home

Hillary's Iowa Speech: The Real Winner Stands Up

Hillary Clinton looks great in red. She's hoarse. Bill and Chelsea are with her. Her makeup's perfect (unlike Trump's racoon eyes.) Some of her remarks (not verbatim):

It is rare to have the opportunity to have a real contest and think about what the Democratic party stands for. I am a progressive who gets things done.

Cheers and standing ovation. [More...]

I stand in a long line of reformers. Bill is loving her speech. I know we can finish the job of universal health care for every man woman and child. Climate change. Education can work for every one of our kids, including those with disabilities. We can protect women's rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, everyone's rights.

Gun control.

We win in November and then we do it.

She wishes O'Malley the best. She's excited to debate Sanders about the best way forward for America. Bill and Chelsea light up with big smiles.

She is thrilled. The Democratic Party and her campaign stand for what is best in America. We will be united when all is said and done against the Republicans. They will not divide us.

I will not let Republican's divisiveness be successful because we can't afford it. So I'm breathing a big sigh of relief, Thank You Iowa.

I will stand up for you, I will fight for you, the promise of our dream will come true, Join Us. Thank you.

Fabulous speech by the best candidate for 2016. Run, Hillary, Run.

Clueless lady in green dress at CNN: You're wrong. Hillary has been comfortable speaking in front of large groups for a long time. I have video of her appearances from 2008 speaking to hundreds of people. I have video of her speaking to hundreds at other events. Get another job.

< Ted Cruz Thanks You Know Who | Sanders Complains About Party Staffing, Wants Results "Recreated" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The same (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:46:09 PM EST
    pundits that have been pushing Trump have been humiliated tonight.

    I love my husband (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:00:15 PM EST
    Always the comedian, "F you O'malley, yer splitting the vote :)"

    It IS a sight of relief (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:38:47 PM EST
    A win is a win; just as a miss is as good as a mile.  As the expectations shifted over the months in this rather unusual anti-in year, Hillary survived & prevailed.  She sure does have a fighting resilience.  

    IMO, this getting past the various kitchen sinks thrown at her from the meddling Repubs with their latest favorite emails (as well as surly attempts at reprising long-forgotten nothings from 20+ years ago) and the full-court press from the Hart-McGovern-Bradley wing descendants in our party (via Sanders) is a big plus.  Iowa is considered by Nate Silver of 538 as one of the three states most tailor-made for Senator Sanders in terms of votes.  Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont are rather unique in their non-diverse composition, size, and unusually progressive democratic party base.  

    A good start for HRC. Forward to New Hampshire... and then, Nevada, South Carolina, and the big Super Tuesday.  

    Frank Bruni headline in the NYT (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    refers to Clinton's "Dutiful Slog". Press coverage guaranteed to attract the youth vote!

    That's ok, we dutiful sloggers probably have things well in hand.

    Amazing (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:57:28 AM EST
    From the Bernie-leaning The Atlantic


    It sounds like laughable pro-Hillary spin but it's true. For Hillary Clinton, a virtual tie in Iowa was an accomplishment.

    That's because, demographically, the Hawkeye State was her worst nightmare. Among the Democratic Party's three major constituencies--racial minorities, white moderates, and white liberals--Hillary has always fared worst among the latter. In 2008, she lost voters in Iowa who described themselves as "very liberal" (almost all of whom were white) to Barack Obama by 24 points. Among self-described "moderates," by contrast, she lost by only two points. This year, she lost "very liberal" Iowans to Bernie Sanders by 19 points. Among "moderates," she beat him by 23 points.

    SNIP

    The hype surrounding Sanders's near-tie in Iowa conceals Hillary's accomplishment. Yes, his rise from obscurity was impressive. But so was Hillary's rise from 30 percent of the vote in 2008 to 50 percent in 2016 in a state where she remained ideologically vulnerable. Her organization there, overseen by her Iowa-obsessed campaign manager Robbie Mook, was far superior this time. She may not have inspired Iowa Democrats like Bernie did. But she got them to the caucus sites in roughly equal numbers. And she lived to fight another day, on more hospitable terrain.<

    Link

    Finally (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    putting the coin flip nonsense to rest.
    "Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them."


    And, I think the (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    coin flip is used when there is an odd number that is not evenly divisible so as to determine delegate equivalents.

    Parent
    But...but... (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    Hillary (4.40 / 5) (#13)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    sure does look great.

    Not like that Sanders guy.
    The old old old man with bad posture.
    That, how did Jeralyn put it... grampa.. that "Model T"...

    Hillary's makeup was just perfect.

    Whenever I'm tempted to think about the fact that she pushed Obama to get us more deeply involved in Syria with the result... how did Jeralyn put it...?
    oh yes -- with the result of putting a target on our backs..

    Well, instead of being conscious of that target as I walk around, I'll just think about how great Hillary looks and how perfectly her makeup was applied.

    She has narrowly won. (none / 0) (#4)
    by AX10 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:03:42 AM EST
    The Bernites have highjacked DU and KOS.
    Sore losers.

    It's a good win for her (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:20:27 AM EST
    for many reasons always stated, but also:  This is Iowa, not a state friendly to women in politics.  One of the last states to finally send a woman to Congress . . . who took her seat only a year ago.  

    (And she's a Republican.  Iowa Democrats have had their chances, so are even more recalcitrant.)

    Parent

    Groundbreaking (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 07:45:41 AM EST
    No woman has ever won the Iowa caucuses until last night.

    Parent
    Too close to call (none / 0) (#6)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:35:40 AM EST
    With results of 90 precincts still missing the Iowa Democratic party is asking Hillary and Bernie to try and help find the chairs of those precincts to get complete results.

    Shades of the Mitt/Rick race of days past when Mitt was declared the winner and days later it was revealed Rick actually won by 38 votes.

    check the Iowa website for correct (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:55:26 AM EST
    numbers. There are not that many outstanding precincts. Even Polk County only has 2 missing precincts and Clinton is way ahead.

    99% of the vote is in and Hillary has 49.8%.

    Parent

    And one of those precincts went to Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    in Polk County (aka Des Moines, the largest city).

    No doubt Clinton arranged that, too, to further confuse us. . . .

    Of course, that's a way of saying that Iowans had no agency in any of this but are just dumb hicks in the sticks.  As if.  Heck, I don't like their process, but it's theirs to do -- and the party knows what it's doing, and they go out of their way to explain what they're doing on the state party website and in their local media and more.  And it's not as if we never have seen, elsewhere, late-reporting precincts, not until the next day.

    As our hicks say in my sticks (owing to intriguing speech patterns of immigrant groups still evident here):  We can't learn you.  We can only teach you.

    Parent

    there are 11 (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:03:01 AM EST
    outstanding precincts at 1 am Iowa time and Clinton is at 49.9%.

    Look at the map, Hillary won more counties. They either have the same number of delegates or Hillary has one or two more.

    What's obvious to me is Bernie's revolution didn't materialize.

    Parent

    665 to 662 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:46:30 AM EST
    Strictly speaking, the Democratic caucus finished in a dead heat. In the early hours of Tuesday morning, with ninety-nine per cent of the precincts having reported, the delegate count was six hundred and sixty-five for Clinton, and six hundred and sixty-two for Sanders. (For some reason, the Democrats release only their delegate counts, not the number of votes cast for each candidate.)
    - Cassidy, The New Yorker

    I can see why Clinton is happy to (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 06:38:26 AM EST
    put it in the W column, but it is basically a tie - no clear preference emerged, except that of younger people for Bernie and older for Hillary.

    Both sides have a lot of work to do to win the nomination.

    Parent

    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    ... she won the coin tosses.  And unlike professional sports, a 'W' means she won by less than a half of a percentage.  If winner took all it would be much more important, but as it stands, Bennie will be awarded one less delegate.

    Will all the HRC people conclude that Bernie is winning it, no way, because that, like last night might technically be true, it's not reality.

