I'm in NH (and worked for Bernie's campaign here - and he won the state huge) - but curious as to where other people voted given that NH is right after Iowa.

The reason I ask is because if you say it was clear that Hillary was soundly defeating Sanders (which was the way the math was playing out - particularly w/ the superdelegate buffer) - then I'm curious as to what case you were making for Bernie given your current perspective.

>it became kinda clear she was the better candidate to
>represent the dem party coalition in the general. i reached
>that conclusion *later on* with the benefit of
>hindsight/evidence.

Really? How was that so clear? She didn't rally independents who lean democrat. She didn't mobilize enough of the progressive base. She got life-long democrats - for sure - but in the general she didn't get as many swing-voters as expected. I think Bernie would've done much better given the dynamics of 2016: it was a populist season - and Trump was actually able to commit fraud and play the populist card precisely because Bernie wasn't his opposition.

Hillary was so unpalatable to way too many segments of the electorate in a way that Bernie simply wasn't. Now, she still won the popular vote - but her underwhelming performances in Florida, the rust-belt, and with independents really showed her weakness in the general matchup against Trump. She would've fared much better against Jeb Bush. But it wasn't that kind of party.

-->