Clinton can win Iowa and New Hampshire

[brooklynite]

The reason is that Clinton has two things that are pure gold in presidential politics. First, she has a well organized turnout operation with supporters identified for every single Caucus site. "Intensely devoted and idealistic supporters" are nice to have, but experience (Dean 2004; Paul 2012) tells us that convincing them to show up and vote is a challenge.

Second, she has the money for advertising to target the majority of Caucus voters who aren't millennials and who don't engage politically through social media. Add to which, she has the money to pay for a staff to coordinate the volunteers and the experience of losing to guide her team in what not to do.

The truth is that, whatever his many virtues, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders does suffer from an experience gap. He does not have experience campaigning outside his Vermont enclave where a win is approximately 250,000 votes. This is one reason he has underperformed Clinton among Iowa voters in every poll since the start of the race, and has lost is summer lead in New Hampshire polls, and why he should be worried about his supporters not turning out in droves on caucus and primary days.

[virtualobserver]

1. Intensely devoted people do show up

Bernie has and will have plenty of money.....we will make sure of that.

[brooklynite]

3. Sanders has 50 paid staffers in Iowa...Clinton has 78, plus 100 unpaid organizers

[BlueCaliDem]

5. How many unpaid organizers does Sanders have in Iowa?

By the looks of his rallies and the enthusiasm here on DU, he shouldn't have to pay a shining dime for organizers. So the question is, why is he?

And if, as some contend on this site, there's "no enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton", why is it that she has 100 unpaid organizers on the ground in Iowa? This, right here, is the writing on the wall Sanders supporters should heed.

[virtualobserver]

8. I guess you have nothing to worry about then

[BlueCaliDem]

12. Can you answer my questions?

And you're right, I have nothing to worry about. But then again, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.

[virtualobserver]

16. The advantages that you describe are her Achilles Heel

When you promote her invincibility, and then the bubble bursts, and Bernie wins Iowa.....it will be a seismic event.

It will be OMG, it is happening again!

[BlueCaliDem]

17. I've bookmarked your post for the near future.

We'll see who wins Iowa soon enough.

[CoffeeCat]

24. Both camps (Sanders and Clinton)

...have an equal number of paid staffers (70).

Both camps have a solid volunteer base. I don't think we can know the full force of volunteer numbers in each camp yet--as those parts of the campaign are still being organized.

Not sure what you are insinuating about Sanders paying for organizers. Even if he has a huge number of enthusiastic foot soldiers, you need the organizational framework (paid staffers) to manage those volunteers.

Again, Sanders has 70 paid staffers; same as Clinton.

I've seen many caucus cycles in Iowa, and all candidate camps have paid staffers throughout the state. Their job is to spearhead efforts in a particular part of the state and organize the volunteers.

Of course, some candidates have fewer offices. Sanders and Clinton both have 20 Iowa offices.

[ffr]

28. Interesting point. I'm an HRC volunteer.

But then, I'm always a volunteer during every election.

Whatever it takes to get a democrat elected and more importantly to remove political power from GOP craziness.

[CoffeeCat]

18. Clinton has 70 paid staffers in Iowa; Bernie has 70 as well...

The Des Moines Register, in Iowa, recently reported that both Clinton and Sanders have around 70 full-time staffers, plus both camps have countless volunteers.

Furthermore, both have 20 Iowa offices.

Also, I wouldn't be so enthusiastic about television advertising. We Iowans are inundated with these television ads and we get kind of tired of them. Both Clinton and Sanders seem to have an equal number of ads running in Iowa right now.

[joshcryer]

34. That's great news.

I've been trying unsuccessfully to search for ad buys for Sanders' campaign (and the others, to see where they stand). Found both Clinton and Sanders spent $2 million but Clinton is supposedly going to spend another $2 million between now and the caucuses. What should surprise Clinton supporters is that Sanders only trails Clinton by a few million in donations. He can pull all the punches when crunch time comes, especially because unlike Clinton he has a crapload of cash on hand.

(Something like $5 million for Clinton vs $15 million for Sanders. Clinton probably doesn't risk burning a hole in her campaign coffers like in 2008 but she's going to make it close.)

[NCTraveler]

2. Support has really united around Clinton from every area in society.

We are in a great position as we get closer to the primary. No candidate in history has been vetted like Clinton. Can't wait to get the primaries behind us. We could be looking at Clinton taking 45+ states in the primary.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. People are overestimating Sanders' electibility and underestimating Hillary Clinton's savvy

campaign strategy - which is akin to Barack Obama's in 2007-08. People are also believing the hype that there is no enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton.

These people will be in for a rude awakening in February next year.

[dirtydickcheney]

6. People are underestimating Sanders' electibility and underestimating HRC's corporatism.

She's the pure Corporations First candidate.

That and she's "for women" whatever on earth that means.

[msrizzo]

10. Corporatism isn't really the foremost issue in most people's mind

I know that seems inconceivable to many of the posters here, but it is simply true. But again, we shall see and when the primaries are over we will know who the nominee is, at least on that we can agree.

[dirtydickcheney]

14. I'd have to disagree

It may not be called 'corporatism' to other people.. to them it is called "ties to Wall Street" or "Big Moneyed Donors".

