Hillary Clinton's Lead Is Slipping Faster in 2016 Than It Did in 2008

[appalachiablue]

Last edited Fri Jan 15, 2016, 01:12 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: MSN/Washington Post

In 2008, Hillary Clinton saddled up for the Kentucky Derby on a thoroughbred that was a sure thing. Her campaign was the finest colt in Kentucky, at odds that barely made it worth betting on her. The race began, and she was up by a quarter mile. Then, as another jockey started to gain, she slipped out of her saddle. She was barely hanging on, bumping along against the dirt, bruised and struggling and still hanging in there a half-a-length back. And then she lost and grudgingly wished the victor luck in winning the Triple Crown.

So you have to figure that, when 2016 rolled around and everyone was saying, "No, this horse is a sure thing," she was a bit wary. But she got on. She ran strong. She did well. And now, in the final turn, there might be something wrong with the saddle.

If we compare where Clinton is now in the Real Clear Politics polling average, the 2016 picture and the 2008 picture aren't really all that similar. Nationally, she was doing much better in 2008 than she is right now, perhaps in part because the anti-Clinton vote in 2008 was still split between two people -- Barack Obama and John Edwards -- instead of just one. But that recent trend line, a function of two new national polls that were close after a bit of a lull, is not very good news.

In Iowa, Clinton is running a bit better than she did in 2008 -- though, again, she's dipped significantly recently. It wasn't until the last week in 2008 that she fell out of the lead. She eventually came in third.




She's doing far worse in New Hampshire than she did in 2008, thanks to New Hampshire being very much the home turf (and home demographics) of her main opponent. In 2008, her lead in New Hampshire evaporated after her Iowa finish, but she then managed to win anyway.




A critical point to take away from this -- a point that we've made often before -- is that voting changes polling. If you look at her national numbers after Iowa in 2008, she lost three-quarters of her lead after the caucuses -- but gained some of it back after her win in New Hampshire.



In 2016, there's also a big difference between the demographics in Iowa and New Hampshire and other early states, which are much less white. Bernie Sanders struggles with non-white voters, so we can expect to see more dramatic changes after these early states vote.

National numbers don't mean much right now. They're fickle. You can slip out of your saddle, you horse can stumble, and you can still win the race. But it can't be much fun to have it happen in two big races in a row.

Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-national-lead-is-slipping-faster-in-2016-than-it-did-in-2008/ar-BBocMzm?li=BBnb7Kz

---

6 hrs. ago.



Hillary Clinton on The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC last night, Thursday, Jan 14.

[merrily]

1. Great, but the bit about the polls being due to NH's being the home turf

of Sanders is bs.

First, NH is very different politically from Vermont. Second, would you vote for President based on which state is located next door to your own? I wouldn't. If you wouldn't, why assume that people who live in NH would? The whole meme that Sanders is doing well in NH because of geography is nonsense, IMO.

[appalachiablue]

2. It's sloppy journalism but convenient for the lazy. Many neighbor states are dissimilar.

We've also heard often about preferences in New Hampshire and conservative and/or rural residents of Vermont who vote for Democrats. Writers should give readers some points and credit for knowing the info.
Maryland for example is viewed as a blue state, when it has a long history of conservatism in the more rural western region and the agricultural, remote former slave owning areas of the east and south. Northern Va. has little in common in terms of voting or culture with the rest of the state. West Virginia and Virginia have historic differences in geography and culture. States like New York and Oregon also have very varying pockets of voters. The list goes on for so many places.
How are things these days M.?

[merrily]

3. I think it's just another intentional way to diminish Sanders.

The reason he's doing so well in NH is an accident of geography, not anything to do with his record, his smarts or his message.

[appalachiablue]

4. Yes he's earned it in NH yet much of msm still won't give him due credit, although

there's some sunlight coming through now finally. Clinton is digging down deeper and faster, esp. on the frenzy cable show appearances this week. But recovery isn't likely.

[Myrina]

5. I feel bad. I really do.

Never in our history has there been an individual who is more qualified to be President than HRC. But her alliances, tactics and skeletons are so despicable that she's been passed over by the primary electorate not once - but now possibly twice.

That's got to be a mindfuck for anyone to handle.

[november3rd]

8. Agreed

Under normal circumstances, she'd probably be a great President.

But with the current partisanship in the GOP, global warming, the plutocracy, the death of labor unions, globalization and empire, the times call for an extraordinary leader, like Lincoln.

[JackRiddler]

9. Define qualified.

Holding a lot of offices is not a qualification. Doing the right thing consistently is a qualification. Clinton has consistently done the wrong thing and had it presented as "liberal" and good.

[Myrina]

10. qualified = understands the position & all it entails

... including history. As I stated, just because she IS so qualified, doesn't mean she would choose to do the right thing(s) for the everyday people while in office, and therefore I can't support her.

[JackRiddler]

11. This was the argument for Bush Sr.

Nonsense from all angles.

[Myrina]

12. Wtf man??? Read my damned post

SHE *IS* QUALIFIED.
HOWEVER, I *DON'T* SUPPORT HER.
I *WON'T* VOTE FOR HER.

HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR DO I HAVE TO MAKE IT?

Christ on a Cracker some people here wanna pick fights.

[JackRiddler]

13. Please, no misunderstandings.

I'm agreeing with you and pointing out -- adding to what you said -- that "qualification" is an argument for a lot of bad candidates. These jobs are supposed to be executive, meaning decisions are made. Policies are chosen. Qualification for doing the job competently is secondary, it comes after what you intend to do.

[Dawson Leery]

6. Ipsos/Reuters for 01/15 has her up 20 against Sanders nationally.

[appalachiablue]

7. Bizarre fabricatons, rush contradictions, strategic blundering and recent media blitz are signature

Frequent use of 'us' and it's meaning was brought up here. Along with questioning who 'us' means, there's a lot of I, me and mine and infrequent use of the terms the people and Americans. Makes you wonder, about a lot.