    For the record, HRC didn't blow it out, and the the most recent polls indicated she would not, but polls take a couple months ago indicates she would.  In a delegate race, that is a victory for Bernie, coming from behind to almost catch the person who was once considered the shoe it.  And had the laws of probability worked on small numbers and the coin tosses been evenly distributed, it would have been a tie.

    I have little doubt Clinton will be the nominee, but to act like Bernie didn't pull something out of his A last night is not giving credit where it is due.  

    Today Clinton is up by 1 delegate in Iowa, but for some reason, the super-delegates have already awarded her 359 delegates to her and sanders only 8, which brings the totals to 381 to 29.

    Remind me again how HRC is being treated unfairly...

    Parent

    Make no mistake (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 10:56:01 AM EST
    If Bernie had won by as much it would have been a "earthquake".   A "realignment of American politics".   As uncle Joe would say "a big fu@king deal".

    So let's not minimize it because MSNBC says we should.

    Parent

    Good point - I did hear a lot of commentary (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    about her being 'finished' if she lost Iowa and NH. Um, not quite.

    Parent
    'Just read somewhere that (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    when HRC ran in Iowa in 2008, she placed 3rd ... and was behind Edwards, who was in 2nd, by .3%.  The news was that she came in 3rd; not that she was only .3% behind Edwards.  Also: I believe that then candidate Obama was awarded 15 delegate votes after the caucuses based upon the county proportionality state schema ... HRC was awarded 14 delegates then under the same rules.  He won; she lost.

    Funny ... so far the TV media seem to have difficulty calling a win under the rules a "win." Calling it that, and honoring it for what it is.  Without drumming this one too much--and, I think just like you, Captain--I wonder when that realization will dawn on the talking heads.  (Maybe after Nevada?)

    Parent

    the media (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CST on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:35:34 PM EST
    Wants nothing more than a horserace.  If it doesn't exist, they'll find one anyway.

    Parent
    Yes, a horserace. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    But, there is more.  It's an effort, it seems,  to diminish the value of the win of Mrs. Clinton.   Senator Sanders did well, coming from behind and being an Independent running in a Democratic party primary caucus state.

      But, he did not win according to the Iowa Democratic Party. As the Captain says, if that slim margin was reversed, the interpretation would likely be different.  Sanders and his supporters need not diminish  his achievement by appearing to be sore losers. Slim margins are that, slim--but they count in cumbersome caucuses, and sometimes in general elections.  

    Parent

    And Who Was Favored in 2008 ? (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    You forgot a whole lot of content in that comment.

    The numbers:

    Candidate   St Del   Del  %
    Obama        93,952  27  38%
    Edwards      74,377   4  30%
    Clinton        73,663  14  29%
    Richardson  5,278
    Biden          2,328
    Uncommitted   345
    Dodd           58
    Gravel          0
    Kucinich        0

    Not sure who called HRC for 3rd, but since the whole purpose is delegates, seems like HRC placed second by a considerable amount.

    Not sure what you point is, because you remember something about 2008 that is how it should be called in 2016 ?  

    HRC won by a delegate, but considering 4 months ago she was predicted to take the state easily, I don't think it's out of line for a guy who had no real shot back then, to declare an extremely close loss, a victory.

    Not sure why HRC backers are so adamant about calling it a win, I mean seriously, she is going to win by a lot and I think clamoring over a close race is... I don't know what it is, but fear not, even the most devoted Bernie supports know actually wining is a long shot.

    Parent

    Where you stand depends upon (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    where you sit.  

    No matter who was supposed to win or who was supposed to lose ... in sports, politics, and other things, the background is interesting, but it is the record (wins & losses) that count.

    My point: The 2008 vis-à-vis 2016 Iowa "wording" comparison--terms used in various press reports in the public domain--may be indicative that it may be difficult to accord the word "win" consistently sometimes.  While it is natural to call it a "win" when it is our preferred candidate and to try to find some other description when it is the other candidate who "wins," when general known reportage characterizes even the smallest of losses by one person in 2008 as clear loss, etc. but then calls a win of the same magnitude by that person a "tie" , well ... go figure.

    I should point out that as a long-time political type myself, my real attitude is "that's the way it goes."  The only rub: Sanders is a very long-time politician who knows the "win-loss" routine as well ... so the reluctance to congratulate the winner is a bit off-key (and almost whiny.) Better to be gracious.

    By the way, as Nate Silver and Henry Enten have opined in 538, under the circumstances of mood & geography, the Iowa situation as well as the obvious NH locale were known from the beginning to be quite favorable to Senator Sanders.  The Senator wisely took advantage of that chance, imo.

    Parent

    If This is to Be Viewed... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:56:36 AM EST
    ...as a sports event, we are one minute mark and the score is 7-6, Clinton up by 1.

    The line, Clinton -1000 delegates, meaning she is favored by a huge margin and I think any team down by 1 that is suppose to get blown out feels like they have achieved something.

    I said this numerous times, this is Clinton's election to lose, while I don't think she will, she is certainly giving it her all to make this race as tight as it could be.

    I don't believe there are many Clinton supporters who aren't wondering what the F, we were up by deep double digits.  Bernie killed it in January, $20M not including the $3 million he raised the day after the primaries. But Clinton's Super Pack is raising loads of cash from million/billionaires.  But hey, she got an election to win and we can worry about who is giving her SuperPac millions at a crack, later.

    And the latest from Iowa(Desmoines Register):

    Democratic Iowa caucuses:
    Clinton: 699.57
    Sanders: 697.77.

    It quickly raised questions about whether Sanders had won the popular vote in Iowa. Sanders backers called for Iowa Democratic Party officials to release the raw vote totals.

    Say whaaaaat, there is a chance people actually like Bernie better, that can't be right, she is the defacto leader of the D party and Bernie is a socialist...

    The article should be read as it describes the chaotic democratic process that contains this kind of insanity:

    The scene at precinct No. 42 was "chaos" Monday night, Joseph told the Register. None of the 400-plus Democrats wanted wanted to be in charge of the caucus, so a man who had shown up just to vote reluctantly stepped forward. As Joseph was leaving with the untrained caucus chairman, who is one of her neighbors, "I looked at him and said, 'Who called in the results of our caucus?' And we didn't know."

    The impromptu chairman of Des Moines No. 42 told the Register when he realized his precinct had the key to the final missing votes, he took Tuesday off work and was driving home to get the paperwork. But he didn't know who was logging the tallies.The party's caucus hotline was no longer working. The party headquarters was locked.

    Wouldn't that be something, Sanders the clear underdog who is out financed, out numbered, out organized, getting more support than the candidate a month ago was going to mop up the nomination.

    I can't imagine this is good news for HRC no matter how it's spun.  Certainly the $3M took in Yesterday is not an indication that people are viewing this a loss for the Bernie.

    Parent

    I Miss Democrats... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    ... who hated the Citizens decision and SuperPacs...

    Guess those folks are now called socialists.

    Parent

    You missed this part (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    Sanders won seven delegates, Clinton won five, Joseph told the Register.

    Later Tuesday morning, the chairman of precinct No. 42 told the Register he dropped off the head count and delegate count paperwork with Polk County Democratic Party Chairman Tom Henderson, and the state party's website has now been updated to reflect that Sanders won 58.3 percent and Clinton won 41.7 percent in precinct No. 42.

    Sanders won that precinct and all the votes were tallied.  So, I guess Hillary somehow engineered this as a won for her competitor?

    Parent

    Did Not Miss That... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    ... the totals, with those numbers are in the post.

    No idea what the rest of that means.  But the only thing she has engineered is letting a nobody come out of nowhere to possibly win more hearts and minds in Iowa.  She won the delegate race, but much like GWB and our ridiculous voting/caucus/electorate, sometimes a 'win' comes even though they are not the choice people actually wanted.

    But since this isn't the finally, I think most people would think being more popular, at this point, is more important that a single delegate.

    Fear not, I am sure the Super Delegates will ensure HRC gets every advantage one can get, and hey maybe she can demand some state's delegates not be counted, anything to ensure her victory, to hell with what people want...

