BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Far Ahead In 48 States.

[onehandle]

Possibly within the margin of error in one small state.
Possibly slightly behind in an even smaller state.
Biden surging past her closest competition in some states.

[font size="9"]#45[/font]

[liberal N proud]

1. But it is the other 2 that the media and the Bernie Maniacs obsess over

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. "Bernie Maniacs", There's some adult discourse for ya. Mmm hmm.

[SunSeeker]

24. Seems appropriate for those folks whose campaign symbol is a bouncing green booger...

[LondonReign2]

39. .

[SunSeeker]

50. Yep, thanks for proving my point. Real mature. nt

[LondonReign2]

56. Don't be angry. Here, have a look at this poll, it will cheer you up

[SunSeeker]

57. Oh, so Bernie supporters now admit national polls count? nt

[LondonReign2]

60. Of course they do! And I think the national polls are very clear that there

is no way no how Hillary could possibly lose such a huge lead.

[SunSeeker]

61. Bernie is not Obama, yet some Bernie fans keep confusing the two.

What is even stranger is it's often the same people who have nothing but bad things to say about Obama.

[LondonReign2]

62. True. But Hillary is still Hillary

[peacebird]

77. Touche!

[cascadiance]

80. Obama gave them "Hope and change" that made them THINK they'd get a better future!

Bernie gives them more "BELIEF in change" with a greater track record, specificity, and consistency over the years of standing for change that they want, and DIDN'T GET from Obama. I'm thinking that the shift actually might going even more extreme when people find more reasons to believe what Bernie offers than Obama. I stuck with Edwards even through Super Tuesday when I voted despite him pulling out then, because I really hadn't found that I could BELIEVE in change that Obama claimed he was offering, but stopped as soon as he took office and appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff to put together Obama's cabinet. A photoshop I made then is a testament to how I felt then, and still feel now.



I think this time around, there's someone running that we can believe in more that has the same position in the polls that Obama did then, and I think many of us believe has MORE room to grow this time.

[frylock]

48. The two states that get the momentum rolling?

[morningfog]

2. Lol. In other news, the first primary vote due to be cast in 4 months!

[elleng]

59. THANKS!

[djean111]

3. I was expecting "those polls are outliers!" before this angle.....

[bigdarryl]

4. WTF!!

[gobears10]

6. BOOO!!!

boo hillary clinton boo!!

[RandiFan1290]

66.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. Citation please.

Pulling outa your arse is not credible.

[William769]

8. No surprize there.

[WI_DEM]

9. How do you know that?

Have there been individual polls in all the other states? Of course the focus right now is on Iowa and New Hampshire and, sorry to say, but HRC is falling like a rock in those states.

[NorthCarolina]

25. Because the OP says so,

why would you doubt that? It's golden.

[CoffeeCat]

10. National polls are irrelevant now...

Hillary was far ahead in all national polls--at this time during the 2008 pre-primary season.

She was also winning in nearly all state polls.

As in 2008--these polls are irrelevant. They were constantly touted by the Hillary campaign as evidence of her electability and inevitability. It wasn't true then, in 2008. It's not true today.

What matters now are the state polls that have impending primaries. Because these are the states where voters are engaged in the primary election, paying attention, attending speeches, watching the television ads and plugged into the candidates. This is where the candidates are fighting for votes and where their campaigns are in forth gear.

And thus far, in the first two states--Hillary Clinton is losing to Bernie Sanders.

To put this into context--Hillary is faring WORSE in her candidacy this time around--than she was in 2008. And she lost in 2008. At this point in Iowa (in 2007), she was far ahead of Obama and Edwards (she's now losing). She's behind in New Hampshire now--but she won that state in 2008.

Nevada and South Carolina's primaries are immediate after Iowa and New Hampshire. You want to look at relevant polls--look at Nevada and South Carolina in a few months.

Iowa and NH vote in less than four months.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the most homogeneous states in the nation.

Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the most homogeneous states in the nation and consequently not remotely representative of an increasingly heterogeneous nation and an increasingly heterogeneous Democratic party.

That is why the last three presidents have lost the New Hampshire primary and the last five presidents have won the South Carolina primary.

[CoffeeCat]

14. I beg to differ...

Are you suggesting that Iowa and New Hampshire wins are irrelevant because the people in those states are very similar?

The underlying supposition of your comment is incredibly flawed.

Iowa is 99 percent white. So yeah, I suppose you could say it's "homogeneous."

However, Iowa voted first in the nation--and Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses handily. We blazed that trail. The Iowa population may look less diverse. However, the Democrats in that state are wildly Progressive when it comes to cultural diversity and leveraging candidates who are of all races and creeds.

Need I remind you that Iowa was one of the first few states to legalize gay marriage several years ago?

Iowa is a very educated state with a large contingent of Progressives. To paint the entire state as "homogeneous" is to look past the fact that the majority of Democrats in Iowa are vociferous supporters of diversity, inclusion, equality and Progressive ideals.

Same goes for New Hampshire.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. They are two of the most homogeneous states in the nation.

