Bernie voters are less likely to abandon him. They're more likely to bring friends along. I think Bernie edges Clinton in Iowa, and that will change the race entirely.

campaign infrastructure in Iowa so she may well get a higher percentage of her fewer and less enthusiastic supporters to the polls).

New Hampshire looks good for Sanders but you have to account for the likelihood that result in Iowa will echo in New Hampshire.

Depending on the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada could go from a close race to a coin toss.

South Carolina is unpredictable given that the results of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada will all impact the race in South Carolina.

We've seen this movie before. When HRC is in a tight spot, she goes negative. Iowans HATE negative ads, since they get bombarded with them every cycle. By all accounts, her experience should allow her to tout her own strengths, if she believed in them. But Clinton and negative attacks are like the monkey trap: all the monkey has to do to free his hand is let go of the banana, but he can't let go.

the same play with the same fatal flaws as they ran in 2008.

I almost feel like some of the posts on DU could be cut and pasted from Clinton supporters from 2008.

The media really wants a horserace, if not, to take Hillary out.

landline polling in Iowa?



This poll aggregation includes major outliers such as Monmouth and Loras that have a HUGE pro-Clinton house factor bias; if you drop Loras, for example, which always shows Clinton at a number well outside the polling margin for error of other live phone pollsters which have A ratings and a proven track record of accuracy in Iowa, you get an even clearer picture:



The CBS poll is noteworthy because it uses an internet based methodology so it corroborates the result of the live phone polls by a different method.

This is a close race. Sanders supporters should double their efforts in Iowa to push this momentum home to a victory on February 1.

That's a winning concept, my friend.

Go, Bernie, Go!

The Big MO will be his as Hillary watches her nightmare 2008 redux.

and New Hampshire, I'm not sure that Nevada is the state where Clinton reverses that momentum.

Nevada sees better than most states the ill effects of NAFTA and welfare cuts that two-for-one Team Clinton brought them last time. Plus, Nevada knows better than most states that the benefits-the-rich-only economy that Clinton sees as a "mission accomplished" recovery that we need to accept as the new normal while Sanders is dedicating to improving so that all Americans can benefit from out national prosperity.

Nevada is one of the worst states for children. And I don't think it's just because of politics.

I mean talk about epic "NOT-FUXXING-AGAIN!"

Maybe this is the reasons all the results are different.

House effect is where some pollsters consistently favor one candidate by more than the margin of error for the other contemporaneous polls.

For example, the most recent poll that had Clinton way up in Iowa was by Loras, which has a HUGE pro-Clinton house effect.

Here is how the race in Iowa has developed over the past year according to Loras polling:



Here is how the race in Iowa has developed over the past year according to EVERY OTHER LIVE PHONE pollster:



Clinton and her supporters set the bar of expectations based on Loras polling at their own risk (remember the fate of those who have won Iowa but fell short of expectations -- Harkin '92, Gephardt '88, etc.)

Also, all campaign season there has been an odd phenomenon that robo-call polls have consistently shown a large pro-Trump and pro-Clinton effect (I have not seen a convincing explanation for this, but the effect is well documented).

This explains why you see most traditional polls according to well-proven polling methods show Sanders leads in Iowa and New Hampshire with contemporaneous robo-call polls from Gravis and Monmouth that show Clinton ahead in Iowa and a tighter race in New Hampshire.

If you do nothing other than exclude robo-call polls from the Pollster aggregator, Sanders is ahead in Iowa and Sanders is comfortably up by double-digits in New Hampshire:





It does Clinton no favors to set her expectations in Iowa based on robo-call polls because, historically, falling short of expectations is almost worse than losing in Iowa.

Thank you for the detailed explanation about the polling!

polls will either change the accepted methodology for polling or it will completely discredit the robo-call methodologies employed by Gravis, etc.

