Bernie Sanders has jumped out to a nine-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and he's gained ground on her among Iowa voters in the Democratic presidential race, according to a pair of brand-new NBC News/Marist polls.

In New Hampshire, the Vermont senator gets the support of 41 percent of Democratic voters, Clinton gets 32 percent and Vice President Joe Biden gets 16 percent. No other Democratic candidate receives more than 1 percent.

Back in July's NBC/Marist poll, Clinton was ahead of Sanders in the Granite State by 10 points, 42 percent to 32 percent, with Biden at 12 percent.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/marist-poll-n422111

Everyone polled who doesn't pledge allegiance to the Clintons and their heroism within the Democratic Party doesn't deserve to vote.

Last edited Sun Sep 6, 2015, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Everywhere he goes, he speaks to a packed house.

Granted, not everyone there will be voting for him - some come just to hear his side or see what all the hoopla is all about - but the sheer number of crowds should start showing up in these polls more. I think it showed up in one.

Anyone know if it's harder to poll in caucus states than in primary states?

Ah, well - the trajectory is still moving up and we're five months to the caucus, so I'm OK.

Most reputable polls question likely voters in the Democratic primaries or caucuses. They have a method of determining who these likely voters are that works very well in a typical election, the problem in this case is that Bernie is not a typical candidate. He is getting a lot of support from independents and people who have never been involved in the political process before and the polls are not going to flag them as likely voters. Primary elections are always difficult to poll but that is especially true when you have a candidate that brings out people who you normally would not expect to vote in a Democratic primary.

I also wonder why polling companies don't seem to recognize that all presidential years bring out more and more new voters. I guess that hasn't been a "thing" until Obama, but I've certainly noticed the engagement of younger voters over the past 8 years.

They seem to make a big difference in presidential races, but these same young people don't seem to be as engaged during the off years.

Surely there's some algorithm for that.

Easier to get excited about one face that stands for everything (Presdiential elections) than that klind of boring person running for Congress or Senate or a state office -- even though those are th people who collectuvely make a difference.

Somehow, the RW has figured out how to overcome that. The Center-to-left hasn't.

It's gonna be interesting, I think, to see what the social media monster does when awakened to voting day - 2016. I think it's gonna be a game-changer that no one will see coming until the final moments. Steered just right, I see it negating a lot of the millions spent on 30-second ads.

To take the ones since 1992

1992 55.2, 1996 49.0, 2000 50.3, 2004 55.7, 2008 57.1, 2012 54.9. Will turnout go back up, maybe? They use who voted in the last caucus and those who say they are likely to do so now.

I've read that some do, some pollsters use formulas to adjust for these factors, but generally I think they're not really getting a representative sample, and that the error is in our favor.

Since I'll bet that Bernie is causing record numbers of independents and Republicans to register as Democrats to vote for Bernie in the primary moreso than has happened in past elections. And even those that aren't registered as Democrats may be voting in larger numbers for Bernie in open primary states and those are perhaps also being undercounted as "likely voters" too if not many crossed over in past elections.

It will also be interesting to see after the Iowa caucuses how many caucus attendees report a greater number of "new" Democrats that have recently registered as Democrats attending these caucuses, as unlike primaries, people all see these voters gathered in one big room for each precinct area. It will be interesting to see if there are more millenials present and more independent or Republican cross over voters there.

If there are a lot, that will be a big message that many of the rest of the states could see similar growth in numbers.

Everyone looks at rallies for their choice and assumes that crowds mean votes. They forget how many voters there are that don't participate in things like this.

Otherwise Ron Paul would have had the Repub primary locked down twice in the past.

The polls are the only indicator that can be worked with, and Bernie has made big gains in New Hampshire to take the lead, and he has made big gains in Iowa.. undeniable. He's also narrowed the gap significantly in just a few months.. He's still a very long way from being anywhere near the actual Democratic Party frontrunner though. The best he's come is with Hillary still being +18, and the most recent RP has the divide at +25.

Also look at the chart at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

For the first time Sanders has started to level out. If he's loosing momentum this early on...

I know the rallies weren't the size they were on the west coast, but they've still had to move several to accommodate the crowds that did show up.

He's still pulling in good crowds given the political climate in Iowa.

I WILL note that Hillary Clinton has staff in every County in Iowa.

One always performs the most thorough analysis on that which does not matter.

Caucuses are a pain compared to primaries. So there's been a lot of candidates who were popular, but couldn't get people to show up at the caucuses. Dean is the most recent famous example.

Since Clinton's supporters tend to be older, they are considered more likely to bother with the caucuses. The assumption is "the kids" won't bother, as they did not bother with Dean.

We'll see if that assumption pans out or not.

Also glad to see he has a solid lead in NH that's now been shown in 3 polls.

"Without Biden in the race, Sanders' lead over Clinton in the current survey increases to 11 points, 49 percent to 38 percent."

An establishment pundit is in the the same category as a Bush administration spokesman. One can tell they're lying because their lips are moving and they're not chewing food.

Making it worthless.

"Without Biden in the race, Sanders' lead over Clinton in the current survey increases to 11 points, 49 percent to 38 percent."

But still, why include him?

Hate to tell the Sanders supporters....those that are picking Biden....will go to HRC not Sanders....

and even with Biden in......Hillary is STILL ahead of the pack by double digits!

You are right...worthless!