Joe Biden's Decision Has Altered the Picture Significantly

[MineralMan]

All the polls aren't in yet, and national polling results are still not available that really reflect recent events. However, the polls that are available are now showing Hillary Clinton ahead by a 2:1 ratio, even in states like Iowa and in the single national poll that is currently available.

2:1. That's an advantage that is a mark of almost inevitable success. Three things lead to that result:

1. Joe Biden's Decision Not to Run - In most polling that included his name, he was polling between 15 and 20%. His withdrawal, as seen in the results, led to most of his poll numbers shifting to Clinton. Few went to Sanders. The remainder went to O'Malley, who is showing 5% in some polling now, up from 1 or 2%

2. Clinton's Performance in the Benghazi Hearings - It's difficult to measure this in poll results, but it's almost universally believed that she demolished the Republicans handily in those hearings. What bump in the polls she may have received is sort of overshadowed by the Biden bump.

3. Clinton's Performance in the First Primary Debate - While Sanders looked good in online polling, traditional polling showed the opposite. She comes out the winner in virtually every traditional polling company result. This bump, however, was evident before the other two events. She picked up a few percentage points in earlier polls, most of which came from undecided voters.

We're still waiting for the major polling firms to release a new set of polls since Biden's withdrawal from consideration. We'll see them, though, this week and into next week. Will they reflect the same 2:1 ratio of support? I believe they will, with the new averages running about 60% to 30% in Clinton's favor. If that is the case, it is going to be difficult for Sanders to recover, since no major events like the three that have already occurred are in the offing. There's another primary debate coming up, but that's about it. Those debates tend to have a small effect on polling, however with less than 5% change following any particular debate.

Is 2:1 a tipping point? We'll see, but I think it is. Many voters love a winner. That's been shown again and again.

[LexVegas]

1. Clinton is wiping the floor with Sanders. nt

[MineralMan]

3. I don't think much of that metaphor, really.

Bernie Sanders has my respect as a candidate. I've long admired his service in the Senate and his positions. I don't think he's viable as a national candidate, but that does not lead me to use such metaphors. I find them disturbing, somehow. Sanders is not some sort of dirty mop. He is a highly respected Senator with extremely progressive views.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I love Lex's enthusiasm but I appreciate your dispassionate analysis./nt

[Hoyt]

6. I agree. If I thought he could win and do the things he wants, I'd be behind him 100%

But, he is to be respected. And his supporters are too. I get where they are coming from.

[FSogol]

23. "Wiping the floor" is a term from boxing, not from cleaning. My proof? Check "wiping the floor" in

the thesaurus:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/wiping%20the%20floor%20with

wiping the floor with

Synonyms for wiping the floor with
verb defeat; gain advantage

beat
blank
conquer
knock off
outclass
outdo
outshine
overcome
surpass
take care of
trounce

better
blast
bulldoze
clobber
cream
deck
drub
exceed
excel
flax
floor

KO
lambaste
lick
master
outstrip
prevail
tan
thrash
top
total
transcend

trash
triumph
wallop
waste
wax
whip
whomp
whop
wipe
zap
beat up

get the better of
let have it
put away
shoot down
shut down
take down
triumph over
wipe out

Outrage fail.

[workinclasszero]

9. Bingo

[hedda_foil]

21. What a sexist claim! Wiping the floor, as if she were an ordinary cleaning woman!

Hmpf!

[frylock]

31. Well played!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. That is the kind of excellent and dispassionate analysis that brings many of us to this site.

[MineralMan]

5. That's very kind of you to say.

I'll continue to post what I'm seeing in the campaign and election. They are simply my observations. I am a pragmatic observer of presidential races. I have almost no effect on them. So, I can only observe. I vote for Democratic candidates in primaries who I believe can win in the general election. That's what I've always done.

I've always been interested in following presidential elections, but my activism is in legislative races, where I believe I can help to elect progressive legislators to state and national positions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I am a rationalist as well...There are times when my head and heart

I am a rationalist as well...There are times when there is an incongruity between my head and my heart but this isn't one of those instances.

I am a huge Miami Heat fan but that doesn't mean I labor under the delusion they can win the championship.

[workinclasszero]

8. Great post as usual MineralMan

Thank you

[MineralMan]

16. Thanks for your kind words.

[L. Coyote]

10. The poll I want to see is one with Biden as the VP candidate.

I want to see a poll with Clinton/Biden versus any Republican. I think Biden as the VP candidate in 2016 makes the Dems even more unbeatable than they already are.

Paul Ryan as the leader of Congress makes the Republican majority more vulnerable too.

[MineralMan]

17. I doubt very much that Joe Biden wants to be VP

for another term, frankly. I can't imagine that being a possibility.

[Armstead]

11. Many voters love a winner.

Yes an the establishment has been saying Sanders is a loser from the beginning.

And they've also been saying for at least two years (or linger) that Clinton is a winner.

It is so sad that there has not been any actual ability for people to actually look at where the candidates stand, who they are allied with or any otehr factor that really makes a difference.

Maybe Clinton would stil win, but it's all been at the level of a high school student body election once again. "I know Clinton. She' okay I guess. I've been told she can win. I've been told Sanders is unelectable. So I'll support her. "

[corkhead]

12. anybody who picks who they vote for solely based on who they think will be the "winner"

is too stupid to vote in my opinion and should stay home.

[MohRokTah]

15. Anybody who DOESN'T pick a nominee because they think they can win is a FOOL

and should stay home in my opinion.

[corkhead]

24. Any Dem who wins the primary will beat the Republicon. If Sanders beats Clinton, that by itself

will be proof he can win in the general because he will have beat the second best candidate running in either party. It will further mean that he was able to succeed contrary to the opinion of some that "socialist" made him unelectable.

