I don't know about that, although I certainly think there are differences in leadership style and the decision making process among the different candidates. I just don't think we learn much about them from debates. I feel the same way about the Republican debates.
You guys are watching a debate between candidates that you already know a lot about, whose answers are completely scripted and will have no impact nor give any insite as to how said candidates might govern? You do realize Monday Night football is on don't you?
Guess I am one of the few here that believe to dam many people vote. And to many of them on both sides really have no clue what they are voting for. And I am including some members of my own family in that clueless voters group. I am paraphrasing, but I think it was Churchill who said that the best argument against representative democracy is a 10 minute conversation with the average voter.
I certainly don't believe that we let talent walk at a greater rate than the rest of the NFL, but I do believe that sometimes players have to find the right environment to thrive. For example, Wesley Walls did nothing in 5 years with the forty niners, but thrived when he played for us.
So what? Last time I checked, there is no rule requiring dominant wins. Just have to keep winning. Dominant wins are irrelevant. Only wins matter. Last year at this time, New England was coming off of getting blown out by KC and was 2-2. They ended fairly well.
A bump perhaps but I am not so certain about a big one. Maybe 10% at best. But you seem to think that Democratic voters are simply not going for Sanders because he doesn't have a chance. Might be the case with some of them but it could also be that they feel he is to far to the left to win the general election, or further left than they actually want to support
Hillary is still the odds on favorite for the nomination. Sanders might win in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I don't see much chance he wins once they move to the bigger states. How she does against the Republicans probably depends on who they nominate. Trump or Carson would get beaten. If its Rubio or Bush, then its a different ballgame.
Obama did well in 08/12 because he was able to get out the minority vote. I don't see hillary or Sanders, or Biden doing as well in that regard.
Romney is a moderate. He had to play to right for a while to appeal to the base during the primaries, but his record says moderate. The republicans now are a mirror of what the Democrats were in the 70's and 80's. The democrats had to appeal to the left in the primaries, then try to move to the center in the general election. The Republicans have to appeal to the right then move to the center.
There are a lot of people in Politics that shouldn't be. Ron Paul, Jesse Jackson and Ross Perot for example. Carson is no worse than any of those three, although he is a bit more inexperienced. The problem with Carson, (and Trump for that matter) is that they are doing better than most thought they would. I have a feeling that they will fade eventually though, just as Jackson and Perot did.
Fwiw, he is not necessarily wrong. If the Jews had a few armored divisions, an Air Force, and other assorted heavy weaponry, along with the foreknowledge of what the Nazis were planning, then they might have fared better. And if wishes were fishes, we would all cast nets.