His command in New Hampshire is quite commanding, and she had this same trend, but less pronounced, towards the end of 2008's campaign. Furthermore, pollsters have been poot recently as we all know - and with Bernie leading on social media etc and with more grass roots support, it is likely any polling mistakes will lean in his favour.

And Iowa and New Hampshire - which Bernie could well win either of, or both, which I've said for months now - are as favourable a ground Bernie will ever get as simultaneously the whitest and most liberal Democratic state parties nationally. If he's only winning those narrowly, what does that say for his chances nationally?

 

He's winning by quite a lot in NH isn't he?

 

If he wins both of them that will give him some serious momentum which could swing things very quickly elsewhere. At this stage there are still a lot of undecided voters and people who still haven't started properly paying attention yet, so by the time they do the narrative might be that Bernie is the frontrunner. Obviously not saying he'll definitely win if he wins Iowa and NH (it's still pretty unlikely for the reason you stated in this post) but it would give him a very real chance. If he loses either of them he'll be done for. It's very fortunate for him that these 2 states happen to vote first.

His lead in New Hampshire is double digits, which will increase his majority after winning there in Iowa. The narrative after this will be he is the frontrunnwer, you are right, and motivate grass roots and social media campaigns. Could be a landslide victory :/

Edited January 15, 20169 yr by Virginia's Walls

Wasn't everyone saying (not on here before you say) that Mitt Romney four years ago was going to thrash Obama, then it turned out that Obama actually had quite the substantial lead by the time the election actually came about (in terms of the electoral vote)?

 

Or when everyone was scared that UKIP might actually do something last year and get 4+ seats to then only end up getting the one?

 

I don't really pay attention to a lot of the polls because they always seem to have some bias towards them and for the most part they always tend to be wrong when it comes to the actual end product.

 

I still think that Hilary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and go on to become the next POTUS.

That would require polling to lean in her favour with younger votwrs and grass roots cpaigners qnd also the democratic groups which have now endorsed Sanders.

 

She needs Obama to endorse her to make up the lost ground now tbh.

Stop scaring me! #Hillary2016

I want her to win too but she's not going to even be his running mate!!

I'm going to quote all these posts in May when Hillary is the nominee.

The narrative after this will be he is the frontrunnwer, you are right, and motivate grass roots and social media campaigns. Could be a landslide victory :/

No it won't! Even if he won in Iowa and New Hampshire, the narrative *wouldn't* be that he was the frontrunner, it would be that he's the insurgent candidate who's managed to score two big wins over the establishment. He'd need to win outside of those two before people who don't already support him consider him the frontrunner by any means.

Furthermore, pollsters have been poot recently as we all know

In which case why are you citing them in Sanders' favour? You can't have your cake and eat it on this. Not that this statement is applicable anyhow: a poor call in British opinion polling doesn't suddenly mean American polling is unreliable, because the two operate under very different contexts.

Iowa caucus Feb.1st

 

New Hampshire caucus Feb. 9th.

No it won't! Even if he won in Iowa and New Hampshire, the narrative *wouldn't* be that he was the frontrunner, it would be that he's the insurgent candidate who's managed to score two big wins over the establishment. He'd need to win outside of those two before people who don't already support him consider him the frontrunner by any means.

 

But the thing is that Hillary's lead in the national polls is still largely based on her HUGE lead with black voters. But it's not actually clear whether they genuinely have affinity with her, or whether it's more that they tend to be less interested in politics and are simply answering Clinton by default right now because they know nothing about Sanders (or haven't even heard of him). If it's the latter, then the media coverage from a potential Sanders Iowa/New Hampshire sweep would certainly get them to know him, and COULD (COULD!) switch things round with black voters, as happened in 2008 after Obama's early success.

 

That said, an Obama endorsement for Hillary would probably guard against the chances of that. I would still expect Hillary to grind it out at this point, but it's going to be competitive.

 

(Also, New Hampshire ok, but is Iowa really that liberal? It wouldn't really have struck me as one of the most Sanders-friendly states.)

Edited January 17, 20169 yr by Danny

And all it takes is Sanders to release well-timed soundbites of her vs Obama in 2008 when reaching the south + the momentum...

But the thing is that Hillary's lead in the national polls is still largely based on her HUGE lead with black voters. But it's not actually clear whether they genuinely have affinity with her, or whether it's more that they tend to be less interested in politics and are simply answering Clinton by default right now because they know nothing about Sanders (or haven't even heard of him). If it's the latter, then the media coverage from a potential Sanders Iowa/New Hampshire sweep would certainly get them to know him, and COULD (COULD!) switch things round with black voters, as happened in 2008 after Obama's early success.

 

That said, an Obama endorsement for Hillary would probably guard against the chances of that. I would still expect Hillary to grind it out at this point, but it's going to be competitive.

 

To a degree, yes. But black voters only make up about 10-15% of the electorate - a big chunk for sure, but Hillary's lead of 15-20 points means she'd still be leading even if that lead was eroded from a 90-10 one (is it? I don't have the figures to hand for her lead with black voters but I'm assuming it's around that proportion) to a 60-40 or even 50-50 one.

 

You're right that there's an element where if he won both it would reset the narrative to a large degree, but I think the rest of the country's Democratic voters just wouldn't be that open to someone who self-identifies as socialist for it to be easy territory for Sanders, even after a reset.

 

(Also, New Hampshire ok, but is Iowa really that liberal? It wouldn't really have struck me as one of the most Sanders-friendly states.)

Iowa as a state isn't that liberal, but the Democratic Party within it has among the highest proportion of self-identified liberals nationally:

 

And all it takes is Sanders to release well-timed soundbites of her vs Obama in 2008 when reaching the south + the momentum...

Hillary never had what could be properly described as a foot-in-mouth moment in 2008. She left that to Bill!

I think Sanders has this now unfortunately.

We gathered. You haven't really brought any extra evidence to the table since the last time you said that though.

The trend, polls and his upcoming momentum all point to this. She had a 58-point lead last summer! The nomination ends in May. Following his momentum and the overall trend since last summer, I cannot see Bernie losing now.

The trend, polls and his upcoming momentum all point to this. She had a 58-point lead last summer! The nomination ends in May. Following his momentum and the overall trend since last summer, I cannot see Bernie losing now.

Oh COME ON, she was the ONLY CANDIDATE OF NOTE last summer! http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/images/smilies/grin.gif Bernie probably WILL rise further if he wins New Hampshire (as looks likeliest), but to take two points on a scale that starts with him not being a candidate and ends with him now being the only real opposition to a divisive and well-known candidate, and extrapolate that the trend will continue exactly as it did between those two very different points is junk maths.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics...ghts/index.html

 

In the fiestiest debate, Bernie made the same 58-point summer lead and electability arguments I made and challenged Hillary directly, with supporters supposedly worried it is a repeat of 2008 at this point like I was saying.