The reality of the CBS News/YouGov poll...

[Drunken Irishman]

The polls after Iowa don't matter at this point because Iowa is going to dramatically shift this race - as it typically has in every primary election cycle.

Right now, their Iowa poll has Biden on top 29 to 26 over Sanders with Warren coming in a fairly distant third and 17%. IF the caucus broke down like that, it's going to impact the narrative and alter how New Hampshire looks because I think a distant third-place showing for Warren, at that level, would severely hurt her campaign - and that goes for any of the top-three candidates. It's the same with Biden. If Biden drops to third, beyond it being a very jumbled top-three (say, all within three or so points of one another), I will say it - he won't be the nominee. And I'll say the same about Bernie, too.

If I'm Warren, that's my concern out of these numbers. Despite the momentum she's experienced nationally, it has not translated yet in Iowa. With Iowa being the first actual vote, it's going to set the narrative for the rest of the race.

Which means, a distant third to open things up makes New Hampshire almost a must-win. Now in 2008, Hillary came in a distant third and then bounced back with a surprise New Hampshire win, so, I guess it's not out of the cards, but by that point, it was pretty much a two-person race. Obama and Hillary combined for 75% of the vote in that primary. I don't think two candidates will combine for 75% this go around.

So, currently, Warren leads Biden by just one-point in New Hampshire. IF Biden wins Iowa, and Warren falters to third, and doesn't even really come close to Bernie for second, the momentum is going to work against her and basically, NH, with SC down the pike, becomes a must-win for both Warren and Bernie. If Warren fails to win NH, which could be possible, especially with how narrow things are right now (MOE for all three), I think she's likely out. South Carolina will go to Biden, who now has the momentum of possibly winning Iowa and now maybe even New Hampshire, and by that point, he becomes the clear front-runner.

Oddly, while Warren ekes out a lead in their overall poll of these states, on a state-level, Biden and Bernie should actually like these numbers a lot more than Warren because they both do very well in Iowa compared to her and are within striking distance of her in New Hampshire - while both Biden and Bernie have significant leads over her in states they lead (South Carolina for Biden, Nevada for Bernie).

It's still way too premature, of course, but these numbers are actually very favorable for both Biden and Bernie, despite the Battleground poll of early primary states.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Iowans never show their hand this early

They make you earn it. I’m not concerned in the least. Based on the respective quality of their campaigns to date, Biden will be fortunate to finish 3rd there, well behind Warren.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. Keep telling yourself that.

I've heard all spring and summer how Biden was going to implode in Iowa.

He's led, or tied, in every Iowa Caucus poll dating back to December of last year.

In fact, in the YouGov poll, Biden's support grew from 24 to 29 over their last poll. So...

[BeyondGeography]

4. I will

And you keep clutching those early polls.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Until the polls aren't just polls anymore...

Then we'll see what cute narrative you come up with when Biden still hasn't imploded.

[Bradshaw3]

10. They cling to those polls, like ...

Like that's all they got.

[lapfog_1]

2. Too early to speculate

not to mention Why or why does two small almost completely WHITE states get so much influence on who we select as our nominee?

Does this make any sense?

[Drunken Irishman]

5. I agree but they do, so, not much we can do about it.

It's the process every candidate agreed to when they decided to run for president. Iowa does seem to favor Biden, tho.

[NewsCenter28]

20. DI, for people like you and I who actually want to win

This poll is horrifying. It has Bernie in a position if things go right for him to sweep to the nomination. Kiss the house, senate, presidency, and key governorships goodbye in that case and get your Nixon '72 pants on!

[Ligyron]

8. Why indeed.

Think how different this country would be if Cali or New York went 1st or 2nd or 1st and 2nd.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. Likely means Hillary wins in 2008.

No Obama without Iowa and he lost the New York and California primaries.

[crazytown]

22. HRC won Iowa 2008

30 points lead over "distant second" Obama in Sept 07, 20 points on caucus eve.

[Joe941]

7. Polls don't mean much this early.

[still_one]

14. Exactly, and national polls mean even less since states elect presidents not the popular vote

[Joe941]

17. I know and you know...

But don't tell that to DU.

[still_one]

18. This typical primary sparing. When the field gets narrowed down, and we get closer to the primaries

that is when i will pay more attention tto the polls

There are also a good number i believe who are undecided, and that can chage everything

[Bradshaw3]

9. Ahh, another "polls are only valid if they confirm Joe will win" thread

Polls showing Biden with a lead are written in stone while polls favorable to Warren are misleading because ... well, let's see whatever rationale the poster can come up with. Just offer opinion as fact (" South Carolina will go to Biden&quot and speculation offered as more fact. It's getting quite humorous.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. I just posted polls...

I analyzed polls. I didn't say one poll was more valid than the other. The fact is, in the first state that votes, Warren is a distant third place to Biden and Bernie. In the second state, she is essentially tied with Bernie and Biden. That fact alone should have any campaign worried because that's not a viable path to the nomination.