    Parent

    Now you're just making things up (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    An important point that eludes you (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:56:44 PM EST
    Referring to sport say--or anything else for that matter-- the smart "line" contains more than "here is this number & here is that number" going into the race.  In the political arena, $$$$ mean a lot and name recognition mean a lot ... of course.  Advantage: Clinton.  Equally as important is the wind blowing against that advantage when a "mood of change" occurs periodically in American society--sometimes known as "throw the bums out" or "clean house" or similar there can be competing forces to diminish the initial advantage, etc.  Clearly, in both parties, that mood & force of housecleaning or rebuilding or tear it down & start anew is a prevailing force ... particularly among certain demographics. That is precisely what is happening in both parties; although with a different reasoning for rejection in both parties.  As for how broadly it is has swept the Repub party, Example A would be Jeb!Bush ...further examples include just about anyone associated with the "establishment."

    The Clinton initial advantage shifted primarily because of the sweeping headwinds of anti-establishment sentiment.  Advantage Shift: Sanders. Most political analysts published in the NYT & WashPo, etc. have commented on the advantage change occasioned by sociological headwinds AS WELL AS the distinct demographic advantage of the small white homogenous states of Iowa and NH.  I would contend, in view of the observed potential political upheaval, that HRC has done an exceptional job so far in responding & adapting to the winds of change because--on top of it all--Sanders had his own longtime wing of the party fighting for him as well.  

    So, in my view, more power to the process. I'm looking forward to the very different venues of Nevada & South Carolina.  And, I'm looking forward to the concession by Sanders in this case as a sign of integrity.

    Parent

    lol. It would have been Metaphor Monday (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:18:58 PM EST
    The Superbowl of Superlatives.

    Parent
    Turns out she did not win all the coin (4.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    tosses. Nice piece of spin there. How suspicious that those dastardly Clintons win all the coin tosses!

    Parent
    Wonder how many (3.50 / 2) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    Will hear that compared to the number who breathlessly repeated the first bullsh!t headline?

    Just doesn't have the same resonance does it?

    Parent

    Two Things... (none / 0) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    ... at posting, several reliable news sites reported it, I did not spin a thing.

    I clearly mention that is was luck, great luck at that, if you read some sort of conspiracy or something else into please do not suggest that I think there was anything devious about it.

    Now we know that simply wasn't true, but at the time of posting I did not.

    Parent

    Sorry Scott, did not mean to accuse you (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    Just the media/twitter spin on it. Should have been clear.

    Parent
    As a Denver Broncos fan ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    well, we've had some pretty "technical" wins over the years.  They go down in the record as REAL wins.  

    In the political arena, there are often things that can seem like a "tie" ... recently, a mayor's race in a relatively small western city (sorry--can't recall the name) was settled by coin toss.  That happens from time to time ... a short report on the news ... and everyone accepts it.  In Colorado caucuses, I've seen the coin toss from time to time; a coin that was tossed because someone must be certified as the winner. Politics has always had a bit of the "luck of the draw."

    One of the things about the long election process: While it drives me crazy sometimes, every so often we also get to see a glimpse of how candidates react--really react--instantaneously when things don't go their way.  I've learned a lot from watching the long processes play out.  Particularly, I admire the candidate who has the resilience and strength to pick it up and win and lose with grace.  The whiner doesn't usually win in the long run in politics.  So ... if anything, I'd suggest that the Sanders' people tend to play-the-victim & whine too readily.  That kind of stuff shows to the voter over time.

    Parent

    Apart from Iowa & upcoming NH (none / 0) (#26)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    the demographics of the primary calendar are markedly different than the homogenous hue and decidedly very progressive Dem component that we have seen in Iowa and will likely see in the almost-homestate of NH.  The only other state in Nate Silver's estimation with such favorable demographics for Sanders is ... Vermont.

    But, yes, I do agree that both candidates have their work cut out for them.  One area, e.g., where HRC needs to focus is honing the message.  For those of us who are government incrementalists by temperament and strategic choice, she sounds great and gets better in delivery all the time. But, understanding that a theme/a direct message simply stated/etc. can be quite alluring (on both sides of the aisle), the discussion of and push for consolidating & building on gains during President Obama's tenure is necessarily a good thing in a debate/town hall format but needs a bit more oomph on the stump.  (Stylistic or more?)

    Parent

    These will be apportioned into 44 delegates (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 07:25:33 AM EST
    Between Sanders and Clinton at the state convention in June.

    ABC News

    DEMOCRATS HAVE 44 DELEGATES AT STAKE
    Iowa Democrats award delegates proportionally, based on the statewide vote as well as the vote in individual congressional districts.

    Candidates must get at least 15 percent of the statewide vote to win any statewide delegates. They must win at least 15 percent of the vote in individual congressional districts to win the delegates allocated to those districts.

    The threshold could be a problem for former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who is polling below 15 percent in pre-election polls in Iowa.

    In a tight contest, it is possible for two candidates to split the delegates evenly.

    There are 4,763 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, so it takes 2,382 to win the nomination.

    SNIP

    ISN'T CLINTON ALREADY AHEAD IN THE RACE FOR DELEGATES?

    Yes. The Democrats have 712 superdelegates who can support any candidate, no matter whom voters choose in the primaries and caucuses. They are members of Congress and other elected officials, party leaders and members of the Democratic National Committee.

    The AP is tracking superdelegate endorsements. So far, 361 have said they would support Hillary Clinton at the convention. Only eight have backed Sen. Bernie Sanders and two have said they would support O'Malley.

    Fewer than half of the superdelegates have not publicly committed to a candidate, though all of them can change their minds.



    Parent
    All those sports metaphors that pundits use (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:01:32 PM EST
    Well, a win is a win is a win.  It is not a tie.  Elections are won ... and, hey, in some communities they do flip coins.  Someone wins; the smart one who doesn't win has the courage to acknowledge his loss.  The spoken & unspoken rules of the big league in sports and politics (and, lot of other things.)

    BTW, the name of the game in caucus states--as in my state of Colorado--is that the number that is counted by the state party and released by the state party is the delegate count only ... it is not a federally sponsored process, but rather a recognized and agreed to process sponsored and run by the party.  Candidates know that going in; and, so do participants in the caucus and later county and state conventions.  Again, the rules of the game ... and, when you don't get what you want (as happens to all of us who participate sooner or later) it is not considered too well to whine.

    Parent

    "The Electability Spin Machine" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    - Jeb Lund, Rolling Stone
    Sanders has fought Clinton to a virtual draw in Iowa -- it's time to crank up the spin machine.

    So naturally for the rest of the week we will learn that nobody who lost actually lost, and that all the winners are frauds. Campaign strategists have to justify where all that money went, and those in the media who prognosticate into lifelong panel-show sinecures have to course-correct reality when it gets in the way of a good story. And as for the candidates -- if we absolutely must drag them into this -- they have to persuade voters and donors that they haven't wasted their time, energy and money.



    Some (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 02, 2016 at 04:39:07 PM EST
    interesting entrance polls from last night here

    The ones I found most interesting (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:03:11 AM EST
    HRC won people at both ends of the educational spectrum:  she won big among those with a high school or less education and won big among those with postgraduate education.  Bernie won among those with some college / college degrees. Why would college educated people support him, but those with more education not? (My guess is, these people are more concerned with the tax implications of some of his proposals).

    Also, Bernie didn't get the huge groundswell of college kids out - just 18% of voters were ages 17-29.  He won them handily, but they didn't have huge numbers. People over 45 made up 64% of the total caucusers.

    I also found it interesting that HRC won union support, even though in the last weeks there has been a lot of chatter that while the national organizations supporters here, many of the rank and file did not.

    And finalky, the voters who rated health care or the economy/jobs as there #1 issue went for HRC by wide margins.  Bernie only won on the issue of income inequality.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:28:33 AM EST
    the "some college" voters are the voters that are still in college mostly.

