Poll: Clinton leads Sanders by 9 points in Iowa

[Dem2]

.....

Clinton currently has the support of 51% in the three-way Democratic horse race; Sanders gets 42%. And Martin O’Malley, a former Maryland governor, has just 4%.

Three percent of Iowa likely Democratic caucusgoers remain undecided, according to the Nov. 16-22 poll.

These results are almost unchanged from the last Quinnipiac survey in Iowa, in late October, which showed Clinton at 51% and Sanders at 40%.

......


http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/11/25/poll-clinton-leads-sanders-by-9-points-in-iowa/

[ram2008]

1. Encouraging for Bernie

These are the only numbers that matter right not- not NH, not SC, not national .

2 months out and 9 points behind is not a bad place to be, especially when you have enthusiasm on your side and are winning the who voters trust on economy issue.

[restorefreedom]

2. excellent news for bernie

would really like to see OM come up some. this debate schedule is killing him.

[Jarqui]

3. What's going on?

A second single digit spread poll in Iowa.

By Quinnipiac University. Nate rates them pretty well: B+

I thought some were saying Hillary had this all wrapped up Nov 4th when Hillary was +30 in Iowa.

Looks like the preordained coronation on Wall Street might be delayed.

25 percent of Likely-to-vote Dems in that poll don't think Hillary is trustworthy. (vs 4% for Bernie). Hillary supporters, that is not a good number from the people who know Hillary best.

66% think Hillary has the best chance of winning and is a key reason they're supporting her (looking past the trustworthy issue 25% have with Hillary). Sanders camp needs to bang that drum in the media because Bernie stacks up considerably better than the likely Dems are giving him credit for - in a number of cases better than Hillary in head to head polls because the Republicans and independents have a much worse perception of Hillary's trustworthiness. If they bang on that and Bernie's foreign policy positions, this race will tighten up.

[Godhumor]

6. Quinnipac had her at +11 last month, so they're showing a stable trend

Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2015, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

So nothing really shocking about the poll.

[SidDithers]

16. Damn you autocorrect...

Winnipeg. hehe

Sid

[Godhumor]

24. Pfft n/t

[Jarqui]

18. Nothing shocking but encouraging for Sanders

Quinnipiac had Clinton +11 in October before Biden withdrew.

For Sanders to reduce Clinton to +9 with Quinnipiac while absorbing a majority of Biden supporters moving to Clinton and produce a second poll where he's reduced Clinton's lead from +24 back to single digits, I take it as a positive blip for Sanders.

Its just one poll. Can't claim to read to much into it. But I have to tip my hat to Sanders a bit here.

[Godhumor]

23. No, you really can't read into it that way

With MOE, +9 and +11 are essentially the same result. The race is stable according to this pollster.

[Jarqui]

27. Before and after Biden withdrawl?

I think there's a difference there. To absorb that and hold his ground is a positive result for Bernie.

[Godhumor]

35. Think you're misreading

In October it was 51-40. Now it is 51 -42.

No Biden in either case.

[Jarqui]

39. Biden and Webb were in the original poll

They tried to back fill and adjust numbers with their departures.

[Godhumor]

43. No, they didn't

Seriously, out of very easy to check. Download the October poll.

And Pollster and RCP never backfill when candidates drop out.

[CoffeeCat]

4. Obama was behind by 10, at this point...

I think this bodes very well for Bernie.

Hillary's initial support is due to name recognition and the media touting her "inevitability."

This happened in 2008.

Slowly, as these campaigns ramp up--Iowans get very active in the process. Most everyone I know attends several rallies. We are serious about doing adequate due diligence when it comes to making our final caucus decision.

The final six weeks of the campaigns--when they really get heated up--are when things shift and people make their final decisions. So much can happen during that final six weeks.

The state is literally taken over by the campaigns and the media covering the campaigns.

