Clinton Didn't Implode, So It Goes Like This...

[Tom Rinaldo]

National poll no longer matter on the Democratic side, not at all, except in the very unlikely event that either Clinton or Sanders yet has an event or series of events that makes their campaigns start to fundamentally unravel. That hasn't happened to date and there no longer is any plausible reason to think it still might prior to the Iowa and New Hampshire results coming in.

I am not saying that national polls are inherently irrelevant, I am saying that their influence now is essentially already baked in for the period that precedes the primary season official kick off in January. The next potentially ground changing event in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination will be results from actual polls with ballot boxes, not opinions, and people standing in lines supporting candidates at caucuses, not at rallies.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have met or exceeded minimal expectations for remaining viable candidates for President for this stage of the contest. One could say that isn't unexpected for Clinton, and that it is unexpected for Sanders, but it is significant for both of them to have reached this point. There was a time in mid summer when the anxieties within some sectors of the Democratic Party that Clinton might turn out to be a fatally flawed candidate, had gotten to the point where they were hard to ignore. Those anxieties, for many, have receded after Hillary's Fall performance. Meanwhile there always were those who in Sander's own words were prone to "underestimate" him. Sanders has not wilted on the national stage, he's consolidated his standing as the only viable opponent to Clinton.

Efforts to metaphorically "snicker" Sanders off the stage by turning him into a leftist caricature with wild hair and eyes have fallen flat. Sanders is now more or less viewed as a legitimate underdog candidate for President.That should not be underestimated. Try telling that to any number of nationally accomplished politicians on both sides who convincingly washed out in their bid to became President before a single ballot was ever cast. Men like Scott Walker, James Webb and Lincoln Chaffee are just the latest examples of that. Martin O'Malley has fared better than them, his political reputation has not been unduly damaged by this campaign, but he hasn't caught much measurable lightning either, and that's not for lack of trying or of intrinsic political ability. So it remain remarkable what Bernie Sanders has achieved to date against one of the most powerful presences in today's Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton.

There is definitely still a path open to victory for Bernie Sanders, but it depends on him exceeding expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire. At the very least he has to come in a very strong second in Iowa and follow that with a fairly convincing win in New Hampshire shortly after. Even if Bernie achieves those goals he will still remain an underdog, but the campaign will have entered into a new phase with Sanders still in the game. The only polls that matter at all right now are those out of Iowa and New Hampshire. And they only matter because they might effect the psychology of Democrats in those states who can participate in those contests.

Iowa and New Hampshire are retail politics States where a David can still beat a Goliath, and in the process potentially alter the course of political history. Heading into Iowa in 2008 Hillary Clinton was the Democratic presumed nominee, and in 2004 at that point Howard Dean was still the man to beat. John Edwards vaulted out of relative obscurity by coming in second in Iowa in 2004, eventually running for VP that year with the man who won that caucus.

At this point the national election polls are essentially lagging indicators waiting to be rebooted once there are actual election returns for the public, and the media, to finally digest.

[sufrommich]

1. The demographics of both Iowa and New Hampshire

make them much more vital in republican primaries than they are in the democratic primaries. South Carolina and Nevada are better barometers for democrats.That being said,I don't think Sanders has a chance of winning Iowa and if he wins New Hampshire it will be a very slim win.It won't be enough to damage the Clinton campaign going into South Carolina.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Actually Iowa shaped the Democratic fields in 2004 and 2008 more than the Republican races

I acknowledge your point about demographics but Iowa was much more significant for Democratic candidates in the last two contested races than it has tended to be for Republicans for years. Iowa really boosted Obama and Edwards in 2008 and Kerry and Edwards in 2004, when they entered that caucus each time their campaigns were perceived to be lagging behind the front runners. Obama and Kerry went on to win the Democratic nomination and Edwards leapfrogged ahead of other serious contenders both times to become the leading dark horse candidate - based on his showing in Iowa.

Overall I agree with your assessment, although not with your level of conviction on the likelihood of those outcomes in those races. It is way too soon to say Sanders can't win a retail politics caucus state like Iowa where he currently has strong support even if Hillary Clinton is still leading there. And there can become a strong domino effect from early races on later ones. What Hillary has going against her, paradoxically, is her strength. If she somehow manages to convincingly lose New Hampshire in spite of her perceived status that can lead to an escalating crisis of confidence in her.

