Happens every time. Remember, Obama didn't lead nationally until well into the primary season.

A bump isn't what he needs in the most populous states that send large numbers of delegates to the convention, though. It will take far more than a bump to give him a win in most of the 47 states not on on that list of three, even assuming he wins those.

Comparisons with Barack Obama are not useful, frankly. Bernie Sanders does not have the personal appeal Obama has at all. He has good ideas, but lacks that appeal to most voters. A bump? Perhaps. How large? Impossible to say. However, probably not large enough to turn many states into Bernie states, I'm afraid.

I've been following presidential politics since 1960. I'm not a newcomer to this stuff.

I could have used any other candidate who's won an early caucus/primary. Another thing to consider that it's possible that much of Hillary's support is centered around people believing she has the best chance to win. If she loses the first two primary contests, that confidence could be shaken and people might be more willing to accept an alternative. Also, despite Bernie being her main competitor, he still isn't known very well by roughly 20-30% of the country. A win in both early states would expose him to, well, just about everybody paying attention.

Bottom line: If Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire it would be huge and completely upend this race.

effect as you seem to think. My opinion. We'll know if there is any effect after the March 1 primaries and caucuses. Things will be crystal clear at that point, I'm certain.

You say he doesn't have that personal appeal, but for a lot of people he does have that personal appeal. Not in the well polished media savvy sense we're used to, but in that honest grandfatherly sense. People talk a lot about how devoted his supporters are to him, well that didn't just happen by accident. He has a lot of charm, it's just not the kind that we're recently used to in national politics.

How far that stretches none of us yet know, but if you consider the people who engage less with politics are possibly more likely to find bluff honesty appealing, there is potential for him to make huge amounts of progress with the remaining majority of the electorate.

This is 2015. The cast has changed somewhat. Obama won. He's not in this election. There's no comparison at all.

The numbers are showing that Bernie has surpassed Obama's numbers at this point in 2008.

Living in the deep South--you know, the place Dems believe will be needed to carry them to victory--I have observed politics for ages. When Obama was starting to run, the young kids came out for him early here in the south, making me think he could win. I had to work to convince a lot of my older liberal friends that he had a chance. My brother, a dem activist from way back, kept saying "all these rednecks will vote for HRC, but will never go for a black man. She could win, we have to support her", and so on. This election all my lunatic fringe contacts have gone for Bernie long ago. All the kids. They don't have to be convinced that a Jewish, older man, socialist, could win it all. They are very enthusiastic from the gitgo. That's just how it feels down in the trenches. Reporting from Florida...

The correct answer is if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, he will probably be the next President.

He's retired.

If so, that may help to get some of the "undecided" voters, but are there enough undecideds to make a difference?

in most states to overcome current leads. From my experience, though, undecided voters tend to fall into about the same percentages at election time as the groups who have already decided. There ultimate decisions usually are relatively close to the same split as was already in place by those who had already made their choices.

Most voters are only getting to know Bernie well now. Clinton support is based on voter familiarity and the idea she can win. The only demographic that is enthusiastic about Hillary are Democratic middle age white middle class woman. Once Bernie is portrayed as a winner much of Clinton's support based on her being a winner will melt away.

Many, perhaps a majority, of people so far haven't settled firmly on any candidate. Poll after poll shows that people would be willing to change their minds on way or another. A win in both early states would likely convince quite a few people to switch to Bernie.

I can certainly see how some big-scandal or revelation could make someone abandon a candidate they'd previously chosen. But it's difficult for me to imagine that the "bandwagon effect" would be able to have the same effect on someone who's already made a decision.

What seems more likely is that if someone is still undecided, at such a late date, then they're likely to be the type of voter who can be more easily persuaded by the bandwagon.

If someone can be influenced by the bandwagon effect, then that's a voter that likely sees both candidates as being equal in all ways. It's a voter that truly cannot make up their mind and the bandwagon effect is just enough to tip the scales.

