Why the 2016 Democratic Nomination is Lining Up To Be The 2008 Sequel (NUMBERS)

[berni_mccoy]

Bernie Sanders may not be Barack Obama, but Hillary is still Hillary and the 2016 Democratic Primary is shaping up alarmingly like the 2008 Democratic Primary by the numbers, but maybe not in the way most would think. This year, it's all about the youth vote.

In 2008, the voting turnout for Barack Obama was historic. According to Pew Research, 15.8 Million African American Voters turned out for Obama in the general election. During the primary, according to CBS, Obama received 82% of the African American vote which according to US News, amounted to 13% of the electorate.

This year, according to Politico, Bernie is drawing 84% of voters age 30 and under. According to the Census Bureau, that's roughly 30 million Americans and referring back to the Politico article, about 18% of the electorate.

So, of a larger voting block, both in raw population and in percentage of electorate, Bernie Sanders has a larger percent of their vote.

This has to have the Clinton Campaign shaking in their boots and thinking they've made a major miscalculation with respect to the youth vote, especially since 50% of the Iowa Caucus goers were first timers.

[DanTex]

1. Bernie couldn't even win a state full of white liberals. He's no Obama.

And after the Iowa debacle, I'd suggest backing off from making political forecasts for a while.

Bernie is saying they WILL WIN in an History Victory in Iowa.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511108523

[berni_mccoy]

4. Who were predominantly older... we get it.

She gets the old white lady vote. And he still came within 0.2% when she had been beating him in 6-8 of the last polls by at least 4 points.

[randome]

6. Boo! That's hitting below the belt.

If Sanders has the 'youth vote' all wrapped up, where were they in Iowa?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[DanTex]

8. "Bernie is saying they WILL WIN in an History Victory in Iowa."

Mocking "old white ladies" is a great strategy for Bernie. Please, keep making statements like that. And whatever happens, don't stop entertaining us with your political predictions. Those are my favorite.

[berni_mccoy]

10. You brought up race, I didn't.

[DanTex]

11. "Bernie is saying they WILL WIN in an History Victory in Iowa."

Everyone knows that Iowa was about as Bernie-friendly a demographic as exists. Even you knew this, which is why you confidently predicted a historic victory. Now that you've been proven wrong, you've decided to mock "old white ladies." Like I said, keep it up. No better way to win over people then make fun of them when they don't vote the way you expected.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Wow, like a broken fucking record. The fact was, it was Historic

And a victory for all of us. Bernie is getting 84% of voters 30 and under and they turned out in record numbers.

[DanTex]

13. Hey, if you don't want to be called on your false predictions, don't make them.

Or at least wait a few days before starting to make new predictions. I'm pretty sure that when you made that last one, you had in mind actually winning the caucus, not losing it and then taking consolation in the fact that you were able to pick out some sub-demographic where Bernie polled well, while mocking Hillary's supporters as "old white ladies."

[berni_mccoy]

14. Hey, if you had any form of reading comprehension, you'd know that wasn't MY prediction...

That was Sanders and if you actually understood what I wrote, you'd see that I was surprised that he was making such a claim.

[DanTex]

15. Even better. You were magically reading Bernie's mind, and attributing your false prediction to him.

[berni_mccoy]

16. Lol, you are from Texas...

Sanders said this in a rally on Monday.

[DanTex]

19. Funny that you didn't mention any Texas rally in your false prediction.

But, sure, if you want to pretend that instead of making your own false predictions, you were gullible enough to believe Bernie's, that works too.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Texas...

Isn't that where they took Jefferson out of the textbooks and are trying to require Creationism to be taught as an equivalent theory to science?

[DanTex]

27. Yeah, politics are pretty bad down there. I live in NYC now, much better.

Bill DeBlasio is great. Even Bernie fans liked him until he committed the crime of endorsing Hillary, and as you know, there's no forgiveness for that.

I will say, some cities in Texas aren't so bad. Austin is great and very liberal.

[MrChuck]

69. It's nice to back a winner isn't it?

Even when she needs six coin tosses to go ahead by two tenths of one percent.
Hillaryyyyyyyyyyy Clinton ladies and gentlemen! Your "winner" of coin tosses. You can't escape that fact. They split delegates but she didn't win the state in terms of a plurality of votes. If poor Gvr O'Malley had dropped out earlier and saved himself the embarrassment the Clinton campaign would be in full meltdown.
I'm not sure they aren't anyway.