The polling in the last UK election was historically noteworthy in its horrible accuracy for predicting results. Likewise, either the traditional polls (Des Moines Register, Quinnipiac, CNN, NBC, CNN, USA Today, ARG, etc.) in Iowa or the robo-call polls (Gravis, Morning Consult, Emerson, Monmouth, PPP) are WAY wrong. It will be interesting to see which is correct and which is utter nonsense.

continue to miss key aspects and they have sampling issues. A couple of reasons:

The move to cell phones and methodology is EVERYTHING.

Likely voter polls are more accurate among the pool of voters who are defined based on the definition of likely voters, which is 4/4 and 2/4 (voted last 2 cycles Primary and GE or just GE). This excludes younger first time voters and caucus goers, who have become extremely important to the Party (when we don't have their enthusiasm and excitement, we lose!) Polls that include this group are also a bit less accurate based on the difficulty of predicting turnout among this age group also. That is why poll averagers tend to be slightly more accurate, however!

Internal polling IS the most accurate, because the data sample is large and essentially, that is how campaigns work, identify their own likely voters from phone banking and outreach and ten get them out to vote. Results of internal polls are almost never shared, unless it is good news, so as a voter one way you can tell is if another candidate goes into full on freak out mode.

One of the biggest things not being discussed is what would Martin O'Malley's caucus goers do in caucus rooms should they not assemble 8%. By rule, these folk's candidate could be deemed nonviable and have to choose between Hillary and Bernie.

where Sanders does not meet the threshold. Likewise, I suspect most O'Malley supporters will caucus with Sanders where O'Mally does not meet the threshold.

I wonder what most Clinton supporters will do where Clinton does not meet the threshold.

They do not have to choose between Hillary and Bernie.

They can choose "uncommitted".

discusses the "uncommitted" option)?

By the way, how did "uncommitted" do in 2008? How many people went out into the Iowa snow as "uncommitted" and then spent the whole evening carefully listening to the candidates' advocates and -- even after realignment -- the cast their caucus vote for "uncommitted" and successfully found another batch of at least 15% of caucus goers in their precinct to formally commit for "uncommitted"?

Didja google that? Remind me how many caucused for "uncommitted" in 2008?

That information is not correct.

Uncommitted came in 2nd place in 1992 with 12 percent.

ask about 1992 (when the Democratic candidates generally skipped Iowa because Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin was a candidate so there was a movement to caucus for "undecided" because those who did not support Harkin did not want to fall in line behind a candidate who skipped the Iowa caucus). I asked about 2008. How did "uncommitted" perform in 2008?

The poster (who is not me) is nevertheless generally correct that anyone who supports a candidate who falls below the threshold and who wants his or her vote to matter will likely have to choose between the other two candidates because "uncommitted" will not reach the threshold for delegate assignment in the overwhelming percentage of precincts.

acknowledged my error below, but the intent of my reply to the OP was not to stir this up or mislead (information is in the video which is why I attached it, and by the way, I love how it ends ;p)

You are correct about 1992, that being said based on polling, including the undecideds in IA at this point, it is highly unlikely that uncommitted would meet that threshold.

My point really is that there could very well be an impact in favor of Bernie should MoM caucus goers not meet the threshold. I think the same could be said in reverse as was also mentioned.

I simply do not see MoM supporters moving towards Clinton, (personal opinion and certainly debatable).

They can choose to be uncommitted as well. Thank you for the correction.

If his supporters have rejected Hillary for the right reasons(she is the corporate candidate for the left), they will swing toward Bernie. I expect them to vote for O'malley though.

Clinton and Sanders are a world apart when it comes to who they really support.

... secure the nomination.

That's a HUGE undertaking for Bloomberg. He's effectively telling us all that there is enough of a difference between the two that he would have to run for President to secure his best interests. But, he feels secure that his best interests would be taken care of with Hillary.

Really, doesn't that just say it all?

anchor reported this poll with a smile on his face. lol. he's in his 20's. i'm sure the station owners will not be happy - if they caught this. he also began the evening's news reporting on the local bernie rally - with camera footage and interviews of the participants. the station owner has reserved a chunk of time each week to spew his corporate, anti obama opinions for the past few years.