Or, the other type of voter who's likely to be so influenced is the low-information voter who really hasn't been paying much attention. Lacking information on the candidates, this voter ALSO see the candidates as being comparatively "equal" (even though the voter hasn't actually done any comparison.)

As a result, this voter lets others decide for him/her. They're inclined to "choose" a candidate based on perceived electability and that candidate's most recent victory. Perhaps this voter is thinking "everyone likes a winner" and who doesn't want to be on the "winning team"?

What you're looking for in most polls is how enthusiastic they are with their top-line choice. Very enthusiastic won't change. Less than that can change.

Clinton doesn't have a lot of very enthusiastic.

Remember, they haven't actually made their decision until they actually vote.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if my intention was to deny the existence of such authoritative information, I'd have at least made some overt effort to demand proof and insist on links ... none of which I did. It was just a statement of fact, nothing more, nothing less. The rest was clearly my opinion based on my own experiences and what I know of human nature. Take it or leave it.

The rest was directed at your reply.

Only "very enthusiastic" supporters can be considered "locked-in". Everyone else can change their mind, and have in prior elections.

Clinton doesn't have a lot of "very enthusiastic".

I'm not entirely certain where else this conversation can go. Or, we could do this:

After all, Clinton had just as much of a commanding lead in polls, with a roughly similar "undecided".

That kinda demonstrates that people really do change their mind.

I understand how Bernie fans find that to be a comforting notion, but that's all it is. Sanders does not have the same ground game as Obama. Sanders is not the same orator as Obama. Sanders cannot benefit from having a candidate like John Edwards dropping out of the race. (At best, Sanders could pick up all 3% of O'Malley's voters, and that's not much help. Realistically, O'Malley's supporters would probably find Hillary a better match.) So, hold tight to it if it helps you to feel more secure, but it's pure fantasy.

Your claim is that people have made up their mind and will not change their vote.

That is utterly untrue. If you are so fixated on "Sanders is not Obama", then look at the GOP side for 2008. Or Kerry trailing in 2004 yet winning the nomination. People change their mind all the time.

The only people who do not change their mind in significant numbers are "very excited" voters. Everyone else is open to changing their mind.

candidate, which certainly is not Sanders.

Hence bringing up candidates as "transformative" as McCain and Kerry.

He's the angry candidate, that's his schtick. Grumpy, blustering, abrasive, angry, abrupt and the angry-base adores him for it. He's "their-man" heart and soul. I guess when you've met your perfect-match soul mate, you know it.

But the traits in him that they find to be "charming" or "endearing" are not traits that have universal appeal. Many voters like myself, find them to be irritating and off-putting.

For all the talk about Hillary being a "war monger", I have to wonder how they can feel comfortable with a hot-headed candidate like Bernie in the White House. His performance at the last debate convinced me that he's a one-dimensional candidate who lacks the ability to effectively govern on all the issues and challenges that are likely to come up.

I prefer a calm, confident and intelligent candidate who understands the issues through and through. The last thing we need is an emotionally-driven finger-wagging president. I'm sure such unfiltered behavior will really impress other leaders at the international summits and presidential visits.

Bernie's "message" resonates only with those who already like him. He lacks the charisma and energizing qualities that Obama brought to the 2008 election. His base is is base, and that's all it will be.

very powerful set of issues. Were he to win Iowa and NH, he would be portrayed by the media as a "winner" and the entire campaign dynamic would shift.

Voters will change their minds when they have a good enough reason to do so. Sanders has none of the charisma and presence that Obama had. Sanders gives no compelling reason for any voter change their mind.

Sanders is not Obama. He just doesn't have what it takes. He's abrupt, gruff, angry, fidgety, slouchy, and annoying. He's found his "angry base" already.

We've exhausted this as well. To continue would be a waste of my time.

Yes, when all hope is lost, try to find a correlation between two unrelated moments in time.

however, is very relevant. You forget that HRC did not lose support in 2008, it was that she was never above 50% and Obama picked up Edwards voters.

