No matter their final choice, 43 percent said they would be enthusiastic and 45 percent said they would be satisfied with Clinton as the Democratic nominee, while 30 percent and 45 percent would be the same for Sanders' potential nomination.

way!

This is pretty significant, although Sanders is still doing pretty well in the polls. He hasn't been dropping and remains steady at 30%, which is pretty significant, too.

Either way, we have two strong candidates and I couldn't be happier!

So yeahhhh... Have fun with that poll.

Monmouth got alot of heat for last month's poll, and rightly so, because they only used past primary voters. This month they used voters who voted in at least one of the past two primary elections, in both the 2012 and 2014 general elections or who have registered to vote in the past year. Its not surprising her numbers went down.

...Clinton won in both.

Great numbers for Hillary!

We Hillary supporters have to admit Bernie is connecting with young voters. She will still win but its something the Hillary team needs to keep in mind.

I don't think that's very representative of what the actual reality of the situation is.

It's also reality that Hillary is not connecting as well with younger voters as Bernie. It wont matter in the end but its an issue.

Iowa is gonna be sooo sweet for Hillary!

and those 50 and older go 63% to 26% clinton
50 and under 48% to 38% sanders

together that means 50% to 37% with clinton the winner

This thing will be over before the end of March, and Hillary will be our party's nominee.

explaining how the Western Illinois University makes its predictions. Since 1975 the
Univ. has made its predictions of who the next president would be, and they have
never been wrong. The accuracy has been 100% so far. (Of course, there is always
the possibility of a "first time" happening here). Just read below how thorough their
methods are.

West. Ill. Univ. has predicted a landslide victory for Sanders in 2016.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Western-Illinois-University-Predicts-Bernie-Sanders-Victory-in-2016-346130992.html

are pretty much the same as the ones described in the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=884726

I get dumped on because I'm actually harder on my fellow Sanders supporters than I am on Clinton supporters. And its true that I've pointed out that the fact Obama came back from a big deficit in Iowa doesn't prove anything about how Bernie will do.

But I've also said it before and I'll say it again (as someone who will not hesitate to support Clinton if she does get the nomination) -- her supporters here ought to stop spiking the football before the kick off has taken place.

Polls are always a crapshoot this far out from an election. And in Iowa polls have proven decidedly unreliable in the past, even shortly before the caucuses. In 2012, on the repub side, Santorum eked out a narrow victory even though he scored no better than third place in any pre-caucus poll.

The reason is that the Iowa caucuses are particularly dependent on a candidate's ground game. I have no doubt that Clinton has a good ground game. I also think that Sanders' ground game, which focuses heavily on the college towns in Iowa is better than the polls suggest. I've been involved in more than a couple of elections and the surprising thing is that even the campaigns typically don't really know how well their GOTV operations are working until election day.

So while I won't be surprised if Clinton takes Iowa, I also won't be surprised if it's a lot closer than the polls are suggesting and as long as the Clinton supporters set the bar where they're setting it, the perception will not be so great for Clinton going forward.

Buckle up, this rodeo is just starting.

Not a valid comparison.

And 20 points higher than some polls had him at the end of November.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html#polls

Apples and oranges.

eom