[sufrommich]

12. But realistically,she has very little chance of

losing New Hampshire by big numbers. Even if I give you Sanders winning both states,he'd have to massively win them to affect the outcome going into South Carolina. My personal opinion is that both Iowa and New Hampshire's roles in deciding primary winners is becoming less and less likely as their demographics become less important to the democratic party.

[Kentonio]

21. He doesn't need to win SC.

He just needs to make the gap a lot more respectable to squash the idea that he can't win over AA voters.

[stevenleser]

53. He needs to win Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada and come close in SC to have a shot

going into Super Tuesday. Otherwise its over.

An Iowa loss is immediately fatal to Sanders as it will likely boost Clinton to victory in New Hampshire.

In fact, whomever wins Iowa will win New Hampshire.

Sanders can still win Iowa and New Hampshire, and be set up for failure Super Tuesday if he loses both Nevada and South Carolina.

Sanders has to have both momentum and a sudden influx in cash provided by those victories to come close enough in the Super Tuesday contests to stay in the race. There are eight states on Super Tuesday. Sanders has to win three at least to stay in it, Vermont and two others. That will cost a tremendous amount of money.

[Kentonio]

57. Yeah, I don't disagree with that.

Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Although I think a narrow loss in Iowa could still be survivable if it was followed by a good win in NH. I think that is possible purely because the expectation on Clinton is so much higher. It would depend on how the media covered it though. If they went with a 'Clinton barely scrapes through in Iowa' narrative, it might actually energize Sanders turnout for NH.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. We disagree only by degree

I used the term "fairly convincing" NH win needed by Bernie, you used the standard "massive win". We have similar but still differing perspectives on this. Let's just try projecting off of a theoretical "solid win " by Sanders in NH.There are relative political junkies like you and I (since we are on DU we qualify as that) who can visualize why it can be possible for Sanders to win a small "quirky" state like NH and still be a real long shot yo win the nomination, but for the average voter out there only just starting to take the race seriously that could be a real political earthquake to them. It could liquefy the political landscape for them much as a real earthquake liquefies once seemingly solid landfill, only recognized in hindsight for its latent vulnerabilities.

Sanders would not need to follow that by winning South Carolina because common wisdom has it so firmly in Clinton's grasp - he would though have to dramatically cut into her support among African American voters there even if he did so in an ultimately losing cause, and she still retained a majority of it for that political snapshot. Again, Sanders would need to significantly exceed expectations of him in South Carolina - allowing him to retain some momentum because of that thereby allowing other voters in upcoming state to reconsider backing him.

I didn't say Sanders had any clear road to victory, just that there is an at least plausible one depending on how well he does in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[sufrommich]

35. I understand your point and it's an interesting exercise

in possibilities. I think we're having two different discussions here. It will be interesting in coming years,regardless of Sanders and Clinton,to watch the democratic party deal with relics like Iowa and New Hampshire as those states become less and less demographically predictive of,well,anything. Those states reflect a time when rural white voters were a predictive force in Democratic politics and could influence states that didn't "look" like them,I think those days are over.I think we'll eventually see a democratic party that pays less and less attention to them and more attention to "demographically" similar states like South Carolina and Nevada. Probably very soon. That being said,I enjoy your OPs,they're always well written and never hyperbolic. I look forward to more of them as the primary progesses.

[yardwork]

19. I agree that the far more interesting question right now is which Republican will emerge.

[demwing]

44. Of course you think that

Hillary is your candidate.

[sufrommich]

46. I've explained why I think Iowa and New Hampshire

are relics from another age and becoming less important to democratic strategists.It's got nothing to do with Clinton or Sanders.

[Scootaloo]

52. And yet clinton is campaigning her heart out in both states, isn't she?

And here you are, preening about how you're so certain she'll win both.

While of course asserting that they don't matter because of "demographics" (i.e., they have white majorities. Stop begin a chicken and just say it.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. The last three presidents have lost the New Hampshire primary.

The last five presidents have won the South Carolina primary.

[MaggieD]

3. He'll be done and out after Super Tuesday

Doesn't matter what happens in IA or NH. He's getting beat so bad in the ST states that there is no hope for him.

[brooklynite]

5. Not according to Robby Mook...

...the campaign's expectation is that this will run through the end of March, by which time 55% of the delegates will have been selected.

[MaggieD]

8. They are smart to prepare that way

But I don't see it happening. I guess Bernie could hang on until the bitter end, but why?

[brooklynite]

13. I fully expect Bernie to hang on, to spread his campaign message rather than try to win

[NurseJackie]

22. Yes. He'll soldier-on until the bitter end.

And his fans will be screaming and kicking the for the entire trip. At some point, the reality of the opinion polls will be supplanted by the mathematical reality of the delegate count. In late March, his path to the nomination will be blocked.