[DanTex]

70. Ah, the coin toss conspiracy. That one died about 24 hours ago when it was reported that Sanders

had also won 6 coin tosses, and regardless the coin tosses weren't enough to change the overall outcome.

Thanks for playing!

[MrChuck]

71. I'm not asserting any conspiracy

I'm pointing out the fact that coin tosses were necessary. The fact that there were 12 coin tosses only reinforces my point.

[DanTex]

74. The coin tosses were necessary, because there were ties, but it didn't matter how they turned out,

Hillary would have won the state even if she lost them all, instead of winning half of them.

[MrChuck]

77. I concede the victory.

You must concede that the margin is unimpressive.

[DanTex]

78. The margin is tiny. I'll concede that. Could hardly have been smaller.

[MrChuck]

86. That's common ground.

Nice to meet you.
My assertion is that the Senator is catching/has caught/continues to lead the former Secretary in almost every demographic. The results in Iowa as I interpret them are less about a failure on Sanders' part to win a white state with other favorable demographics for his campaign and more about Clinton's inability to combat the rise in popularity of her opponent. In my opinion her ideas are stale and she lacks the savvy and charisma to adapt. Sanders' ideas are reflective of a need for government to function for the people directly in light of the successfully established economic industry. It's time to understand that you can't continue to stack blocks one on top of another forever and assume the tower won't fall.
You don't stop building. You pay the workers and rebuild higher with well crafted structure beneath.
That's why Glass -Steagall should be readopted.
I also think that the GOP will crush Hillary in the general. She has too many skeletons and has changed her tune too dramatically too many times.

[DanTex]

88. Nice to meet you too.

Has Sanders been catching up? Of course. Does Hillary have a charisma deficit? Maybe, and compared to Obama, definitely. Is she the ideal candidate? No.

I think she's a pretty strong candidate, with a lot of plusses and minuses. I wish we had another Obama, but we don't. I don't see Bernie beating the GOP, frankly. I think he's too far left, and I think the socialism label will really hurt -- it doesn't hurt with the primary electorate, but the GE is a whole different story.

Her ideas are pretty close to Obama's ideas, which is fine with me. I like Obama. And the limiting factor is going to be the GOP in either case, not how liberal the plans are.

[MrChuck]

90. She is clearly a strong candidate.

But she is only "as strong" as Sanders right now and only with certain demographics.
The trajectory is key as is the notion that the left is already far less fractured than the right at this point.
I won't lean on the polls that say Sanders runs better against the GOP than Clinton.
The fact is that Sanders doesn't have to convince Republicans that democratic socialism is the wave of the future.
He must convince, and he has a history of success at this already, democrats and independents that these investments are worth making. Additionally he can convince liberal Republicans that there is still room at the table for business and industry as they take responsibility for some of the maintenance costs on our infrastructure and society.
Say what you will but Clinton isn't saying those things. She's not saying much except denying her past and marginalizing our impact on the future of Americans.
She's hawkish too. That's unacceptable.
Sanders won't send us to war.

[DanTex]

91. I disagree that she is only "as strong" as Sanders right now.

In primary polling, nationwide, she's up about 10-15%. In hypotheticals vs the GOP, she polls about the same as Bernie, maybe Bernie slightly better, but that changes week to week, and it's well within any MOE. But as you've acknowledged implicitly, GE polls at this time do not carry much information.

The thing about trajectories and momentum is that this isn't physics where objects in motion will continue to stay in motion unless acted upon by a force. When Bernie got started, sure, there was reason to expect his numbers to go up, but he's been campaigning for a long time now.

I also think that Sanders supporters greatly underestimate the liability of the socialism label. Even without it, policies that far left would be a hard sell. Nobody as far left as Sanders has won any significant election outside a few very blue states, and while millenials are much more amenable to his policies than older voters, there are still only 4 years of new voters enrolled than in the last election.

And the label itself, as polls confirm, is still poisonous. In a Gallup poll, it came out the worst of any potential label, worse than things like "atheist" or "muslim" (needless to say, this is nothing against atheists or muslims). Less than 50% were willing to vote for a socialist who was otherwise qualified. And the strange thing is, Bernie's not actually a socialist, not even a democratic socialist. He's basically a "social democrat" in the European sense, or simply a "progressive" in American parlance.