That dynamic is not in play - unlike Obama, Bernie actually has to take votes away from HRC. And there is no evidence of that happening.

If you're going to lie, at least make it a lie that is not trivial to debunk.

there was no massive drop as Obama overtook her. Edward supporters made the difference.

Why the anger? Even if I was wrong, that doesn't make it a lie. Sometimes people are simply wrong.

according to your graph. Over the year her support stayed within a narrow 5-7 point band.

If what happened in 2008 happens again, HRC doesn't fall below 50%. So how does she lose?

Instead, it was NurseJackie's theory that voters never, ever, ever change their mind in a primary election.

because he is not going to be taking a significant number of votes away from HRC.

the craziness on both sides makes DU suck.

Classic.

that they'll willingly suspend disbelief and pretend that two different things are similar. I'm not sure which Kübler-Ross step it applies to, but I'm sure it's one of them. Denial? Bargaining?

They ignore the facts and the dynamics and boil it down to the simplest terms: "ahead" and "not-ahead". Hillary was "ahead" and then she was "not ahead". That's all that matters.

No regard is given to where Obama's votes actually came from. They don't materialize out of thin air. He didn't "score" more votes from a pool of limitless voters, as though he was in a football game. They had to come from somewhere.

Truthfully, I think they know this in their heart-of-hearts. But arguing about it makes them feel as though maybe it's true.

But it's not.

...but it undeniable that the dynamics of 2008 are similar to 2015.

Hillary was ahead in every national poll in 2008. Obama ended up winning the nomination.

No reason to think that Bernie can't repeat the same.

That makes the likelihood of Bernie pulling an Obama unlikely.

and there is no indication that Bernie is significantly eroding that support. One fundamental difference between 2008 and 2015 is that there is no third candidate with significant support so Bernie is going to have to peel away Clinton supporters in order to win. That is not happening.

You know that, right?

that bernie has a lot of crossover appeal and is getting support from nonestablishment types who may lean conservative but for whatever reason(i can't imagine ), don't see trump or carson as a good option.

"crossover appeal" because she was so much like a Republican that nobody could tell the difference.

I read that, and I was like:

i think that there will be many surprises this election. people seem to be in no mood to be played by anyone, and trump is in the #1 gop spot. that tells me that all bets are off.

gonna need plenty of this:

Using facebook and click bait sites.
Bernie always does better with those.

according to those, I hear. Speaking of the bandwagon effect, I mean.

I'm afraid I tend to look much more closely to traditional polling measurements. They've done OK in the past and the best of them have been really really close to the actual voter results.

This is a state-by-state democratic primary.

Iowa, NH, NV and SC are the states that vote first.

The campaign is just ramping up in the first state to vote--Iowa, and it's caucuses are about ten weeks away. With that said, even the Iowa polls will shift wildly before caucus day. The bulk of the poll moving will happen during the later 4-6 weeks of the Iowa campaign. That is when the campaigns will peak and be in full-force mode.

So really, when you look ahead at other state polls--you are looking at polls that matter somewhat--but not really. The full brunt of the campaigns (the ads, the mailers, the ground game, the large events, the speeches, etc.) haven't even begun. Furthermore, the people aren't really paying attention, like they do after the campaigns roll into their states.

Like 2008--and all primary seasons--the numbers do not galvanize until the final weeks before the vote

Look at Iowa--Bernie was polling at 4 percent in the late spring. Four percent!!

If you really want to know where these campaigns are, analyze the polling data and the goings on in the states with impending primaries.

Good luck!

almost all 50 states. Some of it isn't current, but for the Super Tuesday states, there are recent polls available. You can find all of the existing statewide polls here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016


I choose to look at them from time to time. The March 1 Primaries are getting closer and closer, so the polling companies are polling in them with some frequency. Maybe you should take a look for yourself.

...and I find all of the polling quite fascinating.

I love pouring over the numbers. Sometimes you can catch trends or see differences between regions or states. And polls will absorb events like debates or gaffes--and the numbers change.