On another note--It will be interesting to see what happens to O'Malley. If he's consistently at 4 percent, most likely his supporters will arrive to the caucuses, only to find that they have to join another candidate camp (either Sanders or Clinton) otherwise their caucus votes will not count. In order to earn delegates in each of the caucuses--your candidate must meet a percentage threshold of total votes. If not, you must join a camp that is determined "viable". This happened to me with Dean. I had to move to another camp or sit out the process. So...where O'Malley supporters go could affect the final outcome.

[CajunBlazer]

7. Processes like Iowa give Bernie his best opportunities to win primaries

See my post below.

[Godhumor]

8. No he wasn't behind by ten. The race was essentially tied

From RCP for Iowa polls between November 23rd and the 29th in 2007.

Tie
C +2
O +3
O +2

[Attorney in Texas]

12. AP/Pew poll released 8 years ago today showed Clinton beating Obama by 26% nationally, 19% in New

Hampshire, and 5% in Iowa

[Godhumor]

19. And I didn't include it because it polled beginning 11/3

Making for a noncommparable polls with others.

And even including with +5 it would still remain a tie with Obama winning the two others by a combined 5 points.

[Attorney in Texas]

25. Right ....

[CoffeeCat]

13. Wrong! Those were polls taken a month before the 2008 Iowa caucuses.

In 2008, the Iowa caucuses were held a month earlier (January 3) than they are this 2015 election cycle (Feb 1).

Yes, 4-5 weeks prior to the 2008 caucuses--the polls you sited indicate that the race was closer.

However, if you look at the polls for 2008 at 10 weeks out (where we are today), you will find that Clinton was leading in all polls.

Des Moines Register poll had Hillary +7 (October 1)
American Research Group had Hillary +10 (October 26)
American Research Group had Hillary +6 six weeks before the caucuses (Nov 10)

I think others make this same mistake.

[CajunBlazer]

9. No one should care who wins in Iowa

First of all, the precinct caucuses (what passes for the Iowa primary) are totally non representative - only about 10% to 12% of the registered voters attend. These folks are usually the most motivated voters because caucus meetings can last up to 3 hours and are full of discussions and politicking. No way is this small percentage of Iowa Democratic voters representative of the whole.

Second, the votes for the candidates in the precincts has no effect on the election of Iowa's delegates to the National Democratic convention. In each precinct caucus, following the vote for the candidates (which is what you will see reported that evening on the news), there is a vote to determine who will be the delegate who will represent the represent the precinct in the county caucus to be held later on. At the each of the county caucuses the precinct delegates elect a delegate to represent the county at their district caucus which is held still later. At the each of the District caucuses the county delegates elect a delegate to represent the district at the Iowa State Democratic Convention which is held still later. The the district delegates at the state convention then elect the delegates to the National Democratic Convention. The whole process will not be completed until sometimes in July.

Note, the voting for the actual candidates at the 99 precinct caucuses to be held February 1st, and which will cumulatively determine the "winner" in Iowa, is totally meaningless in the determination of Iowa's eventual delegates to the National Democratic Convention. The entire caucus system should be abolished and replaced with a simple vote, but it isn't going to happen. This is as close to the smoke filled back rooms in which major party nominees used to be picked and I guess the officials of both parties in Iowa like it that way.

So why should anyone care who wins the evening of February 1st in Iowa. That vote is both no representative and meaningless.

[emulatorloo]

14. Check Iowa's track record on picking the eventual Dem nominee

As to who shows up at the caucus, in general it trends more liberal.

[CajunBlazer]

49. I did check Iowa's track record and ......

......It's not real good:

Past Iowa Caucus Winners: Who Has Gone On To Win The Nomination, Presidency?

However, it is decent at picking candidates who win their party's nomination only to lose the general election.

[CoffeeCat]

56. 90 percent track record:Iowa Dem caucus winners win the Democratic nomination

Your initial point was that our Iowa caucuses do not reflect the country.

The Iowa Democratic caucuses picked Obama in 2008. He went on to win the Dem nomination. Same for John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000.

The article that you have linked, is about the REPUBLICAN CAUCUS CHOICES.

That has nothing to do with the Iowa Democrats.