They are two of the most homogeneous states in the nation. That is an empirical observation and not a normative one. Having an abundance or paucity of "progressives" is not what makes a state homogeneous or heterogeneous.

Bookmark this post. Senator Sanders' support is a mile deep and an inch wide and that fact will assert itself once the campaign leaves the homogeneous environs of Iowa and New Hampshire for the infinitely more heterogeneous United States. I would literally bet my life on that proposition.

[demwing]

37. Dont bet your life - Literally

you have nothing to gain

[CoffeeCat]

38. Can you explain what you mean by "homogeneous"?

I'm understand what the word homogenous means.

I'm fairly unclear what you mean by Iowa and NH being homogeneous and how that makes those states so different for Bernie Sanders in upcoming state primaries.

I get that you think the populations of those two states are the same--uniform throughout.

I'm trying to tell you that regardless of how it appears on the outside--that Democratic Iowans couldn't be more diverse in their thinking. We are not a milquetoast state with a bunch of old white guys who feel and think the same about everything. Again, despite our 99 percent white population, Obama won the Iowa caucuses handily. We also made gay marriage legal long ago. Our cultural stances and diversity are similar to any other state, and more populous states.

I'm not sure if that is what you are implying. Can you further explain by Iowa and NH are homogeneous?

You seem to be implying that he might be able to win in Iowa and NH, but that will not be the case in more "heterogenous" states. Is that what you are saying?

[frylock]

51. It's the "white people" meme.

[CoffeeCat]

85. Right, and it's simply flawed thinking...

As I said earlier, Iowa Democrats may be mostly white--but that doesn't mean that we lack diversity of thought or that we are somehow limited in our thinking.

Iowa Democrats are some of the most open-minded, Progressive people I've ever met. We may LOOK homogenous, but our views are anything but. We voted first in the 2008 primaries--way before Obama's star rose, and he won the Iowa caucuses here. We blazed that trail because he was the best candidate.

I think the poster is suggesting that because most people in Iowa are white, that we do not reflect the population at large. The poster's thinking is based on how we look, and that is highly flawed.

I invite the poster to spend some time in Iowa and to see for themselves the diversity of thought, opinion and intelligence--in particular, among Iowa Democrats.

If what the poster is suggesting was true--then Edwards or Hillary Clinton would have won the 2008 Iowa caucuses, not Obama. Clinton was the "inevitable" candidate and we Iowans were all told to vote for her and that she was the most electable. We didn't go along. We engaged in the process, researched and discovered that Obama was the best man for the job.

Iowans voted similar to how voters in metropolitan areas and urban areas voted. We are not "homogeneous" when it comes to picking the best candidate for the job.

[cali]

42. they are also states where voters get an up close and personal view of

the candidates and issues, that voters in other states don't, and are unusually engaged in the political process.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. As Yogi would say...it's deja vu all ova again. Hillary is toast...Go Bernie!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[onehandle]

45. National? Who mentioned national? 48 INDIVIDUAL STATES. nt

[CoffeeCat]

86. Yes, but the campaigns have not begun in 98 percent of those states...

Those state polls are exactly like the national polls. Those polls are full of responses from people who have not yet begun to pay attention. Hillary benefits from those polls because of name recognition and because of the media leveraging her as the inevitable winner.

This is exactly what happened in 2008. Exactly.

In 2--7/8 Obama slowly rose in the Iowa state polls--and a couple of weeks before the caucuses, in January--he surpassed Hillary in the polls. Then, Obama won the Iowa caucuses, and the NH, NV and SC polls began changing as well.

This is what happens when the campaigns come to the states. Candidates bring their messages, their media buys and the citizens of those states plug in and really pay attention. Everything changes.

I will also add that Hillary is doing far worse in Iowa against Sanders, currently--than she did in 2008 against Obama and Edwards. She was ahead in the Iowa polls until December of 2007. And she ended up losing that Iowa caucus vote.

It's only early September and Sanders has surpassed her in the latest poll. That's telling, because Hillary is well known. It's not like she's struggling to make more people aware of who she is. They all ready know who she is. Especially Iowans--she spent so much time in the state in 2007/2008. They all ready know her and she's losing.

These numbers demonstrate that people know her, but they don't care for her--and also that support for her (despite all of the name recognition and experience) is very weak.

[kenfrequed]

11. Give us time

Bernie has been surging a long way from 'not being a factor' to 'peaking' to whatever the next broad generalizatin might be. It is primary season. Maybe you should try to analyze why people are switching to Sanders?

[morningfog]

13. What about Vermont?

Most states haven't even been polled recently, either.

[LondonReign2]

16. Well holy shit! Cancel the primary!

Her 50, err 49, err 48 state lead is insurmountable!

Her 60, err 50, err 30, err 20, errr 17 point lead is insurmountable!

Damn we should have canceled this whole primary thing back in 2007 to since it was just a matter of time before she won. I know I've certainly enjoyed the last 6 years of her Presidency.

[merrily]

23. LOL!

[leftofcool]

26. Actually we should cancel this one. Bernie will go nowhere.

[LondonReign2]

31. Ah yes, the Hillaryites and their distaste for letting the voters decide

Can't we just crown her now?