It's cool.

However, when it comes to the significance of these polls--the most meaningful numbers are from those states with impending primaries.

Obama was down in EVERY STATE POLL in 2008 at this time. He didn't lead one.

But he went on to win the 08 primary.

Obama was also losing every national poll at this point in 08.

Some states I'd keep an eye on:
Wisconsin
Connecticut
Michigan
Minnesota
Virginia
California

he will have good chance to win the following states at least:
Maine
Mass.
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Delaware
Virginia
Ohio
West Virginia
Michigan
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Illinois
Minnesota
South Dakota
Montana
Idaho
Missouri
Nebraska
Kansas
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
California
Oregon
Washington
Utah
Hawaii
and Vermont of course

For the purposes of this thread "we" is whoever thinks Sanders will win NH and IA or anyone willing to concede those states. For the sake of argument, I'm conceding them in this thread.

"We" is a tough word to define. It all depends on who's talking.

Sorry, but that's simply true.

As was proven in 2007.

Only time will tell. Your opinion don't mean shit.

Nice. I guess that's your opinion, then...

Bernie is not now nor will he ever be Obama, period!

I'm glad you agree.

What was it? TPP?

Bernie doesn't make campaign promises he has no intention of even TRYING to fulfill.

Thanks for reminding us.

The major difference is, Sanders might actually attempt to implement the policies he advocates during the campaign.

The House is still going to be Republican. The Senate might swing to a tiny Democratic majority, but that's far from certain. Presidents can do little of major importance without a cooperative Congress. He might try, but failure is the same as not trying, in the end.

"Do. Or do not. There is no try." - Yoda

Your comment was that Sanders wasn't Obama and I pointed out that Sanders, unlike Obama wouldn't simply roll over and tolerate the lack of cooperation he'd almost surely expect from a republican controlled congress.

path to the nomination. I asked people to tell me what that path might be. All I got in response were references to 2008.

That won't wash, and people will understand that in a couple of months.

No way you can type that and follow it up by telling someone "your opinion don't mean shit." Ok. This was funny as could be. Has to be a joke, sarcasm, or Colbert parody in there somewhere.

Post this eight years ago, with completely different people, and you would know the answer.

Love it.

in electoral history. I don't think anybody can make that claim about Senator Sanders.

They do phone banking for him, and make sure there are table with info at local festivals, fairs, and farmers markets.

He has volunteers creating online presence such as at feelthebern.org a site created by a hundred or more passionate volunteers.

They have set up reddits, facebook pages, and twitter accounts to spread the message as well.

a ground game make. Candidate Obama drew on his community organizing background to create a massive GOTV effort that was face-to-face, personal in nature.

We shall see; I'm willing to entertain the notion that Sanders can turn out the kids in numbers high enough to tip the balance in some white states and make a race of it. I have some doubts about how that will pan out, but hey -- been wrong before!

Will the youth vote cancel out forty years of sweat equity in the African American community? Time will tell.

I think the African American community is nowhere near the monolith you think it is. There are people with views across the spectrum in every community.

...about Obama's ground game being stellar. I experienced it first hand in Iowa. It was a beautiful thing.

However, we cant judge Sander's ground game because no campaign has unleashed this part of the campain yet. Not even Hillary.

I think both camps (and their supporters), are getting anxious because we're kind of in a holding pattern here. The campaigns are active now, but won't get into forth gear until December. The Iowa's caucuses, the first primary--aren't until Feb 1. We're most likely going to have to wait until mid-December until things get really heated.

That's when the ground games gear up. That's when the polls become more telling. That's when voters are giving their full attention and making final decisions.

I am dying to see how things go down in Iowa and what happens. We usually drag our kids to a few of political rallies a week, the phone is ringing off the hook from campaigns, canvassers are at the door constantly and we are treated to at least 4,000 political tv ads a day.