[MrChuck]

93. So...

1. Why push the narrative that he's a socialist?
2. That Gallup poll stuff is not as fresh as Hillary wishes it was.
3. Political trajectory, in an election year, is very similar to a physical trajectory due to the fact that there is a terminal, election day. Why isn't Hillary a strong enough outside force to have altered the Sanders trajectory yet?
4. Does the truth of the differences between these candidates register with Hillary Clinton supporters? Are they aware that Sanders is genuine and consistent and that Clinton is for rent to the highest bidder and as steadfast as a weather vane?
She'll get destroyed in a debate with anyone less than a gentleman.

[DanTex]

94. ...

1. Why push the narrative that he's a socialist?

Me? I'm having a discussion about his GE prospects, and the socialist label obviously a part of that.

2. That Gallup poll stuff is not as fresh as Hillary wishes it was.

Maybe not, but I haven't seen any more recent polls, and I don't think that ideological changes like this happen quickly.

3. Political trajectory, in an election year, is very similar to a physical trajectory due to the fact that there is a terminal, election day. Why isn't Hillary a strong enough outside force to have altered the Sanders trajectory yet?

Like I said, political trajectory is not like momentum in physics. Bernie's "trajectory" has already been altered, he's not gaining as quickly as he was earlier, and that's if he's still even gaining at all.

4. Does the truth of the differences between these candidates register with Hillary Clinton supporters? Are they aware that Sanders is genuine and consistent and that Clinton is for rent to the highest bidder and as steadfast as a weather vane?

I'd be happy with either as president, with the GOP in congress, it will be incremental progress either way. So electability is my top concern. Also, describing Hillary as "for rent to the highest bidder and as steadfast as a weather vane" is absurd.

[MrChuck]

96. ...

1. Did not answer the question.
2. This country is awash in ideological change right now. Not all of it for the good.
3. That's a matter of fact, not conjecture. I can't think of an informational outlet that isn't covering Sanders more agressively now than they have leading up to this point. If you're suggesting that he won't pick up more support as he is in the news more then I fundamentally disagree. Additionally, even trajectories in physics are on a curve. The similarities are more significant than the differences.
4. I don't make a habit of spouting absurdities. We are all witness to her record and list of benefactors. The correlation between her cash flow and her policy decisions is undeniable.
I'm not calling her evil or even rare.
I'm calling Sanders brilliant and utterly unique in the context of this election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Dan, do you find the "old white ladies" remark on a progressive forum as disturbing as I do?

[DanTex]

25. I find it disturbing. It's obviously meant to discount their opinions in a nasty way.

But a few things. First of all, I'm kind of used to disturbing things being posted by Bernie fans, so it's not as striking as it probably should be. Second, I don't think it's really meant as the ageist, sexist attack that it reads to be. "Old white ladies" are just a casualty of the whole "Bernie good everyone evil/ignorant/irrelevant" mentality.

[berni_mccoy]

26. As is saying "white liberals".

[DanTex]

29. Really? Pointing out that Bernie's support is stronger with "white liberals" is ageist and sexist?

[berni_mccoy]

31. That is not a fact. Stating it as one is dishonest and racist

[DanTex]

33. Of course it's a fact. Every poll shows the same. The Iowa entrance polls showed that

black Iowans voted for Hillary for a large margin, enough to put her over the top.

I can see that you want to ignore that, and focus on the sub-demographics that went for Bernie while dismissing the others as "old white ladies."

[berni_mccoy]

35. You have absolutely ZERO evidence of this (as does anyone else).

And citing any poll older than a month is useless at this point.

[DanTex]

37. Every poll, including entrance polls in Iowa.

Old polls, new polls, they all have Hillary doing better with POC.

In Iowa, for example:

Although voters of color made up just 9 percent of the Democratic Iowa caucus-goers according to entrance poll results , they went for Clinton over Sanders by a margin of 58 percent to 34 percent. The results suggest that the senator from Vermont is still struggling to connect with Latino, African American and other nonwhite voters, a deficit that will loom larger as the nominating contest expands to states with more diverse populations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/02/iowas-small-number-of-nonwhite-voters-underscores-a-big-problem-for-sanders/

[berni_mccoy]

42. Except that you didn't simply point out that Sanders was stronger with White Liberals (your words)

you made it seem as if they were the only ones he could get. Clearly he's gained as much ground with African American voters as he did in the Iowa Caucus. That's the truth and you know it.