What a JOYOUS day that will be on this web site. (Well, for some, not all.)

[MaggieD]

26. Yes, I can't wait to get DU back

The sooner the better.

[Armstead]

31. Sorry you will never "get DU back"

It will just switch from the Tiger Beat personal popularity context of a primary to whatever issues arise.

Always has, and will continue as long as DU exists because that is a larger division in the party and public at large.

[MaggieD]

34. That's fine

But I will relish folks being forced to abandon the 24/7 smears on Clinton.

[workinclasszero]

24. No doubt about it the Bernie Sanders "revolution" is over after Super Tuesday

The only drama left to me is when Bernie will concede the nomination to Hillary and endorse her for President.

When...or...if, I should say.

[CoffeeCat]

32. Yes, but Obama was getting creamed in the Super Tuesday states too...

...even after he beat Hillary in Iowa.

After Iowa, Hillary led in every single national poll and in all state polls, except NH.

Obama was far behind in most states--including the Super Tuesday states.

I think many people forget what happens during our state-by-state primary process.

Voters do not engage until 4-5 weeks prior to their state primaries/caucuses. Politics is barely on their radar. Candidates begin their full schedules of tv advertising at this point--and they organize big rallies, speeches and they begin connecting with voters. Then, people plug in and the polling becomes more reflective of the final vote in that state.

Iowa, the first state to vote--hasn't even entered the critical time period where voters settle in on their final choices!

[brooklynite]

4. Fair enough

Iowa: Clinton above 50% and climbing. Sanders will shortly hit a wall unless he can peel voters now supporting Clinton away.




Clinton has 78 paid field organizers, 100 unpaid organizing "fellows" and committed supporters identified in every precinct site.

New Hampshire: After two months (Aug-Oct) where Sanders was ahead in every poll, Clinton has led in 6 of the last 11 (update: now 7out the last 12); arguably she's moved up from a Sanders lead to a tie.



Clinton has 26 field organizers in place, and the experience drawn from winning the State in 2008.

[Dawgs]

6. Hillary will implode by doing something stupid. She does it all the time.

Her speeches are terrible and uninspiring. Bernie will follow the same path as Obama, but he will beat her in NH, Iowa, and SC. Her support is weak at best and when people actually start paying attention she will drop faster than she did last time. And, thankfully, he will get the nom because Hillary has ZERO chance of beating someone even as crazy as Cruz.

[MaggieD]

10. When your campaign plan is predicated

.... On your rival "imploding" you're dead in the water.

[Dawgs]

16. I didn't say it was predicated on her imploding.

But, she still will. Doesn't matter if it happens before or after Bernie takes the lead.

[MineralMan]

14. And perhaps that is wishful thinking.

When you claim that Sanders will win in SC, the "wishful" part becomes crystal clear. I've seen no sign that Hillary Clinton is likely to do anything stupid. She has learned much since the 2008 campaign, it seems.

Current events, including the Paris shootings and the increase in mass shootings in this country, will have far more impact than any chance of Clinton screwing up. With her current lead in the polls, she needn't take any risks at all, and probably won't. Bernie Sanders has a real problem now in coming up with solid issues to raise to boost his polling numbers. Any gains he makes will have to come by converting Clinton supporters. We're seeing just the opposite situation right now. Clinton is peeling off Sanders supporters, instead.

Bottom line: Clinton just has to not screw up terribly. Sanders has to come up with something major to gain any ground. The risk is more on his side than Clinton's, I think.

[Dawgs]

17. We'll see, but there's no doubt that most people feel 'meh' about her. n/t

[MineralMan]

25. No doubt? I think you're incorrect.

She has a 2:1 advantage in national polling, and over 90% of poll respondents have made their choice already. I'm not sure that's an indication of a "meh" response. Rather, I think people are feeling OK about Hillary Clinton's candidacy and are moving on to other concerns at this point.

It seems to me that interest in the primary race has dropped off, overall. There's tons of news to think about and the Holidays are coming up. People's focus is elsewhere. Only on places like DU, where politics are the main currency, is anyone really concerned about the primary elections. If they think about them at all, they're looking at the clown show on the Republican side.

[MaggieD]

27. I think you're wrong about that

Everybody I know supports her quite enthusiastically. Very excited to see the first woman president.