    Parent
    18 percent is bigger than a normal turnout yes? (none / 0) (#31)
    by smott on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:15:40 AM EST
    And 84% to 14% should be worrisome to Clinton.
    Numbers do turn her way decisively but not til 45 yrs old....


    Parent
    No, it's smaller (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:24:01 AM EST
    It was 22% of the total in 2008, and around 20% in 2012.

    Parent
    Worrisome for Sanders (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:23:56 AM EST
    is that he lost Iowa.

    Parent
    only if you think Sanders has a shot (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    As someone who doesn't think Sanders has a shot, it's worrisome for Clinton.  It won't make her lose the primary, but she's going to need those voters in the general.

    Parent
    And I found this a little worrisome: (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    From Tom Sullivan at digby's:

    People began asking early in 2015 if the local Democratic party was working on 2016. I told them we started working on 2016 the day after the election in 2014.

    Each week I pick up messages at our local Democratic headquarters. For months, people have called to ask how they can get in touch with the Bernie Sanders campaign. (Even a disenchanted Republican now and then.) For months, I've directed them to the grassroots group organizing for Sanders here. Several hundred volunteers. On the ground it looks like 2008 all over again. They are phone banking out of our offices twice a week. Bernie Sanders is not a registered Democrat, but the memo from DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says he's running on our ticket.

    I also get (fewer) calls from people asking how they can get in touch with the local Hillary Clinton campaign. I tell them I wish I knew. They are nowhere to be seen. Unless you've got the money to attend a high-dollar fundraiser downstate. Clinton volunteers could use our space too. But so far there aren't any.

    A party activist in the Raleigh area confirmed Monday that she is seeing the same in Wake County. "Huuuuuuuge grassroots activist presence, already well organized and phonebanking into Iowa, NH, and SC," she wrote. "Clinton's NC presence is all fundraising."

        [Tim Kaine, a Clinton supporter says:] The lack of focus in Clinton's message to voters has emerged as a weakness. Her stump speech, which can wind on for 40 minutes or more on the minutiae of virtually every major policy detail, tends to impress voters at her events, but it poses a challenge for her surrogates, who are countering a far simpler message from Sanders focused on income inequality.

    Clinton is trying to run an Obama-style campaign. Since 2008, everybody wants to run an Obama-style campaign. North Carolina Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan ran a pretty solid campaign in 2014. An Obama-style campaign. Hagan lost. Problem was, Hagan wasn't an Obama-style candidate.

    Neither is Hillary Clinton. As her campaign makes adjustments post-Iowa, they might want to wake up and smell the cold pizza.

    How does she adjust - when does she adjust?  Because while she may be able to steamroll Sanders in the primaries, I think they must not be fooled into believing that what worked to defeat Sanders will work to defeat the GOP in the general election.  Failing to adjust could have unthinkable consequences, especially if the nominee is Cruz or Trump, who both have the right game, even if those games are a little different from each other.

    Parent

    Then general election strategy will most (none / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    likely focus on the same swing states it has in the last couple of elections :Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.

    If I hear anecdotal evidence of her lack of presence in those states next summer, I will be worried.

    Only the primaries are anywhere near a 50 state contest anymore. Want to place a Clinton v Sanders bet on North Carolina?

    Parent

    No, but I could place a bet on WA State (none / 0) (#142)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    if the voting were on March 15, like it is in NC.

    Bernie's number of donations in WA beat Clinton's and all GOPers combined.

    Combined.

     

    Parent

    So ... raising $$$$ is the standard <sn> (2.00 / 1) (#145)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:03:58 PM EST
    Ha! You totally didn't get it! (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    Not surprised at all, Christine.

    Here, let me clarify it for you: It's not all about money. But when it comes to donors, the numbers of donors matters at least as much as the total amount of donations. Bernie's much, much larger numbers of donors is indicative of how many more people are engaged in fueling his candidacy. Considering that I've lived in WA for more than 30 years, have been involved in politics here for most of that time, I won't hold it against you for not knowing more about what's going on in Washington State Democratic politics. And let us not forget, Obama also had many more small donors in WA State than Clinton did, and won the state's caucuses with 67% to Clinton's 31%--even though she was endorsed by both of WA's U.S. Senators.

    Bottom line: There is extraordinary energy and support for Sanders in WA State. He holds public rallies where anyone can attend, and she holds private, invitation-only fundraisers at hotels, and at the homes of millionaires and billionaires. And Sanders is still giving her a major challenge in this state.

    That's what we call a reality check.

    Parent

    There seems to be a lot of talk about (none / 0) (#147)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:13:45 PM EST
    the $$$$.  Almost genuflecting references.  That's all I'm saying ... for now.

    Parent
    Numbers in today (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    Sanders raises $20 million in january, Clinton raises $15 million.

    BUT, Clinton also raised $5 million for other Democrats.

    Sanders raised..... $0.

    Parent

    What's that got to do w/ WA State? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:28:38 PM EST
    I guess you didn't get the point of my comment either. I was talking about Washington State. The article I linked to was about Sanders' fundraising in...wait for it...Washington State.

    But hey, if you want to talk about the fact that, in comparison to Clinton, Sanders raises the largest majority of his funds from a larger pool of small donors, contributing $200 or less, we can have that discussion.

    We can also have a discussion about how a huge portion of Clinton's campaign funding has come from Super PACS ($50 million and counting, so far) and from Wall Street. Oh, wait, I forgot. We're not supposed to talk about her Wall Street funding.

    Well, then we could talk about the fact that right after her .3% win in Iowa, the Sanders campaign received $3 million in campaign funding--overnight--from small donors.

    Then again, none of that directly addresses the point I was making about Washington State Democrats being ultra energized about the Sanders campaign.

    As you like to say, "thanks for playing."

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 09:41:24 PM EST
    The conversation thread was about organization in North Carolina, and YOU went off on a tangent about fundraising in Washington.

    I just put the the latest fundraising totals under your detour (because it was the new topic), but also pointing out that Bernie is doing NOTHING for downticket races, so it doesn't look very hopeful for his revolution to come to fruition.

    But you're right about one thing  - I really don't  care about fundraising in Washington.

    And if he gets the nomination, well, there's no way he will be able to just have "small donors", so enjoy that meme as long as you can.

    Parent

    Oh, what I enjoy more than anything (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:13:41 PM EST
    is watching you throw tantrums over the realities of Clinton's high-powered donors.

    Ruffian is the one who brought up NC, and I was responding to her. Of course, I'm not surprised you don't care about Washington--a reliably liberal blue state--but then Washingtonians aren't much enamored of conservative Dems like you. After all, we citizens are responsible for the legalization of pot for both medical and personal use in Washington, something that sends you into a tizzy.

    But nothing can be discounted when politics is at play. By the March 26 caucus, Hillary might have increased her support here...it's no secret there are now more millionaires and billionaires building mansions and screwing workers here than you can shake a stick at. Tax dodgers like Microsoft, Boeing, and Amazon aren't likely to be supporting the little guy.

    Parent

    Actually Anne brought up NC (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    She was worried that Hillary's organization isn't quite up to snuff for the general election. I'm just betting it is good enough to win NC, despite what she seems to think is Bernie's superiority in that state.

    I may lose the best, doesn't really matter. I just took the bait when I probably should not have.

    Parent

    I'm sorry (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    I'm not throwing a tantrum, but you sure seem to be in a tizzy.

    The fact that sj gave you 5, proves my point. She is reflexive that way.

    But since you can't respond to the fact that Hillary is raising money not only for herself, but  for other Dems, while Bernie is not, we will all note that you agree that that could be a problem for him trying to get his "revolution" going.

    Parent

    Maybe Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    is deeper in the money pile then he professes.
    In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.

    and who are these donors, you ask
    A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.

    and what goes around comes around

    In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party's Senate candidates.

    The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.

    Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.