They are essentially all the same IMHO

[BlueCaliDem]

11. People are ignoring Sanders' love for the MiC through big corp Lockheed Martin,

the epitome of Pentagon wasteful spending. The F-35 boondoggle has already cost taxpayers one trillion dollars. And that, for a perceived anti-war socialist! But you know what? He's not an anti-war socialist. He's actually an establishment Democrat in all but name, and he's pulling a fast one on his supporters by pretending to be otherwise. He's not. He's an establishment Democrat who is far weaker than Hillary Clinton. And he knows it.

Consider his record as outlined in this article:

Despite an early career as a nominal “independent” politician, Bernie quickly gravitated to being a gatekeeper for the Democratic establishment, and a hawkish one at that. Left wing voters’ analysis of Bernie is that, despite having a portrait of Eugene Debs in his office, he shares little in common with the anti-war, pro-labor constituency. Howard Dean, once an enemy of Bernie turned ally, said on NBC’s Meet the Press, "He is basically a liberal Democrat, and he is a Democrat at that–he runs as an Independent because he doesn’t like the structure and money that gets involved…The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time."

Sanders has never done anything to create a nationwide political organization to the left of the Wall Street Democrats. He has promised to back the Democratic nominee even if that turns out to be Hillary Clinton.

In 2006 Bernie instead cut a deal with Democrats ensuring they would run no candidate against him in exchange for his support of Democrats in other races. Bernie rejected the Democratic nomination in the primary for public relations reasons, but nevertheless accepted money from Hillary Clinton's political action committee and supported national Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer. Sanders then influenced possible House candidate of the Vermont Progressive Party David Zuckerman in not to run for Congress in 2006 and supported Zuckerman's rival Democrat Peter Welch, who went on to win the election.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/08/03/milquetoast-bernie-sanders-senator-from-

NO candidate running for the presidency is clean of corporatism in one way of the other. You can thank the Naderites and the "no difference between Gore and Bush" crowd for that. Thanks to Duhbya stealing the election and nominating Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS, Citizens United became the campaign finance law of the land, and has forced candidates to either do or die - politically.

[virtualobserver]

27. I absolutely adore your "everyone else is corrupt, too" argument

it is so convincing

[dirtydickcheney]

7. Forgot to add...

She won't turn out the base or the base will be blasé/let's-just-hold-our-noses-and-vote.

That's the HRC voter - she offers little new in the Screw-the-American-Worker that we haven't already gotten for the past 35 years.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Sanders is pulling a fast one on the, per your definition, "base".

(My definition of the Democratic Party base are minority groups)

Sanders is an establishment Democrat in all but name. That's what his records tells us.

He's voted 98% of the time with the establishment Democrats, supports and campaigns for national establishment Democrats, will support establishment Democrat, Hillary Clinton, when he loses the primaries, and in 2006, even cut a deal with establishment Democrats to not run a Democrat against him after-which he took money from Hillary Clinton's SuperPAC. Surprised?

[dirtydickcheney]

15. HRC won't fight the TPP

Sanders will - he's basically using that and pulling out of these horrible trade deals we are currently in as a platform.

HRC - "I won't lobby against it" (the TPP).

Not what I want in a candidate. Hell, even Trump says these trade deals are awful. So he's certainly better than she is. Trade deals which lower American Workers wages and benefit only the top 1% are an enormous issue.


BTW - I think a bunch of the HRC supporters are PAID by the HRC campaign to make sure any negative comments here are quickly rebutted.

[brooklynite]

23. Just to be clear -- we're talking about the Primary?

[CoffeeCat]

21. I'm in Iowa...

...and I see absolutely no evidence that Hillary Clinton has adopted Obama's "campaign strategy."

Obama engaged with us. He stayed after his events and answered questions. He organized big rallies and was always communicating with us. Hillary has yet to do any of this.

When she was down in the polls, and Sanders was beating her in Iowa, she did do two rallies, one in Cedar Falls on the University of Northern Iowa campus. There were maybe 300 people there. This was not a large venue. Sanders had thousands at some of his rallies in Iowa--in the summer.

We'll see what happens. The peak of the caucus season hasn't happened yet.

[UglyGreed]

9. lol

Taking other people's words and making them yours, nice!! Wonder where that ploy came from

[jkbRN]

20. LMAO

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/261634-sanders-can-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire

This post is quite pathetic, no need to take a publications headline and switch out the names (I am embarrassed for you).

[brooklynite]

22. FWIW I also switched out the arguments, but complain away...

[jkbRN]

25. If you want to switch it up,

Then you should provide sources to support your claims, as the article initially did. When there are no citations, to me, seems like you giving a response based solely on opinion and could careless to back up what you say. Hence, why I feel embarrassed for you.

On a lighter note, I totally had to look up what FWIW was Hahahahahahah

[Attorney in Texas]

19. It is the general election that she cannot win.

[jkbRN]

26. Yes!

So true.

[Gothmog]

29. And yet predictiwise has the Democrats at 58% to win the general election

[Alfresco]

30. Yes She Can

She will quickly dispatch Bernie and then the Repugs.
How you like them apples?

[MaggieD]

31. No question - Bernie is NOT going to be the nominee

It will a rough few days around here once people get it.

[sonofspy777]

32. could but won't nt

[Cha]

33. Here' s Hoping!

[joshcryer]

35. Clinton needs to watch her coffers.

Sanders can outspend her 3-1 when crunch time comes because he doesn't have a huge staff.

I'm not saying she's risking a 2008 run where she winds up having to take out loans (that would be ridiculous), and leave people unpaid for a time, but you want to have a cushion when the election actually begins.