[CoffeeCat]

33. You are correct...

I don't see an "implosion" but a slow death for her in Iowa, NH and SC.

Hillary does not campaign well here in Iowa. She didn't in 2008 (hence the third place). We were told that things were going to be so different this time.

I've seen absolutely no evidence of this.

She seems unable and unwilling to connect with Iowans.

Sanders had thousands at his events in the summer. Hillary never achieved those results. She had Katy Perry headline her JJ outdoor event, which was held in a parking lot. Both she and Sanders had the same number of attendees at their JJ events. Some media reported that Sanders had more. If she can't even beat Bernie with Katy Perry, that's telling you something.

When the campaigns get into final ramp-up mode--and Sanders is drawing crowds in the thousands--the optics will be very damaging for Clinton.

[winter is coming]

47. HRC seems to have learned very little from her '08 run.

I've been amazed and encouraged by it.

[CoffeeCat]

48. I have been encouraged as well...

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sitting here in Iowa, waiting for Hillary's so-called epiphany to materialize into an amazing political campaign.

It's just not there.

Granted, things heat up greatly in the last 5-6 weeks, so there's still time.

Both Bernie and Hillary will have major events/happenings in the coming weeks.

What's missing is her ability to connect with Iowa voters and engage. She didn't have that in 2008, and I see no evidence that she has it now.

Hillary certainly learned about what it takes to win in Iowa. But still, she avoids being open and accessible. Instead she seems to cling to the points that she's wracked up from being 'inevitable'. Play it safe.

You can't run a cautious campaign in Iowa. You have to take chances, get out there, meet voters, answer questions and earn our support. If she continues the inaccessible/cold/impersonal campaign style in Iowa, she won't win. Bernie's campaign is just the opposite and the discrepancy between the two will be disastrous for Clinton.

[winter is coming]

49. I think that would be true, even for a newcomer.

For someone who's tried, and failed, to go over well in Iowa, you'd have to work twice as hard to dislodge memories of '08.

[Change has come]

59. Neither have her supporters.

That is also very promising.

[winter is coming]

36. Implode? Doubtful. To me, "implode" implies a complete collapse of her support,

and I don't see that happening. Losing support gradually via a series of mistakes, to the extent that it costs her the nomination, is far more likely.

Hillary's biggest advantages are name recognition and her status as front-runner. Being the default or status quo candidate can work, when people are basically content with how things are going and when there aren't any alternative candidates out there who are remotely competitive.

This time around, however, there are a lot of people who aren't happy with the status quo. I think that's why Bernie's not down in the single digits as a "protest" candidate: he's speaking out credibly about the things that are wrong, and his record gives every indication that he will actually try to address the problems he's talking about. When enough people are unhappy with the status quo, a protest candidate can become a change candidate.

Once Hillary loses the perception that she's the only viable Dem nominee--as is gradually happening--she's toast. That's why the DNC has limited the number of debates and scheduled them in timeslots likely to draw minimal voter engagement. Bernie doesn't have reluctant or half-hearted supporters. Hillary does. If he does well in Iowa and NH, as seems likely, HRC will have a struggle on her hands.

[CoffeeCat]

50. This is one of the most spot-on posts...

...I've seen on DU regarding Clinton and Sanders and their campaigns.

You've explained beautifully why Clinton's support is soft, and what this is the rationale for the sparse debates.

The Clinton camp does their own internal polling. The understand that her supporters are lukewarm, and that Bernie poses a threat. He began in Iowa (in May) at 4 percent. He's chipping away.

I have never understood what her problem is in Iowa. She seems unable to connect with voters and engage in ways that Iowans demand. We want to speak with the candidates and ask them questions. I always thought Hillary was incapable, but I don't think that's true.

I think they're protecting and guarding the core support they have. They know that one wrong remark (hint: her Wall Street-Street-9/11 remark at the second debate) can chip away at that soft center of support that she has. Once that erodes, her campaign goes to hell. So, they avoid situations where she speaks off the cuff or answers questions. She took this approach in 08 and it appears to be her approach in '16.

But we'll see. Iowa still has 9 weeks to go. The last month of the caucus season is crazy. Both candidates will be involved in many events and I'm sure both have a few tricks up their sleeves.

Thanks again for your analysis. It was enjoyable to read. Nice to read rational, objective analysis on DU.

