Less than a month away from Iowa. Hillary stands at 88% to take the state

[Godhumor]

A +8% move in the last ten days.

So what does it mean? Predictive investors based on current political environment analysis are very bullish on Clinton taking the first caucus. I expect this number to wobble some in the next few weeks, but it is clear that my initial prediction of not splitting the first two states may be off (Bernie stands at 56% in NH as of this morning).

So ready for the real voting to start.

Iowa Caucus:
HRC - 88%
BS - 12%
MOM - 0%

NH Primary:
BS - 56%
HRC - 43%
MOM - 1%

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-primaries/

[Armstead]

1. In 2008 they had Clinton at about 60 percent and Obama at about 40 percent after NH

Just sayin' anything can happen.

[artislife]

2. Shhh...they love their polls...no matter how antiquated they are....nt

[CoffeeCat]

6. And this is why Hillary was so shocked in 2008

when she came in third in the Iowa caucuses. Because they pay attention to this malarkey.

Just kidding. I don't think they pay attention to this malarkey. They know it's bunk.

They throw it out there in an attempt to build a narrative. Because that's what you do, when you've blown a 59.2 percent lead in Iowa and your opponent's crowds are garnering 2000+ and you're struggling to get 200 people to your events.

You attempt to create truth. Hoping and praying that it will somehow convince people that your candidate is inevitable.

Didn't convince anyone in 2008. Will convince fewer people in 2016, because it's a tired, boring tactic that was tried in 2008 and failed miserably on the world's stage.

[MoonRiver]

12. And John Edwards voters went to Obama after Edwards dropped out.

There is no Edwards this time. Oops

[pangaia]

3. My post in another thread ---

In the 2004 ALCS, the Red Sox were down 3- zip to the Yankees.

They even got blown away in the 3rd game 19-8.
In the 4th game the Red Sox were down 4-3 going into the bottom of the 9th.. The odds were 82% NYY winning the GAME.. just the game ! 18% BOS win.

The rest is history.
After coming back to take 4 straight, the Sox went on to sweep the Cardinals in 4 games in the World Series.. Their first World Series in 86 years.
This is considered the greatest comeback in sports history.

Next year will be 72 years since the last "Democratic Socialist" won the presidency. :&gt )

Heh, heh, heh !!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. That's a fair point...

But in the history of the NBA no team has come back from a 3-0 deficit to win a series...It's occurred in the MLB and the NHL but not with any appreciable frequency.

[pangaia]

7. Thanks, that supports my point.

[CoffeeCat]

8. Yes, but in the history of the Iowa caucuses

No political candidate who struggled to get a few hundred people at their events (while their opponent was drawing huge, enthusiastic crowds of 2000+) ever won the Iowa caucuses.

I've seen dozens of Democratic candidates come through Iowa. All of the frontrunners and even those in 2nd, 3rd and 4th place have garnered large crowds. Hillary's crowds remind me of Bill Richardson's crowds in 2008. And he wasn't viable in most precincts.

At this point in the campaign, she should be drawing crowds that are at least half of what Bernie doing. She should have no problem getting 700 to one of her rallies. She's not getting half of that.

Her Iowa rallies were well attended in 2008. But not in 2016.

Anyone care to take a crack at explaining that?

And true, some candidates who have had large crowds, have not done well in the Iowa caucuses. However, there's no record of a candidate with anemic crowds running against a candidate with large crowds, winning the Iowa caucuses.

[Gamecock Lefty]

4. Shhh, this is 2016, not 2008 and . . .

Bernie ain't no Obama.

[CoffeeCat]

9. No one is comparing Bernie to Obama

We're comparing the 2008 and 2016 dynamics and trajectories of the race; and also the tactics that Hillary used in 2008, which appear to be the same as 2016.

Bernie is not Obama. No one is making the case that he is.

But for sure, 2008 Hillary is 2016 Hillary. Hence, the comparisons are valid.

Clinton touting all of the national polls and state polls that she wins, was a 2008 tactic. And here we are again in 2016, with the Clinton campaign attempting to use polls as evidence of her eventual win.

2008 clearly demonstrated that those polls are meaningless. She came in third in Iowa, correct? She lost the nomination to Obama--despite winning every national and state poll a few weeks before Iowa even voted, correct?

[Punkingal]

11. But Hillary is still Hillary....

[riversedge]

10. Thanks and proud to give this its 5th REC

[MoonRiver]

13. Iowa is looking awesome! NH pretty close