[DanTex]

44. I never implied white liberals were the "only ones he could get."

That would be silly. Everyone is going to get some support from all kinds of people. What I did say is that white liberals are where Bernie's support is strongest, which is obviously true. And Iowa is very near the top of the list in terms of fraction of white liberals, so a loss there doesn't bode well.

[berni_mccoy]

48. "Bernie couldn't even win a state full of white liberals." -DanTex

That's what you implied with that statement.

Raising the specter of race in this election. Guess what. Hillary's not even close to getting the numbers that Obama did with the African American vote. And she's going to need to do that to beat Sanders.

[DanTex]

52. That's correct. Even in a state full of white liberals, where his demographic advantage is greatest

he couldn't even win. The implication is that in less favorable demographics, he's going to struggle even more.

Pointing out well-documented demographic leanings is not "raising the specter" of race.

[DanTex]

57. I don't think you know what either "race-baiting" or "admitting" means.

Sorry you don't like the Iowa entrance poll results, but trying to smear people who point them out is not going to win your side any more support.

[berni_mccoy]

58. I don't think you know what your saying

People often have a hard time seeing their own failings.

[DanTex]

59. Yeah, I'm saying that Iowa was a very Bernie-favorable state demographically.

It's not complicated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Believing ...

Believing one has a monopoly on the truth and those that demur from that truth are lesser human beings has been at the core of a lot of human misery.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Res ipsa loquitur

"She gets the old white lady vote..."


-berni mccoy

Ageism (also spelled "agism&quot is stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or groups on the basis of their age. This may be casual or systematic. The term was coined in 1969 by Robert Neil Butler to describe discrimination against seniors, and patterned on sexism and racism.

[berni_mccoy]

20. Oh kettle, the pot's calling...

I could certainly point out where you've made Sander's age an issue here. Unfortunately for you and the other vile hill-fans, that use of ageism went nowhere, likely because Hillary's not much younger than Sanders (and she still hasn't produced her medical records yet).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Sir or madame...

Sir or madame, if you have evidence that I have made ageist comments on this board I request that you cite them now. Auto search is your friend.

In the alternative I would request that you show character and withdraw your calumny against me.

Thank you in advance.


The only time I referred to his age is when I referred to him as the septuagenarian senator from Vermont. That would be no different than me referring to Hillary Clinton as the sexagenarian Secretary Of State.


Respectfully,

DemocratSinceBirth

[berni_mccoy]

24. Thanks for admitting it (and also proving my point by raising it again).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. If ...

If you believe using a neutral adjective to describe a person's age is tantamount to using the phrase "old white ladies" to describe a group's age there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

[yeoman6987]

43. Last time she came in third

This time she came in 1st. Huge difference.

[berni_mccoy]

51. 3 months ago, she led by 30 points. 6 months ago, by 60

And he still tied her. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

[yeoman6987]

56. Maybe. Let's see how much she can do in NH

If she can tighten up as much as possible it may be a win for Hillary regardless of outcome. Bernie must win NH. Hillary doesn't. She just needs to not have it 50 points difference. 20 points and lower would be acceptable going into a win in South Carolina for Hillary. It flips. Hillary must win SC and Bernie needs to cut the 40 point difference right now.

[bread_and_roses]

39. "debacle" ?????? ROFL

You call a loss by - what was it? 1/2 of 1%? something like that - a "debacle." If it was a debacle, it wasn't for Bernie.

[DanTex]

41. The debacle were the gleeful predictions of a historic win for Bernie.

When it turns out that in the closest thing to his home turf outside of VT and NH, he couldn't even manage a victory.

[berni_mccoy]

53. Not a debacle for Bernie, his campaign drew in $3 million in under 48 hours.

From 3.5 million individual donors. Clinton has a huge $ problem as well.

[Avalux]

47. Hillary had a 30 point lead in December and spent 13 million more than Bernie.

I'm not sure why you're on your high horse, your candidate failed her campaign's expectations in Iowa and you know it.

[DanTex]

61. And she won in Iowa, one of the Bernie-friendliest demographics in the country.

And she will continue to spend money, and continue to win more states, particularly those not as heavily white-liberal, until she gets the nomination.

[Avalux]

63. Spin it all you want. Money will NOT buy this election, won't buy the votes of minorities. n/t

[DanTex]

64. I agree, money won't buy this election. I always get a laugh when Bernie fans boast about how much

money he's raising. Socialists cheering for the mean green!