You can't make your initial point stick--about our Iowa Democratic caucuses being oh-so invalid and horrifying that you're now pulling the Iowa Republican caucuses into it.

Iowa Republicans are extremely religious and conservative. They are another breed. Both you and I would agree that they are batshit crazy.

The winner of the Iowa Democratic caucuses--have gone on to be the Democratic nominee 90 percent of the time.

[CajunBlazer]

59. Wrong - you didn't read the article, did you?

Quote from the article:
Seven democrats in 10 caucuses who won in Iowa have ended up winning their party's nomination, according to the Des Moines Register. (Two were incumbents who ran unopposed.)

That is at best a 70% record. However, we have to throw out the two elections where a Democratic candidate ran unopposed - its not like Iowa had a choice in the matter so they got out their rubber stamp. That brings down the number of correct Iowa picks to 5 out 8 or 62.5% which is a far cry from 90%.

Even if the Iowa vote could actually predict the ultimate winner (which is certainly open to question), that doesn't change the fact that the Iowa caucuses are nothing more than poorly attended straw polls.

[Jarqui]

26. I think Sanders and Clinton should both care very much about who wins Iowa

Sanders is way behind in South Carolina: Clinton +47
Sanders is well behind in Nevada: Clinton +26.5

Sanders has limited financial resources compared to Clinton

Sanders is very close in New Hampshire (Gravis poll is probably an outlier as they're not a very reliable outfit)
Sanders is pulling closer in Iowa - within single digits the last two polls two+ months out.

Those four states lead off the primary voting and are the only states voting in February. Those four votes are all the media is going to have to talk about for a month - aside from incoming polls (which will start to trend towards Sanders if he wins two of these states).

If Bernie were to split the states by winning New Hampshire and Iowa, that would be enormous because then there would be this big discussion in the media for a month (free media coverage) about whether Bernie can do what Obama did. The result of that would help to further legitimize his candidacy, in part like it did for Obama, and help him zoom up the polls because folks would recognize that he is capable of beating Hillary. And when the media take the next obvious step to see how he matches up with GOP candidates, right now, he arguably matches up better. The publicity of that would be big because it is something that is currently helping Hillary right now. A bunch don't find her trustworthy but she's currently getting their support because they don't think Bernie can beat the GOP (but the polls suggest otherwise - that he's as capable or better against the GOP because so many independents and Republicans do not trust Hillary/don't like her).

Hillary basically had her boot on Bernie's throat in these polls. if she lets him get up or he manages to get up, she could have real trouble. And it will cost her campaign big money to finish Bernie off.

Because of that, I think Iowa is VERY important.

[Jarqui]

32. One other thing

If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary has to spend the first 20 days of the primary answering why she couldn't beat Bernie - not good for her at all. Those two victories could propel Bernie to making Nevada competitive. ...

[CoffeeCat]

41. ...and it also blows her "I'm inevitable; Bernie is unelectable" meme...

Last edited Wed Nov 25, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

That inevitability meme was her main point in 2008, as it is this year.

If Bernie wins Iowa and NH, that meme is blown to smithereens, just as it was in 2008.

It's also the point when Democratic voters realize that the national polls are meaningless.

Iowa and NH remind Democratic voters that we have a state-by-state primary process. Not a national election and those national numbers aren't as meaningful. What matters is the polling in states where the primary campaigns are in high gear.

That process has just started to ramp up in Iowa.

[Jarqui]

48. Inevitable?

HIllary is well below the line on that chart.

Everyone is looking at the primary polls and assuming she's strong. She's got lots of Wall Street money and political backers like she did in 2008. She is strong in the primary polls.

But the reality is a lot of people beyond the 25% Dems who find her untrustworthy do not like her. But her favorability is way below 2008

and when you look at the favorability with likely voter polls (supposedly the best)

she's -14.6 - almost Trump awful.

Rubio is currently beating her handily head to head in the state by state contests.

Inevitable? No way.