I get tired of the fake talking points and the posts that end in or or

[winter is coming]

56. Thanks for your nice reply!

I'm not sure what the deal is with Hillary in re doing the sort of give-and-take meet-and-greets that are the essence of retail politics. She has a tendency to come across as condescending and/or pandering, which is grating (and also unintentionally amusing--most of the really smart people I know don't act like they're the smartest person in the room). She tends to project a "Hillary knows best" aura, while Bernie, for all his statistics, doesn't sound like he thinks he knows best: he sounds like someone who's deeply concerned about something and wants to convince you that you should care, too.

Another part of it is her apparent need to control everything, perhaps fueled by an awareness that she doesn't do well with off-the-cuff remarks. But, at the root of it, is a lack of empathy. I think most of the time when she says something tone deaf, she doesn't even understand what she said that was wrong. She seems utterly disconnected from what the everyday concerns are for most Americans. So she avoids the sorts of venues she's weak at, but all the voters see is they aren't getting an opportunity to check her out, when she has plenty of time for high-dollar fundraisers. That doesn't play well in a lot of places, including Iowa.

[R B Garr]

41. Yet reality of the trends shows the exact opposite

Bernie's speeches are one dimensional and exclusionary of the broader population he needs to include going forward.

His debate performances were lackluster and actually marked the beginning of his slide downward. Hillary's commanding debate performance saw her poll numbers surge forward and solidify.

So people were paying attention and she gained. The exact opposite of your scenario. Reality wins again.

[Dawgs]

42. New to politics, huh? n/t

[R B Garr]

43. Typical. Enjoy your opposite world while

you can.

[Gothmog]

51. Sanders is bringing a knife to a gunfight

Sanders is hurting himself by not laying out a clear path for being viable in a general election contest. Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.

I like Sanders but I do not think that he is viable in the general election

[stevenleser]

54. She has never imploded. She fought Obama to essentially a draw over a seven month process. nt

[winter is coming]

58. She started out as the clear frontrunner, and lost. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

60. Denial of reality and cognitive dissonance.

And many of Hillary's friends here at DU simply can't remember what happened in 2008, apparently, when she blew a 30-point lead and wound up losing the primary to Obama, a man who hadn't even served 2 years in the U.S. Senate!!

It's going to happen again, she is going to lose, but this time to a man who has 10 times more experience in Congress than Obama had.

[stevenleser]

62. Denial of reality? I stated the facts of what happened and the person to whom you are responding

refuted something I never said. THAT is denial of reality.

[RandySF]

9. Clinton can win without Iowa and NH

Bernie cannot.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I agree with you, at least in regards to New Hampshire

I think Sanders could still build momentum from coming in a close second in Iowa and following that with a convincing New Hampshire win. But yes, Clinton could plausibly weather losing both of those races and still win the nomination whereas Sanders could not. I suppose if Sanders lost New Hampshire in a real nail biter close race he could still have a very long shot chance if Clinton made any big blunders shortly after that, but I accept your basis premise.

[CoffeeCat]

37. Yes, because Sanders is the underdog...

Hillary has been touted as the "inevitable" one since the day Obama won the Presidency.

It's been nonstop with the media positioning her as our 2016 Democratic nominee.

So yes, it's a tougher hill to climb for Bernie. But he's climbing it. He started out at 4 percent in Iowa, and now it's a competitive race and he's within single digits.

That's huge.

[Armstead]

11. Your level head is always appreciated /nt

[yardwork]

18. Very interesting analysis.

This is the kind of OP we used to see a lot more frequently on DU. Thoughtful, informed analysis and opinion. Thank you. Recced.

[Armstead]

29. Yep. I agree.

[sufrommich]

38. +1. nt

[DCBob]

20. The polls out of SC are also very significant, perhaps even more than Iowa and NH.

A big win in SC for Hillary will provide a big boost going into Super Tuesday no matter what happens in Iowa and NH.

[ladjf]

28. This post is the kind of quality the was common on DU a few years back.

It is insightful and open minded. We need more of these types of posts.

[DCBob]

30. agree.

[yardwork]

39. Agreed.

[joshcryer]

61. +1, everyone should follow Tom Rinaldo's lead.

Great and insightful post and it's exactly where I stand.

[Betty Karlson]

40. VERY good analysis. eom

[Bread and Circus]

45. Hey wow... some real intelligence on DU Primaries. That's pretty refreshing.

This will likely be the best OP on DU Primaries for the day.

[Juicy_Bellows]

55. Great post and I feel Sanders is going to have a helluva show in IA and NH.

You are right, if he has a bad or so-so showing, it's likely curtains.

I'd be interested in your analysis of Hillary in the GE, because I think that ship won't make it to harbor.