The fact she lost a 30 point lead to a 70 year old self avowed socialist from Vermont shows what a weak candidate she is. A strong candidate would be able to dispatch Sanders easily.
You realize that if Hillary dropped out and Gillibrand replaced her, she'd trail Sanders in every state besides New York, right? Biden, Gore, Kerry, Magical Fairy Candidate, etc. would also trail Sanders in the vast majority of states. Whereas Hillary leads in nearly every state. Sanders' surge has nothing to do with Hillary (check the favorability numbers among Democrats for proof.) It has to do with the fact that a) NH is Sanders' own backyard, and filled with the exact type of voters he does best with, and b) the Democratic Party has moved to the left with a rapid pace that nearly nobody anticipated. People like what he's saying. If people wanted a non socialist alternative to Hillary, O'Malley or someone else would be surging.
I liked all the shoutouts in this thread. That said, this doesn't "prove anything to me." I never definitively stated that Hillary was going to sweep all 49 states, although I probably predicted it (and it's still very possible, considering this is a single poll.) All I said for certain was that Hillary was the inevitable nominee. She still is. Sanders has no chance at winning the nomination unless he can make inroads among minorities. Last time I checked, he's struggling to break double digits in South Carolina. A crushing defeat there can easily destroy whatever momentum he gets from a potential win in NH. Super Tuesday is also nearly all Hillary country. I will admit Sanders has far exceeded my (and nearly everyone's) expectations. Even the most optimistic Sanders hacks probably wouldn't have expected him to be doing this well a few months ago.
And to the certain people acting as if Sanders is this unstoppable titan now...please learn some context.