[CoffeeCat]

50. I agree that she is not "inevitable"...

....but that doesn't stop the Hillary campaign from claiming so.

I agree, she has got such high negatives. No way is she snagging any Republican votes, or undecideds who tend to lean Republican.

You're right. She's got a centrist Dem fan base. That isn't the majority of our party. Other than that, she's got nothing.

Thank you for these visuals. Very telling, indeed.

[Jarqui]

53. If she wins, I'll definitely support her and try to help

But her candidacy frightens me that she can win the primary and not the main event because so many do not like her or trust her. I do not trust her so it's harder for me to sell her to others. I can stand behind Bernie with real conviction.

If the Dems do not regain the House or Senate (which seems probable for 2016), then a GOP presidency means many of the gains won in 2008/2012 can be lost and a Supreme Court gets to move further right to consolidate Citizen's United as a way of life - Wall Street owns our elections, etc. A Dem president could protect much of that from happening with a veto and picking Supreme Court justices.

So this is a pretty big deal to me. I'm not doing this to merely hate Hillary. I'm doing it trying to protect the gains made and further the Democratic party progress.

[Robbins]

47. boot on bernie's throat?

not what I would have used.

you want to win support bernie.

some liberals and progressives who support bernie dislike clinton because of issues like war,trade,wall street,

[CajunBlazer]

51. Check out the polls for the 12 Super Tuesday states...

....which immediately follow the first four primaries if you think Clinton will be in trouble if she loses Iowa and NH.

On the other hand if Bernie lose either Iowa or NH his chances of winning the nomination are not good at all. So Hillary has some cushion, Bernie does not.

[Jarqui]

54. "So Hillary has some cushion, Bernie does not"

I think that's probably true. If Bernie wins two states, he's still in the game. Clinton has some sort of a fight left. If Bernie loses all four states, he's toast.

Your own point goes against your position that "No one should care who wins in Iowa".

If Bernie wins, game on. If Bernie loses, probably game over. Both candidates and their respective supporters should care about that.

[CajunBlazer]

57. Iowa matters only to the extent that people sill believe it matters

In the future I would love to see every presidential candidate, Democrat and Republican, announce that they are not going to spend any time or resources in that Iowa because their primary process is a sham. The caucuses have extremely low participation and the votes for candidates at those caucuses have absolutely no affect on what delegates Iowa sends to the National Conventions. That is my definition of a sham.

That's not going to happen, but I can be an idealist at times as well.

[Jarqui]

60. I think that would be much more accurately restated with:

"Iowa matters to the extent that mainstream media make it matter"

It launched Obama in 2008. It could launch Sanders in 2016.

Media babbling about Iowa results for 20 days could help Sanders immensely. It's very likely to happen. A Dem primary contest is great for ratings/media sales.

[CajunBlazer]

65. You mean when the mainstream media....

babbles about the Iowa result for 6 days, don't you? The Iowa caucuses are Dec. 1st followed by the New Hampshire primary on Dec. 8th. They can't really start talking about the results of the cause until the 2nd and they will probably start emphasizing NH by the 7th if not a lot earlier.

And remember the news shows on the original 3 networks and the new channels will talk about what events bring them the most viewers. If big something is happening internationally at the time, the caucuses may get far less air time than you expect.

I hope that we someday get to the point that no body cares about the Iowa caucuses regardless of who wins this time around, because they are nothing more then a poorly attended straw poll.

[Jarqui]

66. ?? "The Iowa caucuses are Dec. 1st followed by the New Hampshire primary on Dec. 8th." ??

Do you mean February 1st and February 9th 2016 instead of the above??

[CajunBlazer]

68. Yep, sorry, but the point is the same. (n/t)

[CoffeeCat]

31. You know jack squat about the Iowa caucuses!

All ready lying about our Iowa caucuses before they happen?

Is this how the Clinton camp insulates themselves from a loss? Man, their internal polling must be weaker than the public polling that we've seen.

I've participated in several Iowa Democratic caucuses. I was a precinct captain in 2008. You don't even know what you're talking about.