    (My bold)

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#164)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:58:11 PM EST
     and this little gem
    During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of Abby Rockefeller -- a member of the same family whose wealth he had one proposed confiscating.
    If that ain't dancing with the big money devil I don't know what is.

    Parent
    Ooh, snap (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    And then there's THIS (Gasp!): (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    The New Yorker | February 5, 2016
    Sanders Admits Receiving Free Checking from Big Banks - "Scandal rocked Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign on Friday as the candidate was forced to admit that he received free checking from several big banks. In a press conference in Manchester, New Hampshire, a chastened Sanders acknowledged that, over the past two decades, he received free checking from Bank of America, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase in exchange for maintaining a five-hundred-dollar minimum balance. 'I should have acknowledged my relationship with these banks earlier,' a subdued Sanders told reporters. 'For that, I am sorry.' [...] The news of Sanders's ties to the banking industry comes just days after damaging reports that he leveraged his relationship with the American Automobile Association to obtain a discount on renting a Nissan Sentra."

    ;-D


    Parent

    At Citibank neither you, I or Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 01:11:55 PM EST
    even need to maintain a minimum balance.

    A review of Citibank's current statement on checking account fees:

    OTHER WAYS TO AVOID MONTHLY FEE

    ...First-listed owner on the account is age 62 or older.

    I think, like every other person age 62 or older, Sanders would qualify for free checking at Citibank.

    Sanders receiving the same treatment at the big banks as you or I is somehow being put forth as a scandal.

    People are really getting desperate if this is what they have to offer as a scandal.


    Parent

    Sounds like a bunch of Mark Penn juniors (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    have been working overtime scratching frantically through the dirt looking for something-anything on Sanders..

    Must be another election year..

    Parent

    As long as he didn't keep the toaster (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    I am not a politician (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    and I and numerous other average citizens receive free checking for maintaining the minimum balance required by that bank to qualify for free checking. This is an offer made to all citizens and is not a political perk.

    I would bet that he also got interest free credit card use if he paid off his outstanding balance each month.

    Every person who has any type of account with a bank, has a relationship with a bank.

    Parent

    For the love of God, that is an Andy Borowitz (4.50 / 2) (#177)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 01:18:17 PM EST
    parody piece.

    Settle down folks.

    Parent

    I'm glad you identified it as a parody piece. (none / 0) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 01:27:33 PM EST
    And as long as he didn't keep the toaster, there shouldn't be any problem.

    Parent
    Seriously, I'm cracking up (none / 0) (#181)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    at the reaction.

    But I follow the New Yorker so may be more aware that Borowitz is a regular.

    Parent

    Ooh snap.. (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 11:30:23 AM EST
    So, finally, your point is what?

    That because Sanders has to raise money he should just completely desist from ever publicly broaching the subject of the corrupting influence of money in American politics?

    Because talk like that afflicts the comfortable at parties in an election year?

    We're all forced to be hypocrites at one time or another, but that doesn't mean we have to repress and censor out of existence vital knowledge of all the factors that contribute to our unsustainable national conumdrum.

    Parent

    Geez (none / 0) (#173)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 08:37:13 AM EST
    You guys are really scrambling , lol

    It must be scary, The Bern outraised Madame Sec last month
    And can keep hitting up his donors month after month
    Madame Sec has fundraisers at Bain ...What?  Bain!

    Oh, no, that was cancelled until after the NH primary
    Optics are optics
    I must say, The Bern is a very extraordinary phenomena
    Feel The Bern!!!
    He makes me want to ask for a Vanilla Egg Cream, I imagine him behind the counter at Louies Sweet Shoppe

    Parent

    In the 2006 election cycle, (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    The DSCC raised $62,352,415 and Sanders received $37,300. Huge Wow.

    If about 25% of the attendees were from the financial sector, about 75% of the attendees did not represent the financial sector. So it appears that the DSCC was trying to appeal to people other than those belonging to the financial sector. Sanders has a great deal of appeal to people who support a wide array of issues outside of the financial sector.

    The 2006 election cycle was a very pivotal point in election history when the Democratic Party was trying to get control of the Senate. As a Senator who was part of the Democratic caucus, Sanders had a responsibility to help raise money to help achieve that goal. The goal to obtain the majority in the Senate in 2006 was achieved in part by Sanders' efforts.

    I hope this information will dissuade people with continuing the meme that Sanders never contributes anything electing Democrats.

    Parent

    Down rating for trolling (none / 0) (#163)
    by sj on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:50:38 PM EST
    I've told you before: I down rate comments, not commenters.

    I've even uprated you in the past.

    Parent

    I'm glad to see Washington going more (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    liberal...and I think the tech workers at those giant corporations are probably more liberal than you think, and do support the little guy.

    You can be well paid and still support the little guy. And from what I hear, the warehouse workers at Amazon ARE the little guy.

    People need to vote. Numbers are what defeat big money.

    Will be interested in seeing how it plays out.

    Parent

    Wonder (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    How he plans on starting that revolution without helping Democrats get elected?

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    but...she's obviously only paying off her superdelegates...or something.

    Parent
    It looks like (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    it's starting to work, at least for some of them.

    Bernie Sanders' Democratic Senate colleagues have pretty much left him alone throughout his presidential run. Most of them saw his campaign as quirky and idealistic, certainly no threat to the candidate they overwhelmingly back, Hillary Clinton.

    But now, after his near-upset in Iowa and an expected victory next week in New Hampshire, it's beginning to look like open season on Sanders for Senate Democrats.

    They're criticizing his platform as naive, taking exception to his criticism of Clinton as a fake progressive, and imploring the media to put the Vermont independent and self-described democratic socialist under the microscope.

    SNIP

    Even members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Sanders is the only Senate member, bristled at his attempts to label Clinton.

    Best line?

    "Hillary's a progressive in the way she views the issues every day," said liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "Bernie's a Democrat some days. And that's a fact with evidence."


    Parent
    As HRC knows, it helps to help others (none / 0) (#182)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:00:14 PM EST
    Other people, of course, AND other people in your party.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:27:36 AM EST
    18% is about average I believe. The problem for Bernie is while he does well with that age group they are also the least reliable voting group.

    Parent
    Rand Paul hangs 'em up (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:24:18 AM EST


    Wonder where that decisive (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:36:47 AM EST
    2.4% will go.

    Parent
    I'm betting (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:52:33 AM EST
    his support goes to Trump.

    Parent
    Well, I'm betting that ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    ... Donald Trump probably implodes and will likely be spent by Easter week. Those Iowa Republicans who arrived at the caucus sites still having not yet fixed firmly upon a candidate, tended to break hard against him once the process engaged.

    As I noted in an earlier thread, Trump has a definite ceiling of support. As other candidates drop out that's going to come into play, because those Republicans who supported these soon-to-be former candidates will probably go the route of Iowa's undecided caucus-goers, and break hard against him as well.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I already proclaimed 'Peak Trump' (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    last week. Hope I was correct.

    Parent
    well, there's this: (none / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:41:35 AM EST
    # of Republican voters who would never, ever vote for Trump...37%

    Parent
    Based on the accuracy (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    Of your past Trump prognostications on Trump I would say.you aee the gold standard.  In the DMR sense.

    Parent
    Everybody (none / 0) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    overestimated Trumps strength in IA, I think his poll numbers are artificially inflated across the board. Let's call it the media effect.

    That being said I think he has a rock solid support of around ~25% almost everywhere, and he should be able to pull that with minimum effort.

    I don't see any implosion on his part, but I wonder if he will be finally willing to spend the money and do the legwork to solidify and expand his support. Too many seconds and he runs the risk of losing his luster and may start fading if he consistently underperforms even if he does eke out narrow victories.

    Parent

    I am looking fiorward (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:47:48 PM EST
    To finding out

    Parent
    Well see. The vote count only just started (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    I would note that Trump underperformed significantly in Iowa, given his pre-caucus polling. He didn't even break 25%, and he's presently hovering around 30-35% in New Hampshire polling.

