and probably win there also.. then its all Hillary from there. The only question then will be when will Sanders drop out.

Fortunately we don't have to pay for the nine hours of free cable time given to her campaign yesterday.

Sanders might hold on for a bit till his money runs out just to keep his message out there but practically it will be over.

eom

He's comfortable in Vermont.

And that you don't remember that Hillary went $20 million in debt in trying to beat Obama in 2008 . . . Take another look.

He might continue on without funding to keep his message out there but once it becomes obvious its over the money will dry up.

Bernie Sanders has not had his face on the TV for 12 hours straight, he has spent ZERO on campaign advertising, he DOES have the support of 2/3 of the 75,000,000 millennials in this country, and has built a nearly infinite campaign funding source. What a joke.

-- The debate didn't help him... in fact it hurt him.
-- Biden's out so that theory of splitting the establishment vote is out.
-- The possibility of Hillary imploding at the Benghazi interrogations didn't happen.. far from it.
-- The email "scandal" is dying since there is nothing really there.
-- He's still not connecting with African American voters.

It seems like his pathways to victory, or even to making it competitive, are closing.

and unlike HRC, BS has not yet even started advertising in those states. So I think your asessment may be premature.

Also, based on the thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251700505 it seems that the debate helped BS. Why do you say it hurt him?

edit: if you mean the debate hurt BS based on this same poll (in the OP), it does show that he dropped from 41 to 40, but with margin of error, that's not enough to conclude that the debate hurt him in Iowa (much less nationwide)... though it does seem that, in Iowa at least, it really helped HRC!

Why hasn't Bernie started advertising? What's he waiting for? Odd strategy.

but whether the debate hurt BS (i.e. did his numbers go down as a result).

Also, from what I've seen, almost all the recent polls had the two of them within margin of error, which means the question of who was ahead was inconclusive.

As for the "odd strategy," well, he isn't expecting to have HRC's fiancial resources, so he is being careful. Being ahead in October is not so important for an election in February. If he's looking at a limited amount of funds, he may feel that, for a Feb election, it may be more beneficial to spend more in Nov/Dec/Jan, than it would have been to spend some of that money sooner. Whether or not it might have turned out to be an odd strategy is, I guess, something we'll know on Feb 2.

If he intends on winning he needs to gain ground.

with little variations which are probably within the MOE.

It does show that HRC has improved since the debate, but doesn't show that BS was hurt.

Regardless, it's still early. Most people are not as plugged in as DU folk are. Even after the debate, one poll showed that 23% of Democrats still hadn't heard of Sanders, and another 6% had heard of him but not enough to have formed an opinion (whereas of course virtually all of them had heard of and had an opinion about HRC). So it remains to be seen, what will happen in the next few months... in a sense, the debate marked the real beginning of the process, not the end.

Just the opposite happened. Clearly his chances of winning this thing have dropped significantly after the debate... that's my point.

but it was only the first debate. If that's all that mattered, there would be no reason to have more.

She is on a roll now and has shed much of the negative baggage with her strong performance in both the debate and the Benghazi interrogations. And well Bernie is Bernie. He is not a strong debater. Unless he gets more aggressive and attacks her directly I doubt he can change the current dynamics which favor Hillary.

Team Clinton has been trying to make everyone else an "also-ran" early. Sanders is doing the more "traditional" route where you put up ads closer to the primary/caucus.

Clinton is leading by 11 with Sanders only getting word-of-mouth and light media coverage.

There's still plenty to be done.

Many people are making up their minds now and might not be as receptive to ads later on.

Also, you might want to consider Clinton's massive burn rate. Spending 80% of her campaign funds by October 1st may be problematic.

I think that the least of her worries.

And since she's still running large advertising campaigns, she's probably fallen behind.

But it is amusing watching Clinton supporters blithely ignore the loss of what was touted as a massive advantage.

I really dont think this is going to be an issue at all.

eom

Yesterday proved that.

I'd like to see the 2/3rds of 75million figure broken down and sourced.

eom

without ever offering a citation. I've asked a for one a few times but no information has been forthcoming.