I live in a precinct that is relatively large. Our caucus lasted 45 minutes from start to finish. The participation rate was very high. At least half of the Iowa precincts are in rural areas where there are fewer than 20 people participating in each caucus. I imagine that those people are in and out within 15 minutes.

What you have written is fantasy.

Candidates earn delegates at the caucus. Those delegates earned have always remained the final result. You are spouting convoluted gibberish.

Nice erroneous talking points though. Too bad you have a seasoned Iowa caucus participant who can easily debunk your nonsense.

Hillary didn't start this baloney until she left our state--when she came in third place in 2008. What this says to me is that she is doing worse in Iowa than last year.

What a joke.

[CajunBlazer]

46. Your participation does not make the caucus process a good one

First of all I know enough about the Iowa caucuses to write this article:

Why We Shouldn’t Give a Damn Who Wins the Iowa Caucuses

You might want to note that I wrote it in early September, long before anyone cared who was ahead in Iowa so I definitely wasn't attempting to support one candidate or the other. I was simply pointing out that the Iowa caucus process sucks.

Second you haven't touched my two main arguments about the Iowa caucuses:

1. The caucus process is non representative - state wide only 10% to 12% of registered Democratic voters attend. Something is wrong with a process where only a tiny percentage of those eligible bother to attend. Your experience based on one precinct caucus does not not alter the facts about participation statewide.

2. The vote for the candidates in the precinct caucuses is not part of the process by which Iowa chooses its delegates to the Democratic Nation Convention. The only part of the precinct process which has any affect on the selection Iowa delegates to the National Democratic Convention is the selection of the precinct delegates to the county caucuses and those are totally separate votes from the votes for candidates. Now that's my definition of a "beauty contest". Again, you will have trouble arguing with the facts.

Just because you like the caucus process doesn't make it a good one.

[CoffeeCat]

58. Your blog post is interesting, but invalid...

There has never been an Iowa caucus decision that worked its way through out system and ended up changing. Our delegates follow the will of the Iowa people that was finalized during the Iowa caucus process.

Your point is moot. I don't care what your little blog post says.

If you had EVEN ONE example of Obama, Kerry or Gore winning the Iowa caucuses, then the Iowa process churning out a different winner (other than the one initially picked by the Iowa caucuses) then you might have a point.

But there is no such example.

You are attempting to poison our process in the minds of people. Again, this tells me that your candidate of choice isn't doing so well in the Iowa caucuses.

[CajunBlazer]

61. So you admit that the entire process....

... of precinct caucuses, county caucuses, district caucuses, and the state convention is burdensome and unnecessary since it produces the exact same result as the precinct caucus votes for the candidates. If so, I agree.

Here a thought - why not let the precinct caucus votes determine the delegates to the National Conventions.

Or better yet, why doesn't Iowa let every registered voter cast his/her vote like they do in real democracies instead of using an archaic system which was probably originally designed to give political insiders better control of the results. (Note, I didn't say it was being use that way today, but I suppose that the potential still exists.)

By the way, my article was based in large part on literature from Iowa sources. The opinions in the article are mine - you are free to disagree with them if you wish - but it is very accurate on the facts. If you disagree, please point which facts you disagree with and provide authoritative sources that indicate I am wrong. Sorry, your opinion as an Iowa caucus attendee is not an authoritative source.

[CoffeeCat]

64. The Iowa caucuses had a 39.57% participation rate, the last time

So, your point about the caucuses being a straw poll is not only inaccurate, it is bizarre.

You obviously have a bias. I don't begrudge you for blogging. However, to suggest that you are merely reporting facts and figures from reliable sources is disingenuous.

You fail to mention that 39.57% of registered Iowa Democrats participated in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Gee, why is that? Because you have a bias?

The 2004 participation rate was about 25 percent. States that have caucuses (Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, Maine- and many others) have participation numbers that are similar to Iowa. We're not scary, I assure you!

The caucus system is democracy in action. The final count is done by a show of hands. That's an accurate count, and it is ensured accurate by double counting and multiple witnesses calling in results.