[MohRokTah]

25. I disagree completely

Of the candidates in the race, you will never be able to convince me that anybody than Hillary Clinton stands a chance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. O'Malley is a generic Democrat and would run well.

He just ran at the wrong time.

[corkhead]

34. You haven't given me any reasoning to back your steadfastness, I guess we'll have to agree

to disagree

incidentally, r.e. your sigline - contrary to your apparent view, in the general I vote for the candidate who stands the best chance to beat the republicon and I couldn't care less what team he or she is on.

[MineralMan]

18. Most voters make winning potential part of their decision.

Democrats want Democrats to win. A candidate that doesn't appear to be able to actually win is not attractive to most voters. It's one of the many factors that goes into a voting decision.

I've been voting for Presidents since 1968, the first year I could vote in a Presidential election. I've seen several candidates who had little chance of winning get the nomination during that time, including in 1968. Those were bad years for me. The result of a Republican winning the election led to terrible consequences each time. Most voters over 40 years of age remember such elections. They want to win, and will support a candidate they think can win in the primary elections.

If you don't mind a Nixon or Reagan as President, ignore the chances of winning in the primaries. Me? I remember those Presidents. No thanks, frankly. I don't want another one.

[frylock]

32. It's a strategy of 'playing not to lose'

and it seldom works.

[BootinUp]

36. Not sure who you think took that position

Maybe your just projecting some kind of imaginary voter on us.

[corkhead]

37. I was responding specifically to the last sentence of the OP

" Many voters love a winner. That's been shown again and again." - implying that the candidate holding a decisive lead will get votes just for that reason alone.

You might need to take your "imaginary voter" accusation up with MineralMan

[DCBob]

13. Good analysis.

However I do think the Benghazi hearing had a bigger effect than you seem to indicate. That was a major all-day all-media event highlighting her competence, endurance, intelligence and knowledge. I think many non-Hillary supporters at the time were waiting to see how she did in the hearing and she knocked it out of the park. That was a major turning point in my opinion. I suspect many of Biden supporters would have switched to Hillary even if Biden didnt drop out.

[MineralMan]

19. It's hard to measure the Benghazi hearing's effect.

It overlaps the Biden decision. We can see people who chose Biden move to Clinton. You are probably right. Many would have done so after the hearing, too, but the two events overlap and only one can be measured well.

I agree that Clinton dominated that hearing and came out triumphant. It was an important factor and one that will continue to affect voter decisions, I'm sure, long after the Biden decision is forgotten. Hillary came out of that hearing room looking like a winner.

[MohRokTah]

14. And the media has a sad.

Joe Biden's presence in the race allowed the media to prop up a false "horse race" meme for the Democratic nomination process.

That's out the window as there is no longer a legitimately effective opposition to a Hillary Clinton nomination.

[MineralMan]

20. Unfortunately, I think you're right with regard to the MSM.

They haven't even bothered to talk about the change in polling results. They're all watching the Republican clown show. It's more entertaining, I guess.

[hedda_foil]

22. That peculiar difference between immediate post debate response and later "scientific" polls?

The immediate response in favor of Bernie came from people who had actually watched the debate. All of the "real" polls included a high percentage of registered Dems who had skipped the debate and got their news through the MSM, which went all out to shape their opinion. That's what the media does ... in both primary and general elections.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Yeah.

Yeah, the woman who has a B.A. from Wellesley, a J.D. From Yale Law , was a former Secretary of State and two term senator from one of the most populous and homogeneous states in the Union, and has debated on the national stage dozens of a time lost a debate to a septuagenarian senator from a thinly populated homogeneous hamlet but the masses couldn't tell who was the better debater until the media told them who really won.Got it.

[frylock]

33. Excellent summary!

As a dispassionate observer, I applaud you finally coming around to reality.

[PATRICK]

30. the complex realities

should keep everyone up all night rather than supremely confident. Say the low info voter whose main opinion is iconic mainstream. In that universe the disliked(for bad reasons) Hillary vies with the VP white guy Biden(forget his past rejections in past primaries they also paid little attention to) as knowns. These voters did not watch the debates or the hearings or are swayable by the MSM punidtry commentary. One example is that Biden was little affected by the possibility that he had a rep for backing the Obama raid and it was questioned. Later, well within the contest it MIGHT have mattered but his pre debate non candidacy had an automatic, some-known-quantity-other-than-Hillary, character which suggests shrugging and going with Hillary is very soft support as well. Bernie, thanks to less exposure, still has had largely just one shot to get close to this safe recognition factor. Maybe even a hundred debates would not close this gap with even a mushy base of voters. Hillary would have to lose them, either by slow attrition or some real fall AND Sanders has to work harder to become widely known beyond the idiotic memes he(like Hillary) has to suffer from the MSM.

As for building issues and candidates the whole party has to beware the terrible poorly informed electorate which is zealously force fed the Baskin Robbins flavors of fascism and tepidly unenthused about the potential Dem health food store opening down the block. Really, in the past it has to do with general economic or security fear which way the poorly informed will stampede. Anything else will be an epic struggle, no matter how the voters tell you they look at the person and the issues.

(A quick apology disclaimer for any insult to Baskin Robbins.)

[Persondem]

27. Great summation. Thank you.

I have had the same thought ... that 2:1 is a very important level of support, and that more people are settling in on choosing their candidates. Clinton got those boosts at a very good time. Sanders has a lot of great ideas but is not viable in a GE against the GOP ad writers.

K & R

[WillyT]

35. The Desicion To Meet With Bernie Sanders Today ???