[Avalux]

65. At least he's getting it from us, and not corps and banks. Yep, all of us, together. n/t

[cannabis_flower]

60. Hillary

is no Obama either.

[DanTex]

62. No, she's not. She's a Hillary. In 2008 that was almost enough to beat Obama.

In 2016, with no opponent at Obama's level, looking good for the nomination.

[morningfog]

2. Good point. And the youth are coming out.

Hillary does lead with AA but the question is are they going to come out to vote at the levels she needs? With her history, I doubt it.

[BigGLiberal]

3. Uh no, bernie did not get the turnout Obama did and never will.

He will never be Obama.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Of course he won't. But Hillary will always be Hillary. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. They certainly did underestimate the youth vote.

I guess being beaten, pepper sprayed and rounded up like a bunch of animals during the OWS protests, pissed them off enough to send a strong message to the 1%...."Don't mess with Millennials!"

They're a huge demographic, they're involved, they don't fall for all the old idiotic wedge issues bullshit like race, religion, guns or abortion and they DO VOTE when they have a candidate worthy of their votes. Bernie is worthy of it and he truly cares about them and they know it!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[JaneyVee]

7. I would rather lose standing with our diverse base than...

Win without them.

[berni_mccoy]

9. The Youth is what makes the base Diverse. That's what Clinton (and her supporters) don't get.

Just like in 2008. Clinton tried to suppress the black vote and it completely backfired. So much for diverse bases for Clinton.

[Roy Ellefson]

18. white liberals

and white liberals who support Sanders aren't part of our diverse base? Take us for granted all you want but a Democrat won't win without us in states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and others.

[noiretextatique]

38. The muddle is not that diverse

To be honest.

[CajunBlazer]

36. Compare Barack and Bernie: Could they be more different in every way possible?

Barack Obama not only attracted young white people (and he didn't do it by offering freebes), he attracted minorities. Bernie only attracted 30% of the minority vote in Iowa and he had months to deliver his messages to them - he failed miserably. Minorities make up a huge percentage of the democratic electorate, especially in the 13 states following New Hampshire (except of course Vermont) and they all vote within 7 days.

Bernie is behind between 20% and 53% in those 12 states and, unlike Iowa, he has virtually no time to change their minds.

And then there is another thing to consider - of those 12 states, 8 are in the South where I can tell you from personal experience that white voters are much more moderate than those you will find in Iowa and especially NH. Voting for a socialist is not high on our list of priorities.

Be prepared after NH for Bernie to lose the next 13 states except Vermont - and oh, maybe he has a chance in American Somoa.

The "Bernie will do as Obama did" message is terribly naive.

[noiretextatique]

40. The rw constantly accuses Obama of offering "freebies"

Just as you are doing with Sanders. Nice job The muddle is far more in agreement than the left or right.

[CajunBlazer]

68. You conveniently ignored the main points of my post

And responded to a tiny point in parenthesis. I guess that means you concede everything else I posted. Right?

[restorefreedom]

45. here is another more frightening way it could be similar

the dem states are apportioned with respect to delegstes. many states could be close like iowa. some bernie will win big and get more delegstes, some hillary will win big and get more delegates. but by the convention, it could be close with neither having the delegstes to win.


that leaves the supers, many of whom hillary claims to have in her pocket. if bernie ends up with a higher delegate count reflecting a higer voter count, and dws swoops in and steals the nom for hillary with the supers, expect holy hell to erupt on the convention floor

[berni_mccoy]

50. I agree that is a real possibility here. And if they do that, I hope Hillary and DWS realize

We'll lose the general election for certain. People who have their vote overturned by the establishment leaders will absolutely not turn out to support those who undermined them.

[restorefreedom]

55. and worse than that, if a repub antiestablishment wins on their side,

some could defect. i could see some indys and some dems being pissed off enough to vote for trump, if for no other reason, just to spite them.

they would have to be screaming idiots to attempt it. otoh, my mom was watching a show where the was a panel discussion. she said some guy said that basically, they don't care how many people vote for bernie, he is not getting the nom, period. THAT kind of talk should keep us all on our toes.