    As the primaries move forward and other candidates drop out, I'm thinking that their supporters will probably gravitate to and distribute themselves amongst Trump's remaining opponents. That's because while those who like Trump really like him, those who don't really can't stand him.

    Trump's current plurality of support isn't necessarily going to translate into a majority over the long haul in this race. His national polling numbers have consistently remained in the 30-35% range for months now, and they've not risen at all even as other candidates have withdrawn. 65-70% of Republicans still want someone else.

    When there's a dozen candidates in the race, 30% support is more than enough to impressively establish oneself as a frontrunner. But as the field narrows, 30% just isn't going to cut it. Trump has to expand his appeal beyond that initial base of support, and he's clearly having difficulty doing so.

    Now that the campaign process has actively engaged and votes are starting to be cast, it comes down to organization and logistics. New Hampshire and South Carolina will probably reveal to us if Trump has an effective ground game. But from what I've seen thus far, his campaign appears more like a concert tour promotion, than oriented toward actually driving the vote and getting people to the polls.

    That's why Trump lost in Iowa. While the Ted Cruz campaign actually had boots on the ground, with evangelical Christians going door-to-door, making phone calls, and literally picking up supporters at their homes and driving them to the caucus sites, Trump had lots of loud and profane rally attendees who apparently couldn't be bothered afterward to actually get to those sites on their own.

    If Trump's ground game isn't there and he's relying primarily upon his own nativist bombast to carry the day, I'm hard pressed to see how his lead is going to hold. Will his supporters actually show up at the polls? Does the candidate himself even know where that support really resides, and how firmly committed it actually is? Given what happened in Iowa, those remain open questions.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The fact (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    of the matter is while he does have a ceiling of support it's enough in a three-way for him to win and win and win. So unless it gets down to 2 candidates and a candidate that can beat him he's going to keep winning and I happen to think he's probably going to do better in primaries than he did in caucuses.

    Parent
    We'll see. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:10:36 PM EST
    If there's one thing I've learned in campaigns, it's that one shouldn't place an inordinate amount of faith in polling as an ultimate harbinger of success.

    I headed up the ground game for Neil Abercrombie in the 2010 Democratic gubernatorial primary, where the polls one week out from election day showed us neck-and-neck with our challenger, Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann. We won by 22 percentage points, 60-38%.

    That's because we knew where our supporters generally resided, and had a system in place down to the precinct level to ensure that they turned out. Hannemann, on the other hand, sat back and relied on media buys. We worked our tails off to see that our voters showed up, and they did. He didn't, and his support went MIA at crunch time.

    Does Trump have a ground game in place to drive the vote -- or is he, like Mayor Hannemann, all mouth?

    We'll soon find out, won't we?

    Parent

    Shut your mouth! (none / 0) (#132)
    by sj on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    If there's one thing I've learned in campaigns, it's that one shouldn't place an inordinate amount of faith in polling as an ultimate harbinger of success.

    Just sayin'

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 04, 2016 at 10:51:56 PM EST
    sj: "Just sayin'"

    Just sayin' -- what, exactly?

    Parent

    really believe that was a joke, Donald. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by NYShooter on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 12:37:40 AM EST
    But, I think it's supposed to be something like this:
    ---------------------------------------------

    Johnnie: "Cindy, Cindy, I heard Mom & Dad got you a car for your birthday."

    Cindy (eyes pop open like saucers): "SHUT UP!!!"

    Parent

    Shooter has (most of) the right of it (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    The other part is laughter, not at you but at your comment, dismissing polls so casually when they have been cited here so frequently and so breathlessly.

    Parent
    Yes, we'll (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    see. NH should be a good test of what polling is with regards to Trump for sure. Though honestly I don't see a more favorable candidate on the GOP side for NH other than maybe Kasich. Bush seems to be declaring he's going up.

    Parent
    the (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:55:31 AM EST
    latest aggregates have him around 3% in NH that can be huge in the race for second, I am seriously doubting Trump gets any support from the Randians.

    Parent
    The white (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    nationalist Randanians? I would think Trump would be their first choice though I could be wrong on that account.

    Parent
    Rand (none / 0) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    was one of the very first to attack Trump, I think the last of Rand's "cult of personality" hanger ons will remember and probably stay home rather than vote for Trump.

    Parent
    Who would they go to? (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    The war hawk?  The establishment hacks?  The bible thumpers?  
    I agree it seems likely Donald will get most of it.

    I was joking about it being decisive.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    I just got that 2.4 from the RCP average

    Parent
    It ranges (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    from 2.8 to 3.2(NH)in the aggregates I watch. Grabbing that could make the difference between second and third, even fourth place.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:27:52 AM EST
    but do you think Cruz is going to pick up those voters? Rubio? Kasich? Christie? IIRC Rand was all about "revolution" so maybe they will vote for Bernie. Or maybe they won't show up at all. It just seems likely to me that Trump is the closest to them despite what Rand said during the debate.

    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:13:16 AM EST
    guessing they probably stay home or vote Fiorina( Socialist Sanders seems a stretch for Libertarians) or some other ridiculous protest vote. Trump is consistently polling behind on the second choice question so I don't see him picking up to much support as the single digit losers start dropping out.

    Parent
    Where does (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:17:24 AM EST
    the support go when other candidates drop out? Does it disperse all over or do they tend to favor one candidate?

    Parent
    Conventional (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    wisdom would suggest they would go mostly to Rubio, although Kasich or Bush might grab a few if they are able to survive.

    Parent
    Rand can focus (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:05:12 PM EST
    on his senate re-election.  He faces Lexington, KY, Democrdatic mayor, Jim Gray. Gray is CEO of Gray Construction and Engineering Design, headquartered in Lexington.  It should be a interesting contest between Rand, the Kim Davis supporter, and Gray, a gay businessman.

    Parent
    Fascinating (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    That one should be interesting to watch. I would imagine Rand's chances are pretty good of winning reelection though if the current governor is unpopular it could hurt. I don't have much hope for flipping a KY senate seat blue.

    Parent
    Bernie is getting thrashed (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    For whining about Iowa on MSNBC.   Not a place he usually gets thrashed.

    Yeah, that jsut seemd like a really bad move (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    on their part. No reason for it - were they trying to make it look like Clinton did something underhanded?

    Parent
    The last thing I see - from the AP - is that (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:18:50 PM EST
    Sanders' spokesperson says he has no interest in a recount; is asking for raw vote totals deemed to be asking for a recount?  Or is that just how this is being shaped in order to inject more drama into this?

    Truly, the reporting on this and other aspects of the campaign is about as bad as I've ever seen - I have no idea what to believe.  Downthread there is mud being slung at Sanders because he's allegedly refused to debate on Thursday unless Clinton agrees to a debate in NY - and while I'm seeing that "report" online, I'm also seeing reports with a much more recent timestamp that say he has agreed to the NH debate but would like debates in NY, California and Michigan.

    What are we to believe?  And must we now parse extra-carefully and take into account the so-called leanings of various outlets in order to decide if we're just being fked with?

    I think people need to calm the fk down.

    Can we have a discussion about what we'd like to have these candidates asked tomorrow night?  I, for one, would like to hear them speak to the TPP vote - as well as some topics that haven't been discussed much.

    Parent

    The "mud slung" (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    You might want to learn how to read, Anne, since you love to accuse others of not doing that.

    My original comment said that up until this morning Sanders didn't want to debate in NH until his other demands were met, including debating in NY.  Meaning, he has now agreed to debate.

    Speaking of mud being slung....

    Parent

    Oh, pardon me for not hanging on your (none / 0) (#122)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    every word; in case you failed to notice, I was not responding to you - I had merely skimmed the collection of oh-that-terrible-Sanders comments, had tried looking for outside sources to get to the truth of what was actually going on, and was expressing some irritation with the lousy media coverage, which has been all over the place.

    [rolling eyes]

    Parent

    You didn't have to (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    "Hang on every word" - it was very first words of the whole discussion about debates, which you then felt free to jump into and try and correct.

