2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIn polling: 2015 is not a repeat of 2007
I'm not going to go through a huge analysis, but there has been, for awhile, this belief that a similar spread between Clinton and Obama is proof that 2015 is following the same pattern. It is not.
First, Clinton's support at this point in 2007 was around 45% today it is at 55+%. I really hope I don't need to explain why being over 50% is significant.
Secondly, in 2007 the top two candidates accounted for only 67% of total support. There were still significant room to gain extra supporters from Edwards and undecideds. Obama ended up picking up the majority of that remaining 33%. In 2015, the top two candidates account for 85+% total support. There is not a deep well for easy votes.
Obama was able to take the upper hand from Clinton without drawing significantly from her base of support. The only way Sanders can win is to convince Clinton supporters to change candidates. This is possible but a much harder job than Obama had in 2007.
In this case past is not prelude, because the races are in much different places. Sanders' path is much more difficult than Obama's.
Jarqui
(10,128 posts)msrizzo
(796 posts)This is why they are getting more aggressive about hitting Hillary. But that's not a great place to be at this point and although Bernie Sanders will throw out a few hits, I don't see him going scorched earth which is almost what it would take at this point.
Response to Godhumor (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Jarqui
(10,128 posts)CBS/NYT Clinton +19
FOX News Clinton +25
McClatchy Clinton +22
Quinnipiac Clinton +18
NBC/WSJ Clinton +31
It's pretty hard to deviate from "Clinton is very comfortably in front" because those polls are way outside the margin for error.
She got the Benghazi email thing behind her. Had a pretty good first debate.
And she's pivoting to start spending her millions on ads ... that the M$M would like to get their mitts on ... so they've likely got their hand out and are going to play nice for a while.
If this was true..
"Obama was able to take the upper hand from Clinton without drawing significantly from her base of support. The only way Sanders can win is to convince Clinton supporters to change candidates."
Then you would indeed be correct. Lucky it is not true. Sanders does not only have Clinton's supporters to draw from. The percentage of people who vote in primaries is awfully low. Huge numbers of people have never voted in them, and many others don't because they've become disaffected by the party, or just don't think the party speaks to their needs. They represent a frankly vast potential voter base, and its rather sad that we've reached a point where that huge majority is basically just ignored by the party in general.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)And even if they did, all indications are they're not breaking to Sanders nearly as much as people here would like to think.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)How would we know how they're breaking? What proportion of polls are using the 'must have voted in at least one of the last two primaries' criteria? Serious question, if you wouldn't mind indulging me, as I genuinely don't know.
As for them voting en mass, that's basically his mountain to climb. If he wants the presidency and if we want him to get it, that's probably what's required. If he can't pull it off then fair enough, back to regular viewing for another 8 years.
Gothmog
(145,475 posts)The key issue is that Sanders appears to have a very narrow base of support that is not expanding. African American and Latino voters are not supporting Sanders but are supporting Clinton which will make the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses fun to watch
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)gave at a previous Dem convention that put his name on everyone's list of possible Presidential contenders and his popular autobiography.
Oh wait that was Obama.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)You got me chuckling here at work.
"No wait that was Obama." Now that's funny!
RAISE HILL 2016!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And it didn't happen by luck or just going around talking. He put together a team as formidable as any campaign team we have seen. The only team even close to that right now is Clintons. Second closest is O'Malley, which is why we are starting to see him move. The line of though when people trot this out is simply offensive to what Obama did in '08.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)K&R