I am proud that my state does it this way. Voting machines can be rigged.

I suspect this is why some candidates ultimately do not approve. The Iowa caucuses can't be stolen.

[CajunBlazer]

67. You completely avoided my main point

If the entire cumbersome Iowa four part caucus system consistently mirrors the precinct caucus votes for candidates, why keep the process. Better yet, why not simply have a straight up vote - and please don't give me that Republican BS about how elections can be rigged. That false narrative has been also been used forever to deprive people of their right to vote.

And speaking of depriving people of their right to vote, polls have shown that more Iowas would vote in a primary election function if they didn't have to sit through a BS meetings. Generally representatives of each candidate is given 5 minutes to make a pitch for his guy or gal. On the Democratic side you are lucky - this time around that amounts to only 15 minutes. You might not be so lucky in the future. On the Republican side there will be 13 candidates - that's and hour and 5 minutes just for the little speeches and that doesn't count socializing and discussion time. What a waste of time.

In addition, there are far more of Iowa voters who are registered as "No Party" (independents) than there are either Democrats or Republicans. They don't get to vote in either set of caucuses, so the biggest group of voters in your state are left completely out of the voting process.

The participation rate in 2008 was an outlier and you know it - and comparing Iowa's participation rate to that of other caucus states is not informative.

Actually it is up to the individual precinct caucus to decide the voting their procedures and those methods vary from precinct to precinct - your participation in one precinct's caucus is not authoritative.

[Robbins]

10. Like CBS Iowa poll it shows Bernie is still in the game

question is are independents and younger voters sampled well.Iowa Youth cacus shows first time voters like bernie.

Everything comes to enthusim.we have seen plenty to back up bernie supporters are for him.Clinton not so much.

this poll says they think bernie is better on economy and care about them.Only thing helping clinton is memo she is more electable which is flawed.

[CajunBlazer]

11. It doesn't matter who wins in Iowa

It is beauty contest at best. (See my post above.)

[Robbins]

22. If you support bernie

yes it does.just like it mattered back in 2008 that Obama won it and back in 2004 that Kerry won it.

[riversedge]

37. Yes, gave Obama the mojo. But Sanders does not have the southern strategy to continues the mojo

If he should win either IA or NH (and the possibility does exist)

[CoffeeCat]

36. Actually, Iowans don't give a shit about "beauty"...

Because we are first in the nation, Iowans take the process very seriously. Candidate rallies for Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley will be heavily attended by thousands of Iowans.

We don't give a rip who is "inevitable." We don't care who the media wants. We don't care which candidate is more charming.

We attempt to do our best to pick the best Democrat to represent our party. Obama was a total underdog when he began campaigning Iowa in 2007. He was 20 points behind Hillary during the spring (according to American Research group polling in May).

We listened to his speeches, attended rallies and made an informed decision. We picked Obama, and so did the entire Democratic party. He was our nominee. Beauty contest, indeed.

If Iowa was a "beauty contest" as you said, we would have followed the media mandate--like a bunch of zombies and just voted for Hillary. We were constantly told that she was the most electable and that the inexperienced Obama (who was behind in every national poll) could not win.

The most influential and widely read newspaper in Iowa--the Des Moines Register--endorsed Clinton.

You are disparaging our caucuses, our state and throwing out a great deal of misinformation.

This is a telltale signal that the Clinton camp expects to lose Iowa. Fascinating stuff.

[CajunBlazer]

40. Regardless of who leads or who wins, I am definitely disparaging your caucuses

Please demonstrate why my arguments are wrong. Let me recap:

1. The caucus process is non representative - only 10% to 12% of registered Democratic voters attend. Something is wrong with a process where only a tiny percentage of those eligible bother to attend.

2. The vote for the candidates in the precinct caucuses is not part of the process by which Iowa chooses its delegates to the Democratic Nation Convention. That's my definition of a "beauty contest".