I can't wait for all of the crazy!!! I especially can't wait to caucus.

as front runner and Clinton as the underdog. Those wins will have some effect on the subsequent elections though wins in the Southern States and Super Delegate totals are likely to overwhelm any temporary benefit Sanders gets.

I do not think that Clinton will loose Iowa.

New Hampshire is a real possibility. Clinton won it in 2008 and found no route to the nomination.

Loosing New Hampshire is not predictive.

Since 1952, in all primaries that were either open or where a sitting President had a primary challenger, the winner of New Hampshire became the nominee 7 out of 13 times. Now, two of those elections, Johnson in 1968 and Carter in 1980, the sitting President won the Primary but Johnson ultimately withdrew and Carter lost the election.

Having a primary opponent of a sitting President appears to be a bad sign for the party.

be a higher level support of actual registered voters for Bernie than is being reported. It is all propaganda now, the polls and all.

If you see organizations, like Politico, WaPo, N Y Times via Brooks), CNN calling Hillary's ISIS plan the best there is a reason. Those organizations have lead all the attacks against Hillary in the past.

Useful.. I will keep that in mind.

Like you did for Charlie crist

Republican.

Openly advocated for a third party in fla against the elected dem nominee
Party unity be damned then i suppose
And admins allowed it

Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 02:42 PM - Edit history (2)

And might have beat Rubio if people like you would have come to their senses instead of wasting a vote on a weak candidate just because he had a "D" next to his name.

But at least you can finally admit you openly advocated for a third party candidate over the dem that we the dem voters of florida selected
Did that work out for anyo e or.do we have senator fing rubio now thanks to people like you advocating not voti g for the dem?

Final Results
===============
Marco Rubio 48.9%
Charlie Crist 29.7%
Kendrick Meek 20.2%

Crist + Meek = 49.9%

The rusults are the same
Was kendrick too dark for you?

Eta crist had lost the primary why do you thi k third party was better than what we the florida voters chose?

No way Kendrick Meek could win a statewide contest at that time. Few Crist voters would have switched to Meek even if Crist dropped out. On the contrary, if Meek had dropped out, I suspect 99% of his votes goes to Crist and we beat Rubio.

Too bad we had so many hardheaded Dems like you insisting on throwing the election to a Republican.

I hae lived in florida sin e 1959 so talk down to someone else about it
You just said hardheaded democrats threw an election by voting for a democrat!
Dear god you third wayers are the worse humans on earth.
Too bad we had so many " democrats" like you advocating a vote for a third party republican instead of supporting the democratic ELECTED nominee.

Case closed.

I voted for the dem

took a nosedive before those primaries even took place. His steep decline began in 2007. The situations are not equivalent if that's your example.

sidelines.

By not contesting Iowa and New Hampshire, Giuliani marginalized himself.

After the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses had taken place, McCain had established himself as the front runner and Giuliani could never re-gain the momentum he had for most of 2007.

Your candidate a welcome to concede any and all of the primaries.

Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

at Clinton headquarters.

I don't really involve myself directly in presidential politics. My focus is on state and federal legislative races in my home state of Minnesota. I'm just a voter in presidential races, although I do canvass for the Democratic nominee while doing so for down-ticket candidates.

to change the polls in the other states. If she loses the first two the media will start telling a "Here We Go Again" story, which Bernie will hope to parlay into winning the Obama coalition to his side.

The problem with that is Hillary is actually building an organization in the early states this time. This makes it very difficult to see how Bernie wins any of the delegate-rich states.

Yes, anything can happen, but it's starting to feel like it's going to take some completely unforeseen meltdown and collapse by Hillary for Bernie to pull this out.

First Clinton supporters were trying to forgo the primaries by saying that Clinton had already won, now we are to forgo the primaries by conceding two states to Sanders.

Can we please, please, please cast some votes first?

Seriously, she's very likely to win Iowa, and probably NH, if all these polls can be believed. Pssst, Bernie supporters, I know what you're thinking.