    Rolling eyes, indeed.

    Parent

    Again, I did not address my comment to you, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    and I didn't "jump into" anything - I didn't even see your comment, was just skimming over a lot of blah-blah-blah.

    You once again completely missed the point of my remarks, which was not to take anyone to task for the Sanders-bashing - it was a response to Howdy's comment about the "thrashing" Sanders was getting, and a reaction to the lightning-quick pouncing going on over media reports that were all over the place.  It was about the execrable "reporting" that's being done and my interest in what questions and issues will be raised with Clinton and Sanders tomorrow night.

    Even if I had seen your comment, it wouldn't change the fact that the media couldn't get its act together to be consistent in what was being reported - and that was the whole point.

    I'm sorry it doesn't quite fit with what you want to make it out to be, but that's life.

    Parent

    Then, obviously (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    You had no idea what you were typing when you wrote this?  Is that what you're going with now?

    Downthread there is mud being slung at Sanders because he's allegedly refused to debate on Thursday unless Clinton agrees to a debate in NY - and while I'm seeing that "report" online, I'm also seeing reports with a much more recent timestamp that say he has agreed to the NH debate but would like debates in NY, California and Michigan.

    So, if you didn't see my comment,  how wold you possibly know that "mud was being slung" or what the topic was about?  I'm sorry if facts make you think that "mud is being slung", but as you said, that's life.

    Hoisted on your own petard.

    (Hey my own personal troll gave me a couple of "1" ratings.  It's been a few days!)

    Parent

    Jesus H. Christ: are you aware that (3.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    yours was not the only comment on the topic of the additional debates?  Or were all the comments in the thread that "you" started about some other topic?

    Maybe you should pull your nose away from the tree it's firmly pressed up against, and take a look at the forest.

    This wasn't about you, jb: when are you going to get that through your head?  

    Hoist on my own petard?  I think not.


    Parent

    Poor strategy IMO (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    He should just move and look forward to NH. Maybe I don't remember but back in 2008 I seem to remember everybody just living with the IA results and then moving onto NH.

    Parent
    I Miss Democrats... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    ... that wanted to know the actual vote count.

    I guess those folks are now called socialists.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:09:43 AM EST
    a caucus. There's nothing different about this year than any other year. They've never released the vote totals. I mean caucuses stink and I would rather be rid of them but whining after the fact does no good. Bernie lost and he should stop shopping conspiracy theories as to why he lost and move on.

    Parent
    really (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:16:42 AM EST
    there has never been an official vote count before, why should Bernie be demanding them now?

    The rules are the rules, no matter how silly they seem, everybody knows what they are so this does seem whiny.

    Parent

    There is One Every Primary/Caucus... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:45:55 AM EST
    ...you can google it, or look in my other post with the vote counts for 2008, they are available for every primary, in every state, for every party.

    While I don't know if that is an official rule the notion that all of a sudden a large faction of D's isn't interested is the numbers is actually pretty funny.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:53:48 AM EST
    from the NYT the only D counts are
    †The vote totals for the Iowa Democratic Party are State Delegate Equivalents, which represent the estimated number of state convention delegates that the candidates would have, based on the caucus results
    If you could point me to any actual vote counts, please do.

    Parent
    This is a sad and shameless (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    Manipulation of people who do not understand how the caucus system works in Iowa.  Which lets face it, is almost everyone but probably especially Bernie supporters.

    It pissing me off.  If he keeps it up Bernie supporters might not be the only pissed off democrats in the country.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    pure manipulation. Caucuses stink. I've said for years we need to get rid of them. But Bernie signed onto this when he decided to run as a Democrat. He wants to change the rules now that he has lost. We've had enough "rule changing" in the past for my tastes IMO.

    Parent
    Tonawanda made a good point (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    If true, and this is pi$$ING off some Iowa state delegates, well, they aren't committed after the first vote.  

    Parent
    Or maybe Bernie diesnt understand (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    Somehow I doubt that

    Parent
    And Yet They Are... (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:07:22 AM EST
    ...very easy to find.  Your article is a sighting to the delegates.

    Explain how they know Dodd got 58 votes in the Iowa 2008 caucus, an estimate form the delegates he never received?

    CNN makes no mention of estimation in the link above.

    Parent

    Bernie lost (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    He LOST.

    What he is doing now, is actively engaged in, is poisoning the well in a way candidate Clinton never did in 2008 when it was done to her.  Bernie needs to STFU and move on.


    Parent

    I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    so sure he isn't doing a lot of damage to himself in the process though. Seriously.

    Parent
    I don't give a sh!t if he (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:15:21 AM EST
    Damages himself.   But he has a lot of followers who already do not trust the system.   This honestly tell me don't doesn't give a rats ass about democrats winning in November.  He cares about one thing.  Himself.

    He needs to stop.  Right now.

    Parent

    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    I know. I was just commenting on that fact so that it might actually turn away anybody sitting on the fence.

    The Hill is reporting that Bernie's plan is to snatch some of Hillary's delegates from Iowa. Which does exactly what you are saying. He could care less about anybody but himself. What is the end goal of all this?

    Parent

    The state (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    delegates are what the 58 is. The 58 is part of what goes into creating an actual presidential primary delegate. All that says is he won 58 precincts but didn't get any delegates because it wasn't enough precincts.

    Parent
    Explain (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    how uncommitted got 345 votes. CNN labels it state delegates with an (undefined) asterisk. It labels the Republicans simply as votes. There is a difference.

    Parent
    This is exactly what (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    People are calling out.   Everyone knows how Iowa works.  It's stupid.  It makes no sense.  But everyone knows that.   He is not doing himself any favors but it clearly, see upthread, is working to make his supporters hate Hillary and distrust the system even more.

    Nice going Bernie.  I like him less by the day.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    Because somehow this is turning into HRC PERSONALLY is fighting to keep the popular vote hidden.

    When I see FBI posts from conservative fruends, and read conservative pundits taking up Bernie Sanders' cause in thus, you know something is amiss.  Even some commenters here have started to sound very Tea Party-ish in their firm belief that she is somehow rigging the system.  If there was acctual proof, I'd love to see it.

    Parent

    The proof is in emails on (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:44:30 AM EST
    hrcemailserver 2.0.  She'll never give them up!

    See how this works?

    Parent

    I have invited FB "friends" (none / 0) (#93)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    (as I think that you mean FB, not FBI) who also persist in perpetuating the slime to unfriend themselves, so I need not waste more time on them even by having to click them out of my life.  

    Many of them are well-educated, even trained in research, synthesis and analysis, etc. -- so they ought to have found the facts, assessed reliability of sources, and more that they are perfectly capable of doing, rather than mindlessly spreading unfounded rumors.

    So, this has been a useful education for me in revealing that the rest of their research also must be treated as suspect, because of inability to not allow their work to be contaminated by their biases.

    Parent

    From BTD's Iowa post (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    Ironically, it's possible Sanders will get more voters out Monday night and "lose" the caucuses. We'll never actually know as vote totals are not reported just delegate counts.

    Sanders apparently did not foresee that irony as well as BTD did. Or else is unwilling to accept it.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    Senator Sanders did not seem to know how the Iowa caucus system works, despite his time and money spent in Iowa.  The coin flipping is a good example that he, himself, revealed that he did not understand.  If the Iowa caucus is so arcane and unfair, why enter it--skip it and try another state.

     Senator Sanders trademark is the angry man, angry at the establishment, e.g. Wall St, Koch Brothers, etc--which we already know was morphed into the establishments of Planned Parenthood, HRC, and Naral. And, with Iowa, Senator Sanders is morphing from the angry man to the mean man.  Not a good morph. Intended, or not, it unjustly adds to the Republican, and some Sanders' supporters, painting of Mrs. Clinton as not to be trusted, or worse. It should be recalled that it was the Sanders campaign that inappropriately accessed the DNC computers, requiring the Senator to publicly apologize to Mrs. Clinton at the beginning of a debate.

