rights, HRC. Sanders is against death penalty, against Guantanamo, against most wars, Hillary is against all this & was pro-Iraq.

Also Hillary was very VERY anti-gay. Bill Clinton passed DOMA & Hillary campaigned for DOMA against gays and in 2008 Elections she spoke out against same sex marriage. She was not for pro-choice. Sanders was always pro-choice, voted against DOMA & fought for the LGBT community in Parliament.

Clinton has only turned pro-choice, pro-gays in last 2-3 years as the elections approach. Sanders has a 100% voting record on these issues.

BTW whenever organizations have allowed member involvement, votes like in the case of moveon, etc Sanders has won overwhelmingly. Almost every one of Hillary's endorsements has come from executive committee decisions while Sanders has the grass root base.

With Sanders being one of the most progressive candidates, a 100% voting record & decade of fights & Clinton being a phony opportunist who only recently changed, Sanders has nothing to do loose here. BTW Planned Parenthood or HRC exeuctive board has hedge fund managers & lobbyists in there.

Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, a homsexual/lesbian took on Hillary for voting against DOMA, took on Planned Parenthood, HRC & has praised Sanders multiple times for his record.

Sanders has the grassroot support bar blacks & Hillary has the entire establishment.

And match my prediction - Sanders will get around 50% or more of the hispanic votes if he wins Iowa & NH

Be on tonight during the debate please. I want to have you live as Hillary eats Sanders lunch on live tv,once again

Not sure how Hillary can eat Sanders for lunch at a town hall...

Cruijf wrote:Not sure how Hillary can eat Sanders for lunch at a town hall...

We'll see.

The tag of socialism still produces massive dividends for Conservatives who use it to attack policies they don't like. It has time and again proved effective as a means of alienating both unaligned and more conservative voters against a particular candidate, policy, or bill. This has only become MORE apparent in the past decade after a general decline in its vilified demeanor during the 1990s.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I'm not sure. I think there are many people who, faced with 2 ideological extremes, would vote for the lone moderate option. I certainly would, if I were American.

I don't know if you can call Bernie Sanders and ideological extreme. Maybe relatively to the American way of thought. In Denmark, he'd be considered somewhat conservative.

Still find it funny how the US governments use socialism as something negative, when we were their main allies during the Bush government Anything for votes I guess

The negativity comes from the idea that socialism and communism are the same things, they see it as communism-lite.

RedOranje wrote:The tag of socialism still produces massive dividends for Conservatives who use it to attack policies they don't like. It has time and again proved effective as a means of alienating both unaligned and more conservative voters against a particular candidate, policy, or bill. This has only become MORE apparent in the past decade after a general decline in its vilified demeanor during the 1990s.

Hell, a moderate like Obama still has the communism/socialism tagged placed across his neck as a negative.

Conservatives NEVER tell the truth, and I feel like footyfan is living in a dream world if he thinks the GOP machine wouldnt smash Sanders to bits in a national election. I remember 12 years ago when they had the whole nation believing a man who went to vietnam, was hurt, and received three purple hearts was a coward compared to a man who used daddies money to escape vietnam. They are relentless.

Betty La Fea wrote: I want to have you live as Hillary eats Sanders lunch on live tv,once again

??

I didn't see the second debate. From what I read, most people thought that Bernie was the more impressive candidate. The first debate was probably a Hillary win but not by a landslide at all. This last one was a win for Sanders, not by a landslide either. The third one I didn't see either, but people seem to say Hillary. The only issue he was tripped up on during the last debate was guns, where he's always going to have trouble. I'm pretty sure everyone pretty much unanimously agreed on Sanders winning that one. So I'm not understanding where this "Hillary is going to destroy sanders again and again" rhetoric is coming from. If anything, polls so far aren't really backing up that claim (I say that but I of course would admit that poll numbers are simply that, poll numbers, and so they can vary widely and don't always mean anything, but it's worth pointing out).

I'm not saying any of this with an agenda, I'm taking a neutral point of view with this post, which would be that so far Hillary and Bernie have roughly been neck and neck in the debates, with both "winning" two. Poll numbers and online news sources would disagree with your opinion. Anyway, I just don't really understand your statement.

RedOranje wrote:I'm not sure if you're from the US or not, but the term "socialist" is absolutely an issue in the majority of the electorate.  

Not sure if that's true any more:

Senator Bernie Sanders’s speech on Thursday explaining his democratic socialist ideology carried little risk among supporters and other Democrats: A solid majority of them have a positive impression of socialism, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released this month.

Fifty-six percent of those Democratic primary voters questioned said they felt positive about socialism as a governing philosophy, versus 29 percent who took a negative view.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democratic-primary-president-caucus/

Granted, that's only for democrats, and republicans will probably have a negative impression of it regardless, but I don't think independents will have a negative association to the term.