I keep seeing that number, but it doesn't appear to be reflected elsewhere.

I guess they'll be the "stealth millennials" and show up at all the caucuses and primaries. I work the caucuses in Minnesota. Not many millennials every show up at them. We'll see if that changes this year. I doubt it, really. They didn't show up for Obama at the caucuses here, either, in 2008. You know who did? Black voters who hadn't done that before. That's who showed up. I remember that caucus here very clearly. It was a sea change.

Internets polls so if Bernie is basing his campaign on that well.....good luck Bernie fans!

Bernies only shot is a win in Iowa and/or NH.

Hillary has got the rest on lock down and the nomination as well.

Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)

...knowing that, if he can't win, he still has a platform to discuss his issues. Same as Jerry Brown in '92.

He must have plenty of time to represent the "far left" of the party.

He has about as many constituents as a congressional district and consequently as many different interest groups.

He already has the support of 2/3 of the 75,000,000 millennials in this country. THAT means if he is nominated, he wins in a landslide and probably carries at least one house of Congress by which he can begin work to fix our horrible problems.

He also knows that if Hillary is nominated, she will likely narrowly win in a very dirty fight but sit on her butt in the Oval Office for four years doing NOTHING or CAVING to the GOP because both houses of Congress will be more Republican than ever - kinda like having Benghazi every day!

Citation, please?

Iowa has been up and down for both candidates, and with Hillary's response in the polls to her debate performance I was a little worried she would jump to a massive lead there. But 11 points isn't really that much. This is still a close race.

It is a close race in IA and NH because those homogeneous states are the Vermont senator's wheelhouse. It is not particularly close in many other states, the lion's share of which are infinitely more heterogeneous.

Oh, and 12 points is a nice surge... The next poll will show Hillary another surge for slaying the Republicans on the Benghazi Committee.

those numbers even higher. Thanks republicans!

and I've always said since 2005 if she ever ran and got the spot I won't vote for a conservative running as a Democrat. Bush Jr is tooo much like her. The only plus She's no puppet. Bush is a puppet of Dick Cheney , we had a VP running the USA for 8 years. But if your part of the 1 % your pulling for her. She could win but it'll be a disaster for us and in 4 yrs might end up with some idiot. I sure as hell hope I'm wrong

Canvasing as usual Hillary who? never came to the door Sanders supporters have so has Rand Paul supporters and they are rather nice too.. Rands less of a warhawk than Hillary which made it ironic when I'm talking to the supporter that while saying if Hillary got it I'd rather vote for Hillary my mom who is anti war (I'm not) said nope Hillary first. I just wasn't in the chatting mood at the time. Either way Sanders has I think attempted to turn her a bit more to the left but in actions she's the same person she was in 2008. But this is a bigger risk running her as a nominee than Obama ever was. And not all women are gonna vote for a woman.

Rating Clinton's personal qualities, Iowa Democrats say:
70 - 24 percent that she is honest and trustworthy;
92 - 7 percent that she has strong leadership qualities;
83- 15 percent that she cares about their needs and problems;
92 - 7 percent that she has the right kind of experience to be president.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2292

SMH

nt

70% think she is honest and trustworthy.

That number will go up thanks to Gowdy and his antics.

....those voters will go - to Hillary Clinton.

Look for a flurry of new polls to come out either today or early next week which will not include Biden, Webb, or Chafee.

No doubt if O'Malley eventually withdraws many of his votes will go to her, too.

Here are the results of the last two Quinnipiac polls:

Early Sept: Clinton 40 Sanders 41 Biden 12 Webb 3 O'Malley 1 Chaffee 0

Today: Clinton 51 Sanders 40 Biden - Webb - O'Malley 4 Chaffee 0

With both Webb and Biden no longer included, Clinton gained 11 points, O'Malley gained 3 points, Sanders LOST 1 point.

Before the debate I believe. These new numbers coming without Uncle Joe and after Hillary's triumphant witch trial performance should show a huge lead over Bernie

who gets Chafee's .5% support???

Good for him-- I thought he did well in the debate.