My entire point is that I cannot, for the life of me, see any path to the nomination for Sanders. The Paris thing also threw a monkey wrench into Bernie's campaign, I believe. Suddenly, security concerns are on people's minds, and Bernie couldn't stick to the topic of the day for even two minutes in his opening statement at the Iowa debate. That seemed really tone-deaf to me.

I think he may have lost Iowa with that opening statement. Truly I do.

But that State is closer than Iowa.

Iowa I think she'll win. The momentum could shift, but I doubt that it will, failing some major event that makes Sanders' conversation more pertinent, I don't see it happening. This ISIS attack and the continuing concerns are the topic right now, and Sanders doesn't have an answer that eases the concerns.

Say hello to Congressman Dave Brat:

Being president means handling many complex and difficult issues at the same time. IMHO, Bernie is not up to that, and it shows.

It will be HRC and her campaign conceding, not "we."

Many of that "we" will be celebrating when he wins IA and NH. We will have supported him in that effort.

And then, as his ability to win can no longer be ignored, I suspect he will pick up more support in the rest of the states, just as Obama did in '08, when these same questions were being asked.

But we don't.

Obama's 2008 win in IA moved his poll numbers in SC, for example. Clinton's IA loss caused her poll numbers to slide in several "Super Tuesday" states, then rebound some with her NH win.

Since we don't have a single, national primary, early results greatly affect later results.

But I would more like to see, and think I might see, a complete sweep for Clinton. We will move into the general more unified than we have been in decades. A true primary sweep, over by super Tuesday if that.

I'm just conducting a thought experiment with this thread.

Here's what I noticed: After the Paris attack, which is still heavy in the news, Bernie fluffed his opening statement in the Iowa debate. His poll results have suffered ever since there. He's also lost some ground in New Hampshire at the same time. One thing that everyone should recognize about US voters is that the news affects them, particularly when it has to do with security issues.

Bernie's all about "that economy, no trouble." He didn't have an effective statement about Paris, and switched over to his stock economic statement for most of the opening statement. I think that may well have cost him Iowa and possibly New Hampshire. People get nervous when there's stuff like that going on and they want to hear something that eases their minds. Bernie didn't provide it, and I think that's showing in these polls in Iowa and NH.

We'll see. If ISIS stuff stays in the news, people will continue to want to hear "solutions" from candidates. If they're not forthcoming, they'll switch allegiance.

O'Malley is who we should watch for in Iowa in my opinion. Thankfully this is all just about over and we will know once the voting/caucusing starts.

but I anticipate Sanders getting a few NE states.

Yeah, good luck with that.

His path has impossible obstacles in the way.

We're going to win the nomination and the presidency.

In fact you can just give up now and avoid the rush later...

The Clinton campaign could easily afford to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and sill wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday. All delegates will awarded proportionatedly and so even if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton will still win a significant percentage of the available delegates and will be in great shape for South Carolina, Nevada and Super Tuesday. Again, only a small number of delegates are available in Iowa and New Hampshire and at worst the Clinton campaign will only be down a small number of delegates due to proportional allocation rules.

In 2008, Clinton did not have a good ground game in place in Iowa and President Obama out organized her. A number of the Obama Iowa team came straight from Iowa to Texas to work on the Texas two step where two-thirds of the delegates were awarded in the primary and one-third in the caucus. Clinton won the primary but President Obama's people out perfored the Clinton people in the caucuses and Obama got the most delegates from Texas. The same people who worked for President Obama in 2008 are now working for Hillary Clinton. The Clinton campaign is not taking Iowa for granted.

Texas is not using the Texas two step this year the (the DNC killed it) and so all of the delegates will be allocated based of the primary where Clinton is currently polling well. Sanders will need to start appealing to African American and Latino voters if he wants to do well in the Texas primary which has almost three times the number of delegates of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bottom line is that narrow losses in two 90+% white states is not going to hurt the Clinton campaign given the demographics of most of the states in the SEC portion of the Super Tuesday primaries