Did they forget to poll women voters in NH?
No, they polled them.
But the fact is: Hillary sucks.
I believe the IA numbers (they're probably even too generous towards Clinton), but no way that those NH numbers are true. Barbara Mikulski and Johnny Isakson winning the "hottest Senators ever" award is more likely than Rubio winning NH by 12 points.
Yeah, this looks off - but it only shows Hillary's tremendous weakness among Independents - which NH is full of (50% of GE voters).
Also, we are now having a pattern: Sanders polls much better than Hillary in states where he has a name recognition like Hillary, near 100%.
Hillary would make a winnable race unnecessarily close and turning it into a 2000-like fiasco and trust me, you don't want that to happen again. The US is still too incompetent in handling close elections, even 16 years later. Bernie OTOH would beat the GOP in a landslide ...
This "Independent elastic NH" myth has already been debunked. NH isn't full of Independents. Most of these "Independents" are closet partisans and Democrats.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/new-hampshire-independents-myth
The moment Republicans open their mouth and talk about abortion and foreign policy, their numbers will collapse and NH will be as safe D as usual. All the Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton in the general election because they have no backbone.
The only reason Republicans are fooling themselves into thinking NH is a swing state or a super-duper-mega-ultro-turbo-elastic independent battleground state is so that they don't have to deal with brown people in other swing states. For the gazillionth time
NH and its 4 electoral votes are not in play in 2016. If Clinton loses NH, 2016 will make 1984 look like a squeaker. PERIOD.
So NH is more democratic than everywhere except D.C.? You are beyond delusional.
