I keep seeing these threads comparing Bernie's intrade/poll numbers to Obama at the same point, and clinging to the notion that history will repeat itself. It won't for some very important reasons:

1. Bernie is no Obama. He's a great guy, very impassioned, but he is not the campaigner or orator that Obama is. Obama literally did everything right while running a historical campaign to become to first black president. There is no comparison.

2. Hillary is polling far above where she did in 2008. In Iowa, she was locked in a 3 way race and polls put her, Obama, and Edwards in a dead heat. She's on track to win Iowa this time as there is no other candidate to the right of her (Edwards) to split her vote. I expect her to get at least 55+% in Iowa. This is what launched Obama in 2008. After she wins Iowa its likely she will also win NH

3. The biggest weakness Hillary had in 2008 was running against the first plausible AA candidate. This meant she automatically lost states where AA's made up the majority of Democrats, which is most of the southern states. This time around, minorities are mostly on her side and it will be difficult for Sanders to win any states such as GA, SC, NC, LA, MS, AL, etc.

4. Hillary is much stronger this time around and she is building a ground game beyond 2008.

5. Superdelegates held out in 2008. This time they are overwhelmingly choosing Hillary before the first vote is even cast.

...and has been "chosen" to win because of her support for the status quo, why the hell didn't she win in 2008??

I remember browsing on this site in 2008 and Hillary supporters felt exactly the same way Bernie supporters do now - that the media was in the tank for Obama, that superdelegates were choosing Obama against the will of their own constituents, that the DNC had purposely fixed the rules (proportial representation instead of winner take all which benefited Obama).

If Hillary's support is entirely because those in charge "want" her to win as Bernie supporters keep claiming, why didn't they want her to win in 2008? It makes absolutely no sense.

I noticed a lot of people here being called out for sexist remarks and thinking, which they refute, especially in regard to Hillary Clinton. A lot of people give examples of supporting other female politicians or their wife as proof they are not sexist. I think it's important to give a little info on what exactly sexism means:

It does not mean that you dislike women, nor does it mean that you never support women. Sexism simply means that you treat an action from a woman (even if an isolated case) differently than if that same action came from a male. As an example, look at racism. If I am walking down the street and a black man is walking toward me so I switch to the other side - this is a racist act if I do not do the same when a white man approaches. It DOES NOT matter of I supported Obama in 2008 and 2012. It does not matter if I have a ton of black friends and list Oprah as my biggest hero. None of that 'proves' that that act was not racist.

When talking about Hillary, it IS sexist to take her remarks differently or talk about her differently because she's a woman. Calling her a "bitch", which would never be said of a male politician, is sexist. Attacking her looks or laugh or facial expressions is sexist. Calling it pandering when she talks about her mother but not doing the same to a male politician is sexist.

Just like racism, small acts can be sexist without us even realizing it.

Just curious why people here assume that all Hillary supporters would be upset at Hillary's capitalist roots? Or that she's supposedly less progressive than Bernie? Not all Democrats are determined to blindly support the most liberal option. We all fall on different areas of the progressive continuum - take me for example. I'm very socially liberal, but not so much fiscally. I live in an expensive part of the country where I cannot afford to pay more taxes and keep my quality of life. In addition, I depend on my 401k and stocks to hopefully retire someday - a president who is supportive of business and wall street is actually in my best interests. I think Hillary will be tough enough on businesses, but I don't think she will entirely destroy successful companies and levy taxes on them so high they see falling profits, perhaps delaying my ability to retire someday. I'm happy with that. Why is that a problem?

I know a lot of people probably won’t listen, but I just want to give everyone something to think about:

We at DU are not “typical” voters. We represent those that are incredibly engaged in politics and research candidates and issues very deeply. When we make our decision on a candidate to support, it is based upon months if not years of information. That means that for the 95%+ of us posting on this board that have chosen a candidate to support for the democratic primaries, we are NOT going to change our mind unless something very drastic happens. These endless posts from both sides playing concern troll (“I don’t understand how anyone can vote for Hillary when she supports X” or vice versa with Bernie Sanders to a lesser extent) do NOT change a single mind. I can almost guarantee not a single person has ever read one of those attack threads and thought about switching candidates.

What it DOES do, however, is strengthen resolve. When people feel attacked, they naturally become even more set in their ways – this is basic psychology. Think about all the Bernie supporters (and even some republicans I spoke to) who suddenly felt less negative toward Sec. Clinton last night as she was being grilled. Because she was being relentlessly attacked, her supporters became even more enamored with her and even her enemies started hating her less. This is not different than the way we feel when someone posts another “She is bought and paid for and will destroy America!” post. It doesn’t change our opinion of Hillary, it just makes us want to elect her even more.

Likewise, I think many people see a candidate’s supporters as extensions of that candidate. Before I started lurking on DU, I didn’t mind Bernie Sanders. As I started reading the vitriol from his supporters towards Hillary, I started hating Bernie even though he had nothing to do with it. I started to feel like if he ended up winning the nomination I would vote 3rd party just to spite him. Last night, when I saw the endless threads of Bernie supporters showing solidarity with Hillary as she was relentlessly attacked, I started thinking about how I wouldn’t mind supporting Bernie if he won the nomination. It’s just basic psychology! If we feel like we’re competing an on teams, we start to root against each other.

I know this is a long-winded rant, but I just want to get to the point: you catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. Attacking Hillary or Bernie or making rude comments about them won’t change a SINGLE mind here at DU, but it will strengthen resolve among supporters. We shouldn’t be flinging out insults like angry children, as that just makes us look like the disgusting Republicans with all of their bizarre factions and infighting. I think we can all agree that at the end of the day, we would rather spend the next 4-8 years under President Sanders or President Clinton rather than President Cruz, Trump, or Bush. While my request may be futile, I will ask anyway: can we all please work to elevate the level of discourse here and only post comments we would feel comfortable saying to someone in public? This goes for supporters of all candidates – I am not directing this at either side specifically.

Has she unveiled anything to tackle the student debt yet? It's something I've been looking forward to hearing about.

I've been thinking, once Hillary is the nominee, I feel like she has an appeal that might cause her to be surprisingly competive in states that have been red for a very long time. As a baseline, I think she will win all of the Kerry 2004 states..regarding other states..

WV and Kentucky - These states are still democratic at the state level and WV particularly used to be a very reliable blue state. I think Kerry was seen as too liberal and anticoal and Obama's issue was race...but these states love the Clintons. Could Hillary flip them?

Arkansas - home state advantage?

Texas - strong Hispanic showing + historically more supportive of women (had a female gov, Ann Richards)

Virginia - Obama won, and I feel Hillary should do just as well as him if not better since she won't have race holding her back in the rural areas or areas bordering WV.

Thoughts?