Politico--Insiders: Clinton still on track to win Iowa and N.H.

[Gothmog]

The Bernie Sanders surge is real. But Hillary has the 'best campaign infrastructure ever built,' according to one New Hampshire Democrat. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-survives-213529

Despite a barrage of bad headlines, lagging poll numbers and mounting evidence that she's in a dogfight with Bernie Sanders, Democratic insiders overwhelmingly think Hillary Clinton would win Iowa and New Hampshire if the contests were held this week.

That's the assessment of this week's POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of the top strategists, activists and operatives in the two early-voting states

Driving the high degree of confidence in Clinton's chances is a belief that her field organization is too formidable for Sanders to overcome. "Best campaign infrastructure ever built," said an uncommitted New Hampshire Democrat. "They can overcome any deficit."

Both in Iowa and New Hampshire, eight out of 10 Democrats surveyed said Clinton would win if the contests were held this week. Those responses come even as the Vermont senator pushed past Clinton in an Iowa poll released Thursday, something he has already done in New Hampshire.

"Although the polls say otherwise right now, I think Hillary will win the primary," a New Hampshire Democrat said. "It is still early, she retooled her campaign to better reflect her authenticity, trustworthiness and exceptional qualifications. Polls have been proven wrong, especially in NH!"....

A New Hampshire Democrat who said it's a toss-up between Clinton and Sanders, described the Democratic race this way: "Bernie is legitimately ahead in two recent and credible polls in NH, but...his margin is not large. This is where campaigns can make the difference. Clinton's team is super-organized, and has veterans who know where every last vote is. Sanders' field and GOTV aren't nearly as well established. In a close race this counts, so if it were today: tossup."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-survives-213529#ixzz3lUl9GKTv

Ground games can make a big difference in states like Iowa and New Hampshire and the Clinton campaign has been spending money on things like polls and a ground game. Sanders has started to build a ground game in Iowa but Clinton has most of the Obama team.

In 2008, many of the Obama team in Iowa went straight to Texas after Iowa to work on the Texas two step. Under the Texas two step, two-thirds of the delegates were allocated based on the primary and one-third based on caucuses. I worked with the Obama people and they were very very strong and knew their game theory. Hillary Clinton won the primary but Obama ended up with more overall delegates from Texas due to the caucuses.

There is time for Sanders to catch up but that is going to take a great deal of money and hiring people who understand how politics works. While according to Nate Silver, Clinton will be the nominee even if she loses in Iowa and New Hampshire, I am happy to see that some experts still place some faith in traditional political strategy such as the importance of a ground game.

[Rainbowdy]

1. Pragmatic politics or cult of personality?

I would rather take pragmatic politics, and we've just begun caucus training for Bernie Sanders, yes this far out, and we'll surprise the Clinton machine with our even bigger machine of our own - the people-powered political revolutionary machine!

[Gothmog]

5. I am glad that Sanders is not giving up on all concepts of traditional or pragmatic politics

I worked with the Obama people in 2008 and they were very very strong. The same people are working for Clinton. Time will tell if traditional campaign operations still work or if Sanders has some sort of new magical methods.

For Sanders to be appeal to voters outside his very very narrow base, he will need to demonstrate that he can run an effective campaign not just in Iowa but in states that are not 90+% white

[frylock]

2. "Best campaign infrastructure ever built," said an uncommitted New Hampshire Democrat.

Bwah.... wut?! Is this The Onion?

[Gothmog]

4. Your comment would have more meaning if someone explains how Sanders is a viable candidate

Now when people talk about the importance of traditional politics and things like ground games, we are attacked that we do not understand the new politics and the Sanders revolution. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to how Sanders will be viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars and have been told that traditional political wisdom does not matter.

The premise of the article cited in this thread is that traditional campaign infrastructure mattets and money matters. The Clinton campaign has build a great ground game operation and will be relying on tested and traditional methods to turn out voters. The experts cited in the article in the OP put a value on these concepts.

I am glad that Sanders is attempting to build a ground game in some states. The experts cited in the above article are doubting that Sanders will be able to match the Clinton campaign operation. Time will tell.

I am basing my support now in large part based of the concept of viability in the general election. I keep asking about this issue and the answers that I are not satisfactory and it appears that sources cited in the article share this view.

[frylock]

6. Oddly enough, that great ground operation isn't faring all that well..

all that money and marketing just isn't going to work when your product does not appeal to the consumer.

[Gothmog]

7. And yet Sanders has a 7% of being the nominee according to Nate Silver

Nate may be wrong and I am comfortable with Nate and his track record

[frylock]

8. Nate Silver of 538 "Bernie has plateaued again" fame?

As I said in another post, I've played this guy's NCAA bracket. He's not infallible, and nobody is going to accurately predict jack shit this far out. Silvers will continue to issue revisions until the inevitable is staring him straight in the face. He can aggregate all the polls he likes, but he can't gauge the anger of the people.

[TheFarS1de]

9. Also there are current polls showing a different story

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR131/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20150808-20150911/collapsed/false

Nate may want to go back to the crystal ball for this one .

[Gothmog]

10. Mitt Romney believed this on 2012 and was surprised when Nate called the election

Are you hoping that the polls are skewed?

[frylock]

11. And remember how enthusiastic people were about Romney?

I'm saying that the polls can't gauge the overwhelming enthusiasm for Sanders, nor the dearth of enthusiasm for Clinton. Look at the polls released this morning. How do they comport with Silvers predictions? Silvers is going to have to re-re-revise. See on the next plateau.

[Gothmog]

12. You are welcome to believe in magic and other things that can not be measured

I keep asking how Sanders is viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the GOP candidate will be spending another billion dollars and the answers that I keep getting are not satisfactory. You are welcome to ignore political reality and the traditional concepts of politics and campaign but do not expect others to accept your claims without proof.

Sanders is not going to appeal to voters in key demographic blocks without some real evidence of viability. For example, as was noted on another thread, African American voters are concerned about electability http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html

. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability

[frylock]

14. How will Sanders be viable against Hillary's warchest?

[Uncle Joe]

3. Here is today's version of a "Texas Two Step."

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-15/2015-dallas-cowboys-football-schedule.php

Saturday
Dec. 19 Jets New York Jets
AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX 8:25pm ET
NFLN Buy
Tickets

Saturday, December 19, 2015
ABC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Sponsors: ABC News, WMUR
Candidates: TBD

Read more at http://www.2016presidentialdebateschedule.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/#7yZMKmXpxkqFw8Dz.99

Step one remove or diminish the possibility of Democratic free debate from playing a large part in influencing voters in Texas, putting more emphasis on slanted big money commercials to carry the day.

Step Two assist Donald Trump in New York by removing or diminishing the attention of Trump's misdirected minions from viewing the same debate.

Two birds with one stone, it helps Hillary and it helps Trump.

Thanks for the thread, Gothmog.

[restorefreedom]

13. uh huh

and this analysis is by "insiders", the very people that have the most to lose and the people that the Americans are clearly throwing out on their butts.