[emulatorloo]

15. Looks very good for Bernie. Thanks for posting!

[firebrand80]

17. Looks like it's in line with the last couple of polls out of Iowa

It's safe to say Bernie is behind 8-10 points in Iowa

[NCTraveler]

20. A little funny that Sanders only real shot is a state that doesn't represent the country....

with processes that don't represent a democracy. At the same time, really solid two month trend for Clinton in Iowa.

[reformist2]

28. What are you talking about?

[NCTraveler]

30. It's kind of too obvious to explain and I'm certian you get it. Thanks for the reply. nt.

[ibegurpard]

44. just the typical shitting on anything

That doesn't fit the Hillary inevitability narrative.

[CoffeeCat]

42. The Iowa Causes are the epitome of democracy...

We picked Obama in 2008--and he went on to win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency.

Kerry won the 04 Iowa caucuses--and he won the Democratic nomination.

Al Gore won the 2000 Iowa caucuses--and and Gore won the Democratic nomination.

What was that you were saying about the Iowa caucuses not representing democracy?

We not only "represent a democracy" we mirror the views of Democratic party.

[Todays_Illusion]

21. I think the article should be titled: Bernie closing on Hillary in Iowa.

But the propaganda has decided who you must vote for and want to discourage any who prefer Bernie Sanders.

We can predict that as the Iowa vote nears Bernie Sanders name will vanish from the noise called news.

[DCBob]

29. Huh??

"These results are almost unchanged from the last Quinnipiac survey in Iowa, in late October"

[Todays_Illusion]

33. The trend in the news is to claim Bernie is far behind Hillary around 30% and up.

[DCBob]

34. You suggested the article title should be changed..

which makes zero sense.

[Todays_Illusion]

63. No offense intended, Just another way to report the same information. Yes I support Bernie, ;)

[DCBob]

38. I only see this as good news for Hillary Clinton.

Only two months to go and the race appears to have stabilized at around a 10 point lead. Hard to see how Bernie closes that gap given its not a name recognition issue anymore. Also he hasn't done that well in the debates and Hillary has better organization and more money. Seems to me Hillary is the likely winner in Iowa.

[CoffeeCat]

45. Some reality here...

According to the Des Moines Register, Bernie has $27.1 million cash on hand; Hillary has $33 million cash on hand (at the end of third quarter).

They both have a lot of money and are financially healthy. Money isn't hampering either camp in Iowa.

According to the same Des Moines Register article, Bernie has 20 offices in Iowa, so does Clinton. Furthermore, Hillary claims 75 full-time staff, and Bernie touts 71.

So, your point about "better organization" is wrong.

The caucuses are ten weeks away. The campaigns do not reach their peak until about six weeks before the Iowa caucuses. That's when the the flurry of public rallies, town halls and political events happens and Iowans fully engage--attending these events and making their final decisions. Believe me, I experienced this with Obama, Kerry and Gore. So actually, Clinton *is* still floating on name recognition--ten weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Very similar to how she was in 2008--when she ten points ahead of Obama ten weeks out (and look how much that changed!).

So your points about "its (sic) not name recognition issue anymore" is wrong as well.

[DCBob]

62. Some additional reality...

Bernie needs to gain about 10 points... not just maintain status quo. Just matching Hillary in dollars and staff isn't good enough. Also its the quality of staff that gives Hillary an additional edge I believe. Her people are experienced and connected. Regarding money I suspect Bernie is spread a bit thin. He is scrambling in number of states just to stay relevant. We shall see but it looks good for Hillary in Iowa.

[FloridaBlues]

52. Leading by 9 is not a horse race. He hasn't lead Nor pulled within 2-3 points

In months

[kenn3d]

55. RealClearPolitics composite

The RealClearPolitics composite ("Poll of polls" averages) 2 weeks ago on Nov 11th showed:
Clinton 53.8 Sanders 29.8 Net Clinton +24.
Today it shows:
Clinton 52 Sanders 41 Net Clinton +11

This is a closing of the gap by 13pts in 14 days.

Anything can happen. GOTV!