     Iowa is not a winner-take-all state, so the casting of a cloud over a Democratic primary contest has circumscribed value, but potential for wider damage.

    Trump, after initially and uncharacteristically, being a gracious loser on Monday evening, has, now unleashed his claim that Cruz "illegally (as opposed to legally?) stole" the Iowa primary. It does even more to bring into question his temperament for the presidency.  Better to move, on.  He has a better chance in NH.

    Parent

    Did you just compare (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 03:52:49 PM EST
    Bernie to Trump?!??

    You are inviting some very bitter 1s and 2s

    Parent

    As Rubio might say, (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:18:22 PM EST
    If the pump fits...

    Parent
    Coffee (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 04:52:02 PM EST
    On iPad

    Parent
    Democrats know that Iowa (2.67 / 3) (#65)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    never released raw vote totals.  

    Democratic Socialists apparently missed learning that, until now.

    By the way, I read blog comments by Iowans who are not at all happy with the insinuation implicit in this belated demand by Bernie Sanders.  They are insulted, which is not a way to maintain their support.  It will be interesting to see if this has impact at the next stage, when the state delegation to the national convention is selected -- as the numbers so far are, of course, only "state delegate equivalents," an estimate if there is no change at the next step. But it can change. . . .    


    Parent

    i don't (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    blame them for being mad. He's basically accusing the majority of Iowans who showed up for the D caucus of cheating.

    What if this was reversed and it's New Hampshire and Hillary loses in a close primary vote? So it would be okay for her to stand there and whine for days about how she was "cheated" out of a primary win and shop conspiracy theories?

    The problem seems to be that Bernie has zero understanding of how a caucus works. If you don't understand it then you certainly shouldn't be whining about losing and then to boot insulting the people that participated.

    Parent

    Really ? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    The 2008 Numbers
    Candidate   St Del   Del  %
    Obama        93,952  27  38%
    Edwards      74,377   4  30%
    Clinton        73,663  14  29%
    Richardson  5,278
    Biden          2,328
    Uncommitted   345
    Dodd           58
    Gravel          0
    Kucinich        0

    But you already knew that there is virtually no number not recorded related to an election.

    My statement above is accurate, never really though there would be arguments here about releasing vote totals, even in a caucus.

    Parent

    Look at your chart (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:05:03 AM EST
    Where you think you see vote totals, the column says "State Del.*".

    Not the same thing.

    The Republican chart, for comparison, has a column that says "Votes".

    Parent

    Really. Reread: (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    "state delegate equivalents."

    Really.  

    Parent

    Those (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    are state delegates not what Bernie wants released. The same thing was released in 2016 that was released in 2016. What he wants is the actual numbers that created those delegates and apparently he wants to recreate the delegate count from the raw data. It seems that he doesn't understand that even if he had more people show up at a particular polling location that it doesn't give him anymore delegates from that precinct.

    Parent
    OK, OK... (none / 0) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    ... I was under the impression he wanted these numbers, which I thought were votes.

    I cannot find the methodology on how, for example, they arrive at Dodd with 58.  Doesn't matter, I didn't realize he was wanting something that wasn't normally produced.

    Parent

    I don't blame you (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    It's a reasonable question.  Which is exactly why is so GD despicable

    Parent
    Those are only (none / 0) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:09:16 AM EST
    estimates, listed not as votes(as the Republican tally is) but as State Delegates.

    Parent
    Not that it will probably matter (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:27:26 AM EST
    On RCP today....

    The UMass/7 News tracking poll yesterday had Sanders up by 33 in NH.  Today, the same poll has him up by 29.  Looks like HRC is benefitting from O'Malley dropping out (although in Iowa, she was up by much more than the final tally, until more O'Malley supporters apparently went to Sanders)


    I think Trump AND Bernie (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    Have to win NH.  Trump is not done if he loses but he is in serious trouble.

    Bernie, is done.  And surprises have happened before there.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    If Cruz manages to pull off NH I think he takes the lead going into the SEC primaries.

    Parent
    Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    Just sayin

    Parent
    I likely (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    think Trump will win NH. I mean he's way far ahead of everybody else there. So even if the polls are off they would have to be off by like 20 points but again it's NH and there have been surprises.

    Parent
    Bernie will not lose NH (none / 0) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    If Bernie keeps at this (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:35:34 PM EST
    Recount krap I think that could change.


    Parent
    Perhaps Bernie... (none / 0) (#120)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    should run for President of Poland.  Lord knows he'd be better than the idiots running the asylum now.  

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    Poland is having some serious political problems right now, thanks in no small part to the doctrinaire right-wing ideologues now running the government, who seem absolutely determined to pick a fight with both Russia and Germany simultaneously. Given that country's long and sorry history of getting whacked around like a piñata -- and worse -- by these two neighbors, you'd like to think that they'd have heeded such lessons and would know better. Doesn't appear to be the case, though.

    Parent
    Until (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    This morning, Sanders was trying to back out of debating Clinton in NH unless she agreed to another set of demands - to debate in NYC.

    Moving the goalposts...

    I believe (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    I commented before if Hillary won Iowa the debate discussion would change

    Parent
    OK, I just don't understand that one (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:00:05 PM EST
    Why does he want it in NYC, or is it just asking for the sake of making an issue out of debates?

    Parent
    His take (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    She's from NY, is she afraid of defending herself in front of the home crowd?  (Convenientky, he wanted it in Brooklyn, where his Brooklyn accent will not go unnoticed, I'm sure).

    This morning, he relented and will debate tomorrow.  Don't know what else has changed.

    Parent

    But - his best argument against her is that (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:35:49 PM EST
    she is too friendly with Wall Street...why would she be afraid to defend herself in NYC?

    Parent
    Not to mention she was an elected (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:38:56 PM EST
     U.S. Senator for the State of New York.

    Parent
    She still is pushing for Flint (none / 0) (#127)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    so not agreeing yet to NY may be leverage?  There are reports that, after agreement to Sanders camp's conditions on these debates, there now are more conditions from them, so leverage may be being deployed to get done with what was thought done.

    There is agreement on a debate in California, so it's down to two sites, which also could be intensifying the back-and-forth about remaining sites.

    Parent

    Looks like four debates OK'd. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    (l) NH, this Thursday; (2) Flint, MI, as asked for by Secretary Clinton, March; (3) Pennsylvania, April; (4) California, May.

    Parent
    Kind of Trump-esque (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    Next he'll want to be able to veto the moderators.

    Parent
    Odd (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Since this is an MSNBC debate with Maddow and Todd moderating.  Couldn't get a much friendlier terrain.

    Parent
    Well, I certainly wouldn't cry foul ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    ... if Bernie Sanders objected to Chuck Todd, who's going to be one of the moderators tomorrow night. The "Meet the Press" putz is a veritable font of glittering generalities and Beltway conventional wisdom, and it's hard for me to think of a more vacuous, superficial and ingratiating tool in mainstream journalism today.

    Parent
    Financial corruption wins (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    This is to be celebrated? Very odd, J. Very odd.

    Horray, Big Money "wins" another Dem contest!

    Pfft.

    Not really (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    Sanders outspent Clinton in Iowa.

    Parent
    "We fully knew ye," (none / 0) (#138)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    Santorum is out. A previous winner of the Iowa Republican causes and religious zealot is tired of the kid's table, but hoping for something better.  Probably, will endorse Rubio, with the goal of Attorney General in a Rubio Administration.  

    Both of you should get a room (none / 0) (#171)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 05, 2016 at 06:20:30 PM EST


    Indeed, which is why (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 06, 2016 at 01:30:53 AM EST
    I just deleted the last comment of each of them.

    Not only is this not an open thread, no thread should devolve into spats between two commenters or their perceived positions on a topic in general.

    Parent

    Mordgan lasted all of three days (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 07, 2016 at 07:34:27 PM EST
    after I reinstated him at his request. I warned him not to engage in personal attacks like he did before. He didn't listen. He's banned again.

    Parent