Freeza wrote: In Denmark, he'd be considered somewhat conservative.

brb looking up Denmark's immigration policy

CBarca wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote: I want to have you live as Hillary eats Sanders lunch on live tv,once again

??

I didn't see the second debate. From what I read, most people thought that Bernie was the more impressive candidate. The first debate was probably a Hillary win but not by a landslide at all. This last one was a win for Sanders, not by a landslide either. The third one I didn't see either, but people seem to say Hillary. The only issue he was tripped up on during the last debate was guns, where he's always going to have trouble. I'm pretty sure everyone pretty much unanimously agreed on Sanders winning that one. So I'm not understanding where this "Hillary is going to destroy sanders again and again" rhetoric is coming from. If anything, polls so far aren't really backing up that claim (I say that but I of course would admit that poll numbers are simply that, poll numbers, and so they can vary widely and don't always mean anything, but it's worth pointing out).

I'm not saying any of this with an agenda, I'm taking a neutral point of view with this post, which would be that so far Hillary and Bernie have roughly been neck and neck in the debates, with both "winning" two. Poll numbers and online news sources would disagree with your opinion. Anyway, I just don't really understand your statement.

He comes across as a senile old man on television debates. Disheveled, Yelling, and getting taken to task to a point where he becomes comical. The last debate ended with him going back on super pacs once again as a final word about what wasn't spoken about, after Hillary spoken from the heart about holding the state government of michigan accountable for having poor residents bathe and rink lead water. Its got to a point where he is a running joke almost in the same vein of trump. Larry David has made a new career for himself poking fun at how awkward he is on SNL. Thing is I agree with Sanders more often than not, but he is not polished enough to ever truly beat Hillary in a debate, especially not when he has came out and called planned parenthood part of the establishment he is against. It starts in 10 minutes. Watch how she handles this.

Will be watching. Fair, you can take that view, but it seems as if most people aren't seeing it that way.

@BC: Have to agree with RedO, it's not good at all

CBarca wrote:Will be watching. Fair, you can take that view, but it seems as if most people aren't seeing it that way.

@BC: Have to agree with RedO, it's not good at all

Well the census does classify me as a minority

Sanders did well.

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders did well.

Think this format suited him a bit better. Whether he did so because of the format or because he thought it was a side he needed to show, he was a lot more calm this time around. I think that he needed to show that side of himself.

Personally upset that they don't ask Bernie a single question on racism and then open up O'Malley with a question about race.

CBarca wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders did well.

Think this format suited him a bit better. Whether he did so because of the format or because he thought it was a side he needed to show, he was a lot more calm this time around. I think that he needed to show that side of himself.

Personally upset that they don't ask Bernie a single question on racism and then open up O'Malley with a question about race.

It very much suited him better. He was able to use charm, and he didnt come across as an old man yelling on stage. He was definitely the big winner tonight.

Betty La Fea wrote:

CBarca wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote: I want to have you live as Hillary eats Sanders lunch on live tv,once again

??

I didn't see the second debate. From what I read, most people thought that Bernie was the more impressive candidate. The first debate was probably a Hillary win but not by a landslide at all. This last one was a win for Sanders, not by a landslide either. The third one I didn't see either, but people seem to say Hillary. The only issue he was tripped up on during the last debate was guns, where he's always going to have trouble. I'm pretty sure everyone pretty much unanimously agreed on Sanders winning that one. So I'm not understanding where this "Hillary is going to destroy sanders again and again" rhetoric is coming from. If anything, polls so far aren't really backing up that claim (I say that but I of course would admit that poll numbers are simply that, poll numbers, and so they can vary widely and don't always mean anything, but it's worth pointing out).

I'm not saying any of this with an agenda, I'm taking a neutral point of view with this post, which would be that so far Hillary and Bernie have roughly been neck and neck in the debates, with both "winning" two. Poll numbers and online news sources would disagree with your opinion. Anyway, I just don't really understand your statement.

He comes across as a senile old man on television debates. Disheveled, Yelling, and getting taken to task to a point where he becomes comical. The last debate ended with him going back on super pacs once again as a final word about what wasn't spoken about, after Hillary spoken from the heart about holding the state government of michigan accountable for having poor residents bathe and rink lead water. Its got to a point where he is a running joke almost in the same vein of trump. Larry David has made a new career for himself poking fun at how awkward he is on SNL. Thing is I agree with Sanders more often than not, but he is not polished enough to ever truly beat Hillary in a debate, especially not when he has came out and called planned parenthood part of the establishment he is against. It starts in 10 minutes. Watch how she handles this.