I'd say the same thing if Biden was trailing in Iowa and barely winning in New Hampshire.

Context matters. And the context of that Battleground poll is that Biden and Bernie have much stronger leads in states they lead than Warren does in New Hampshire.

[Bradshaw3]

13. Oh good grief

The "reality of the poll..." is not just posting a poll. It was questioning the validity of what one draws from it. You draw nothing but good news for Joe - regardless of what the poll indicates. Here are some real facts: Warren has built the best ground game in Iowa (where voting is still FOUR months away and far from being over as you seem to think) and has been consistently been moving up in the polls, to where in the early battleground states she is right there with him in the delegate count.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-battleground-tracker-2020-poll-elizabeth-warren-rises-as-joe-biden-clings-to-delegate-edge/

That alone should tell anyone who is objective that trying to infer at this point that Warren's campaign will be over by SC is absurd. Actually, this constant drumbeat by some Biden supports here to try and end the nomination process early makes one wonder we what they are so afraid of. Maybe their candidate is not the anointed one?

[delisen]

15. Fewer voters are impressed by Iowa caucuses

Our electorate is changing and we all are more aware of the differences between caucus states and states with real voting primaries.

Additionally it is no longer enough for candidates to grind out the happy talk, avoid specifics, and expect to coast to victory.

I have been impressed by by Warren's planning and how receptive and responsive people have been to the facts and details she presents. She engenders confidence in people that we can build a workable society and deal with the challenges.

Reminds me a bit of Merkel-eschews glamour, plans well and works hard.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. Good grief is right.

Can you please point out where I am wrong? I posted state polls - polls that actually show Biden doing well in two states and within the MOE in two others. His overall margin in Iowa actually increased to 29 points over their last poll. I don't care what a select poll of battle grounds say collectively - that's irrelevant when you start looking, and comparing, the actual state results. There, Biden is doing significantly better and is well positioned if things don't change to have very strong standing to win the nomination if these polls hold.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe Elizabeth Warren can win the nomination by coming in a distant third in Iowa?

Do you want to know the last Democrat to win the nomination without either finishing first or second in Iowa? Bill Clinton, in 1992, and that was a race where every major candidate ceded the state since Tom Harkin was running for president (he would win Iowa 76.5% of the vote).

Instead of being rude, and dismissive, you could have replied pointing out where you felt I was wrong. I never attacked Warren. I never dismissed Warren. Only pointed out that in that same poll, if the state polls are correct, Warren's current standing is not as favorable as that one poll suggests. And that's a fact. If she finishes a distant third in Iowa, it will make her standing in NH very precarious and that doesn't bode well with South Carolina (a state she's polling at 14%) and Nevada (where she's polling at 18%) set up right after that.

The primary calendar is set up so that Warren potentially loses a lot of momentum if she doesn't stop Biden early. And no, sorry, Biden winning Iowa, even if she wins New Hampshire, isn't going to cut it. Warren needs Biden to finish behind her in Iowa specifically for what I mentioned - he's still polling strong in NH, despite Warren and Sanders' advantages, and after NH the primary is favorable to him, as March 3rd's slate of primaries/caucuses:

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Maine

Based on his strong support within the AA community, who make up a bulk of the primary voters in some of these states, he's very likely to win Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia and maybe Arkansas. He's leading in California currently and could be strong in Oklahoma and Tennessee.

If he wins those seven states, especially if it's California, he's going to be the nominee.

Warren can't afford Biden still being the front-runner entering that Super Tuesday because a good amount of those states DO favor Biden (take Virginia - the last primary poll had Biden leading 36 to 17 over Sanders).

Now things CAN change but I am going off polls TODAY. You might think Biden is going to implode and it's all going to be over for him ... but until that happens, I can only go off what the polls are saying. And right now, that favors Biden - and so do those state polls you linked to.

The only way Warren wins the nomination is if she knocks Biden out in Iowa because if he wins Iowa, it's likely going to be very difficult.

Conversely, and to show you I don't buy every narrative out there, if Biden loses Iowa, despite what his campaign says, he will not be the nominee barring a loss very similar to what Bernie saw in 2016 (where it's basically tied).

[Thekaspervote]

21. You are so quick to point fingers at Biden supporters as to what you see as bashing/smearing of EW

I don’t bash her certainly...yet here you are bashing Biden

“Biden supporters trying to end the nomination process.” Making snarky comments about Biden being the anointed one

Why not just stick to facts about your candidate and praise her? And if it’s your opinion... just say so

[Thekaspervote]

16. Thx drunken Irishman- have found your break downs over several years and several campaigns

Of the polls, unbiased, Informative, realistic and accurate.

Seems some skipped right over your factual breakdown with your statement “I'd say the same thing if Biden was trailing in Iowa and barely winning in New Hampshire.”