How fareth Sanders erewhile in Iowa?

[struggle4progress]

We have polling from about a week ago

Current political spectrum is 11% very liberal, 18% somewhat liberal, 32% moderate, 23% somewhat conservative, and 16% very conservative

In 2012 Iowa went D Obama over R Romney (47:43) but isn't enthusiastic about Obama (favorable:unfavorable 44:49)

R Walker (favorable:unfavorable 31:37) currently beats all R candidates in matchups, and D Clinton (favorable:unfavorable 41:52) beats all R candidates in matchups -- in particular, beating Walker (48:41), which is close to 2012 Obama:Romney. OTOH D Sanders (favorable:unfavorable 21:24) loses to Walker (34:39)

Where might positive support lie? Among very liberal, somewhat liberal, and moderate (respectively) favorable views of Clinton are 75: 70:51 while the corresponding numbers for Sanders are 54:40:16. The "not sure" numbers for these ideological categories for Clinton are 3: 7: 9 and for Sanders are 27:40:62

... On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton leads with 62% to 14% for Bernie Sanders ...

[HERVEPA]

1. Meaningless crap this soon after Bernoe announced

[struggle4progress]

2. We can watch how quickly he closes that 62:14 gap. But much of his name-recognition difference

comes from the moderate, somewhat-conservative, and very-conservative end of the spectrum -- and gaining name recognition there won't help him much

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. Sounds like 1972 all over again. <sigh>

[Agschmid]

4. Fill me in, I wasn't born yet...

[Recursion]

8. The short version

Ed Muskie is the insider/establishment favorite but kind of stumbles out of the starting block (something about insulting French Canadians). People smell blood, and so Shirley Chisolm, Scoop Jackson, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and George Wallace all pounce. Wallace gets shot at a campaign stop after doing very well in the early Southern primaries.

Humphrey is more or less an "establishment" replacement for Muskie, and gets a lot of institutional backing. He even wins the popular vote in the primaries, but McGovern is better at the caucuses and winds up with more delegates. An ugly back-room floor fight occurs, and as a result the Democratic party adopts "superdelegates" to keep the voters from running over their next golden boy.

But, McGovern is the party rank & file's choice, and he runs an excellent campaign against Nixon. The result is this:

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. An even shorter version.

[Ken Burch]

5. Prithee, why scrollest thou one thread title Elizabethan?

Didst thou drivest to yon Publick Librarie in a Tudor sedan?

[cali]

6. ......

[JHB]

7. What were the poll numbers in late April 2007?

For that matter, when was the last time the Iowa caucuses were a bellwether for the eventual nominee? In 1992 Tom Harkin won. Who won the nomination, and was elected president?

[djean111]

9. For the purposes of this sort of OP, thy facts lacketh importance.

[NCTraveler]

12. Post them. It would be a great addition to the op.

I get that your reply took much less thought than actually doing something productive.

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. Bernie scares he crap out of you, doesn't he.

What a flurry of anti-Bernie articles you have found in the last few days! Nothing about Webb or O'Malley - or is it just because they haven't announced yet?

Sorry - we aren't coronating anyone. Thats why we have primaries!

[ieoeja]

14. Did you fail to notice that your polls just proved her lead is solely "name recognition"?

Clinton's "approve" plus "not sure":

75+3=78
70+7=77
51+9=60

Sanders' "approve" plus "not sure":

54+27=81
40+40=80
16+62=78

When the "note sure" get to know Sanders and are sure, it appears that Sanders will match, if not lead, Clinton.

[steve2470]

15. this thread might be of interest to some

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023922745