Hillary Clinton spoke from the heart? She has never spoken from her heart. I can't remember what she said. She was anti-homosexual person, voted against DOMA & same sex marriage even in 2008 & today she said she championed their cause for 40 years. A large section of progressives & independents of Sanders followers would NEVER ever vote for Hillary. Frankly she is ALMOST as bad as Trump, with a more calculated & rehearsed answer.

The last debate was one of Sander's best performance, even most of Clinton sympathizers praised Sanders. I personally thought that Sanders was brilliant last debate. Online & offline, every polls, every news agency showed Sanders with 90% votes in the debate destroying Clinton. In SC, among Blacks Sanders had like 28-2 among black independents who they think did best.

And Sanders speaks with passion & heart with hands waiving & Clinton with lies. Hillary would never make EYE CONTACT, would beat around the bush, never give direct answers & give rehearsed diplomatic answers.

So when you make those horribly biased & repulsive comments, I think it is clear you are far off the reality

CBarca wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote: I want to have you live as Hillary eats Sanders lunch on live tv,once again

??

I didn't see the second debate. From what I read, most people thought that Bernie was the more impressive candidate. The first debate was probably a Hillary win but not by a landslide at all. This last one was a win for Sanders, not by a landslide either. The third one I didn't see either, but people seem to say Hillary. The only issue he was tripped up on during the last debate was guns, where he's always going to have trouble. I'm pretty sure everyone pretty much unanimously agreed on Sanders winning that one. So I'm not understanding where this "Hillary is going to destroy sanders again and again" rhetoric is coming from. If anything, polls so far aren't really backing up that claim (I say that but I of course would admit that poll numbers are simply that, poll numbers, and so they can vary widely and don't always mean anything, but it's worth pointing out).

I'm not saying any of this with an agenda, I'm taking a neutral point of view with this post, which would be that so far Hillary and Bernie have roughly been neck and neck in the debates, with both "winning" two. Poll numbers and online news sources would disagree with your opinion. Anyway, I just don't really understand your statement.

Sanders destroyed Hillary in the last debate. She was horrible. 90% votes in only & offline polls. Hell even most blacks said he was much MUCH better. Every media outlet backing Clinton & every neutral outlet said Hillary Clinton got destroyed, her attack of guns flopped, her speaking fees got highlighted & she LOST big.

If someone is saying otherwise, he is obviously not giving the true picture

CBarca wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders did well.

Think this format suited him a bit better. Whether he did so because of the format or because he thought it was a side he needed to show, he was a lot more calm this time around. I think that he needed to show that side of himself.

Personally upset that they don't ask Bernie a single question on racism and then open up O'Malley with a question about race.

I have major problems with this Debate/Meeting. Ofcourse Debbie, the DNC Chairman was a Clinton Campaign Manager before & scheduled only 6 debates so that Clinton can get a free pass. They vigorously opposed these debates, Hillary Clinton vetoed these meetings. News sites reports she only agreed a few days back when polls showed she was loosing in Iowa.

And now CNN does a really bad job of allowing Hillary Clinton to explain her positions while asking very aggressive pro-clinton questions about Sanders health, guns, foreign policy, big government, tax hikes, etc while pandering to Clinton and giving her a free pass

Clinton got to GO LAST again - It is a big advantage. They saw Sanders stand up & connect & obviously O'Malley & Clinton stood up the entire time and the mods never forced them to sit like they did with Bernie.

It was moderated by Coumo, a known Clinton backer. His father & brother are Clinton campaigners, Hillary Clinton invoked them. From twisting the Obama praise, this entire debate was made sure to ensure Clinton over turns the backlog.

The after show panel with CNN had full of Clinton supporters who were praising her profusely. The audience had a huge section of middle aged women.

This entire thing PLAYED completely to Clinton's strengths including trying to paint her as a CHAMPION against Wall Street with the question by Coumo that you don't like Wall Street & Republicans hate you for that.

The only 2 interesting parts to me where -

A - Clinton still failed, she looks & comes across as opportunist, fake and not connecting with the people

B - 1 Muslim & 1 Latino women asking question both to Clinton(so that she can connect) but both UNDECIDED.

As I said the Muslim-Latino vote will end up getting split

Polls are coming out, results similar with regards to last DEM debate where Sanders had a landslide

Syracuse -

Sanders - 9079 votes
Clinton - 537
O Malley - 164

Sanders with 90%+ vote on who won the meeting despite very aggressive hardball questions while giving Clinton a softball.

Clinton gets a question from a Muslim in the current situation is like being handed on a plate

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ted-cruz-jerk-hated

This is such an amazing article