[KingCharlemagne]

85. Well, I probably still would, since the prospect of a President Cruz, Trump or Rubio scares

the living shit out of me, given the Republican lock on the Congress. (I tend to vote against the greater evil

[CajunBlazer]

72. You need to worry about something that is more likely to happen

Bernie is way behind every state which has done any polling except New Hampshire. You don't need to worry about Bernie "winning big". After NH you need to worry whether he can sneak across the finish line first in one or two states.

[restorefreedom]

76. as we have seen, msm polls are underestimating bernie

and with apportioned delegates, they both have the potential for winning many without enough for the nom

his momentum is building, he is getting a lot of visibility, and the money is coming in from his supporters. and most importantly, his message is resonating big time.

i am not worried. he can and will win a fair contest.

notice, i said "fair"

namaste

[CajunBlazer]

81. No way

Bernie had months to explain his message to minority voters in Iowa and he captured only a third of their vote. He has very little time to explain his message in 8 upcoming Southern states with huge minority populations and much more moderate white voters like me. In the 14 primaries coming up immediately after NH Bernie will be fortunate to win Vermont and American Samoa.

[restorefreedom]

83. you say tomato, i say tomaaaaaato,

his message is getting through and he has increasing momentum, while clinton continues to stagnate.

we will find out soon enough...

[CajunBlazer]

84. Dude, Bernie is behind 20% to 53% in the upcoming primaries which have polling...

He is not going to pull off 12 miracles in a row. I hear you guys believe in fairy tales and unicorns, but really? Bill Clinton is in South Carolina shoring up support for Hillary where she already leads by 30%. All of the black leaders are backing Hillary there. Talk about a mountain to climb, Bernie better take oxygen to NC because that is no ordinary mountain, that's Everest.

Hillary has a better chance of taking NH where she is 17.5% behind than Bernie has of taking SC whre his is 29.5% behind and we both know that neither is going to happen.

[restorefreedom]

92. what i am saying is that i don't believe the polls

many polls are selectively sampled, either by artifact or on purpose, to show a hillary lead. they have consistently underestimated bernie. combine that with a higher than expected turnout, which bernie is likely to get, and the msm polls are moot.

[CajunBlazer]

95. Ahhh... the old "the polls must be wrong because I don't like what they say" conspiracy

The lates polls in Iowa all said the results were going to be real close - the second to last one said Clinton would win by 3% and the last one said that Bernie would win by 3%. The final results, a very narrow victory was within the margin of error of the both polls just as the polls predicted.

Also right now the NH polls show Bernie substantially ahead - I guess you don't believe those polls either.

Polls ask sampled people who they would vote for if they were to vote right then. Now people can, and sometimes change their minds. If so, future polls will pick up those changes.

Individual polls can be off a bit, but not usually by much. Multiples polls which all tell a very similar stories - they are not likely to be off at all.

If you can't deal with reality, there is no use continuing this discussion.

[restorefreedom]

97. i am well grounded in reality

the reality that the rigged money masters who control corporate media will twist messaging any way that they think gets a wall st candidate into the wh, and that includes manipulating polls.

i actually do not believe the polls showing bernie far ahead in nh...he is probably ahead by a good bit. but by overinflating his numbers, they can spin it as him fading if he comes in at anything less, even if it is an overwhelming win

believe me, they have thought this through.

namaste

[CajunBlazer]

98. Well grounded in reality? - I guess that's open to debate

Based on your posts there are indications that you are well grounded in conspiracy theories.

Pollsters do their jobs just as you and I do. Their firms stay in business only if produce predictions which can be later verified by the actual results. All they have is their expertise and their integrity. Who are you to immune their integrity, evidently with no proof what so ever.

It's okay to have your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

I am booking marking this conversation so that we can discuss this conversation at intervals as the primaries progress.

[restorefreedom]

99. bookmark away, dude! (dudette)

polls have been not terribly accurate with regard to either side, and i do realize it is not an exact science. and there have been many discussions about which populations were sampled, cell phone/land line user, etc.

as to the conspiracy, its no secret that polls are often commissioned by m$m organizations and even the candidates themselves. they can survey in a way to get the results their client likes. m$m in particular. and if you think the large media media corps are not invested in seeing bernie not be president, then you need to listen to chris matthews, chris cuomo and their m$m hacks. to suggest that some polling companies are, either by accident or design, trying to please their clients is not impuning anyones integrity...its just seeing things as they are.

and btw, some things are not conspiracy theories, they are just conspiracies.

but just for you,

k?

see you on the virtual campaign trail!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

46. Hillary is still Hillary

major miscalculation

[SoapBox]

49. Hillary IS still Hillary.

Ugh.