[leftofcool]

32. Looks to me like the voters have decided since 78% of Dems support her.

[LondonReign2]

35. Holy shit! The vote to chose the Democratic nominee was TODAY?!?!?!!!

Why didn't anyone tell me?

I guess I should have known--after all, it was about this time in 2007 we held the vote to select the 2008 nominee since it was obvious no one could possible catch Hill with her insurmountable lead.

[frylock]

52. You're going to need more than 78% of Dems to win..

so go on ahead and continue to alienate indies, and people not affiliated with your precious party.

[bettyellen]

63. I keep reading there is no hostility to the Dem party here. Well woo-hoo here it is again.

[frylock]

65. Point out the hostility.

[bettyellen]

67. "your precious party." was not sarcastic? Lol, more gas lighting bullshit- nothing to see here...

no disparagement of Dems at all, right?

[Capt. Obvious]

34. Do you actually believe that Clinton will win?

[LondonReign2]

36. Sadly, I actual believe she will

[bettyellen]

68. I know a lot of people who are working for Bernie who believe that she will win anyway....

I give them a lot of credit for trying anyway though.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. INEVITABLE!

This time for reals.

[Logical]

17. LOL, breaking? In your imagination? Nt

[NorthCarolina]

18. Dominoes.

[JackInGreen]

20. For now ;)

Eom

[jeff47]

21. Why am I reminded of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail? (nt)

[Chan790]

22. If she loses the first two...

that number is going to plummet. I don't know if it's enough for Sanders to beat her but it's enough that you shouldn't be gloating like this because someone is going to rub your nose in this post when Sanders wins IA and NH and this becomes an actual race as both Super-Ds and primary support flees her when she's not as sure of a thing as they thought she would be.

[leftofcool]

27. you really should re-read Nate Silver.

[Chan790]

33. Statistical modeling does a poor job anticipating emotional responses.

Sanders' support increase has already broken Silver's model twice and even 538 has conceded that the model does a poor job anticipating certain types of responses to an event. Numerically, Sanders winning NH or IA shouldn't move the needle anywhere else...except that we know factually that it will. So does Silver and so does the Clinton campaign.

Something Mark Twain said about "lies, damned lies and statistics"?

[Fawke Em]

40. Oh, that dude that keeps saying Sanders has peaked?

I used to hang my hat on what Nate said, but either he's using the wrong models or his Magic 8 ball is off this go around.

[leftofcool]

41. Bernie has peaked nationally.

Sad for ya'll, I know.

[frylock]

54. Every week it's a new peak.

[lunamagica]

44. Or he's not saing what you want to hear. That doesn't mean he is wrong. n/t

[LondonReign2]

58. Nate is exceptionally good at taking all poll results, applying historical accuracy factors

and accurately saying where we are at any point in time. It appears he's tried to do something very different this time around in predicting where we'll be months in the future, and thus far the results haven't been up to his usual standards.

[frylock]

53. Nate "Sanders has plateaued" Silvers?

[onehandle]

46. The first two are just as relevant as the GOPers current leaders.

See you on Super-Tuesday.

[CanadaexPat]

28. Breaking: Electioneering focus has been in the two states she doesn't lead.

Lesson?

[leftofcool]

29. Go Hillary!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. She is probably ahead in all fifty states....in corporate contributions.

[pinebox]

47. BOOM!

n/t

[frylock]

49. All is well.

[ffr]

55. That's the Clinton I know of!

I wish her the best. She'd make us proud and govern compassionately.

She'll get my vote, just as any (D) candidate running for office would! (I) too!

Nice picture of her too, BTW!

Hillary Clinton greeted by cheers & applause on her first day as SoS.

[oasis]

82. "Let's get to work" says it all.

[Jester Messiah]

64. You realize that trends and momentum exist, right?

And they are not on Hillary's side currently.

[leftofcool]

69. Really? She leads nationally by double digits against, OMG Bernie!

[oasis]

71. No thanks to the GOP/media manufactured E-mail controversy.

Go Hill.

[leftofcool]

72. Absolutely Go Hills!

[oasis]

84. Making Hill spend precious time deflecting rumors and lies

would suit a lot of folks just fine. She's leading in 48 states running her campaign, her way.

[Motown_Johnny]

88. A few weeks ago her numbers were double what his were,

now it is double digits

where will it be a month or two from now? Only time will tell.








the trend continues

[Go Vols]

70. Yep

[leftofcool]

73. Oh my, it's Gallup, the Republicans poll!

[Go Vols]

74. Yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=576960

[Cha]

75. Good.. i want Hillary for President.

[jfern]

76. LOL, Bernie leads in Vermont

[AgingAmerican]

78. The incredible shrinking

lead

[stonecutter357]

79. K&R!

[Flying Squirrel]

81. Breaking: Hare far ahead of tortoise in 48 states

[Motown_Johnny]

87. A little less every day

Updated today, the trend continues.






Remember when Clinton supporters were bragging that her poll numbers were Double what Sander's were? You don't hear that anymore. Unless something changes, nobody will be making claims such as the one in this OP anymore either.