No...More...Clintons.

[randome]

80. I'd prefer that, too, and I've stated it many times.

But she has the numbers and Sanders doesn't so Plan B should be how to make her move more to the left. Anything else is just giving up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[AzDar]

66. BERNIE!!

[George II]

67. For weeks (maybe months) we were told that the Iowa Caucuses would be a rerun of.....

.....2008.

That didn't happen.

So now we're moving on to the next "2008 Sequel".

Sorry, I seriously doubt that the Clinton Campaign is "shaking in their boots". After next Tuesday, the only state in which Sanders is even close is Vermont.

On the other hand, we've also been told on this site that Sanders will "win all 50 states". Well, with only one state down that already hasn't happened.

[NurseJackie]

73. Oh my! Still on this, are we? How amusing!

After Super Tuesday, it will be easier to see why so many Hillary supporters think the "2008" comparison continues to be a source of amusement.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

75. Bernie tied Hillary because the youth turnout was low

...Hillary's supporters are spinning it about Iowa's non-white vote. Bernie energized the youth, but they didn't turnout in big enough numbers.

Same as it ever was...

[blackspade]

79. Interesting.

This time around, I think that African Americans will largely break for Clinton, but if Sanders nibbles into her margin and continues to dominate the youth vote it could be a rough ride for her campaign.
If she gets into trouble Sanders will peel off even more.
This will be a nail biter for sure.

[Amimnoch]

82. Numbers are not matching up at all.

2008 Iowa Caucus: Barak Obama 940-37% John Edwards 744-29.7% Hillary Clinton 737 - 29.5% Hillary was in 3rd place.

2008 New Hampshire: Hillary Clinton won with 39.1%, Barak Obama came in 2nd with 36.5%, and John Edwards came in 3rd with 16.9%. To be totally fair, I don't see her taking New Hampshire this time around. That is very likely going to be majority Bernie (even if she is slightly ahead in the polls currently).

Another big difference, there isn't a full field of candidates (John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, etc..) who can drop out and throw their endorsements behind Senator Sanders like they did for President Obama.

Super Tuesday (only 21 days a way now) is also shaping up to be a very different beast than it was in '08.

Alabama - Unable to locate polling data for this state. Personally, I think Clinton is much more likely to pull in Alabama Democratic voters than Sanders, but that's just an opinion and not fact.

Arkansas - LOL. 63 point lead for Clinton (homestate advantage to be fair)

Colorado - Clinton's up a full 28 points in Colorado.

Georgia - Clinton up 43 points!

Massachusetts - Clinton up by 29 points, she took Massachusetts in 08.

Minnesota - Clinton up by 34 points. In 08 Obama took Minnesota, and polled well for it leading up to it. Sanders is not.

North Carolina - Clinton up by 30 points. Obama took it in 08, not looking good this time around.

Oklahoma - Clinton up by 22 points. Went to Clinton in 08.

Tennessee - Clinton up by 20 points. Went to Clinton in 08.

Texas - Clinton up by 37 points (me and some of my neighbors are organizing a Clinton voting "Flashmob" for our precinct). Went to Clinton in 08.

Vermont - Unable to locate an actual poll, but this is going to be a Sanders landslide win. Went to Obama in 08.

Virginia - Clinton up by 36 points. Went to Obama in 08.


Another big difference is the number of super-delegates and endorsements Clinton has this time around that she did not have in 08.

Heck, we've only had the first caucus and she's already 8% towards having the delegate majority vs Sanders 0.6%, and the one state, even if just by a split hair she won one of the best states Sanders has been polling in.

Sorry, but I think this election is going to be a whole new book, not a Sequel. (using the NUMBERS)

[KingCharlemagne]

87. Where is that polling data you cite coming from? I'd be interested to dig a little

deeper into the numbers. Do you have a link?

[Amimnoch]

89. Most of it is from Real clear politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/dem_pres_primary/#!

At the top of the screen there's a middle box for "Find any Poll" start typing out the particular state's name, and a sub menu pops up. Pick the one for Democratic primary polling, and it'll bring up the most recent's. For Alabama and vermont it had nothing, and I tried finding more recent polling data just through a search, but never found anything that I'd consider reliable so I left them empty.