IA/NH/SC-CBS/YouGov: Sanders leads NH, but Clinton leads IA and SC

[/]

Sanders may win in Iowa or NH but he is too far down in SC and NV is set too and Clinton lesds there.

No one honestly has any idea cares what's going on in NV.

[henster]

Hillary really does seem weak among white voters with Dems and in the general electorate. Really starting to think she may end up doing worse than Obama with whites.

[Skye]

This is a bit weird. Sanders getting better? SC looks alright, tho.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Sanders may win in Iowa or NH but he is too far down in SC and NV is set too and Clinton lesds there.

No one honestly has any idea cares what's going on in NV.

Last NV poll was by CNN and its a caucus state that Bernie must do well in, she leads 50/34

[Mr. Morden]

Sanders may win in Iowa or NH but he is too far down in SC and NV is set too and Clinton lesds there.

No one honestly has any idea cares what's going on in NV.

It's the third contest for the Dems.  Not sure why no one cares about it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I know that, but its a Latino state just like FL, and her lead in NV is almost identical to her lead in FL, the real contest

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sanders may win in Iowa or NH but he is too far down in SC and NV is set too and Clinton lesds there.

No one honestly has any idea cares what's going on in NV.

It's the third contest for the Dems.  Not sure why no one cares about it.

Also because NV and SC are hell of lot more indicative of what's going in the Democratic base. Hillary's small PV win (but obvs not delegate) win in NV in 08 showed she had a decent hold on the Latino vote, but the collapse in SC correlated with a collapse with her support with AA voters.

Also - we noted that the last batch of YouGov polls were very, very positive for Bernie, looks as if that trend continues. While it obvious there are big gender and age gaps, I don't quite buy the scale of the age gap, frankly.

But again, we'll see how the trend carries on, since these results (except SC) are breaking away from the recent trends in IA and NH.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hilary is under an FBI investigation, and stil leads in MI, FL, NV & SC, that bodes well for her.

[NeverAgain]

Hilary is under an FBI investigation, and stil leads in MI, FL, NV & SC, that bodes well for her.

? She also just gave a terrific slam to the Benghazi committee, and won the Dem debates. Dems care little of her FBI investigation.

[eric82oslo]

Also - we noted that the last batch of YouGov polls were very, very positive for Bernie, looks as if that trend continues. While it obvious there are big gender and age gaps, I don't quite buy the scale of the age gap, frankly.  

It seems to me that among older voters, a combination of experience, being electable, coming across as presidential, continuing the Clinton & Obama legacies and electing the first female president together trump almost anything. While among young voters, it seems like one issue and one issue only, trumps almost anything, namely finally reversing the catastrophic trend of increasing income inequality we've seen during the past 50-60 years, which in itself is destroying capitalism at its very core and ripping up its roots with the consequences of destroying the very fabric and cohesion of society. I think both age groups make a lot of sense and that they should start listening to one another, as I'm sure they will as time goes by. While Hillary is focusing on a whole range of issues, perhaps a couple of dozen different issues, Sanders is focusing 90% of his energy on combating income inequality. He has a clear message, just like Obama did in 2008 with Hope and Change. Hillary doesn't have the same clear message, yet she has a whole lot of other things going for her. Sanders' support will just continue to rise, especially outside of the early states, yet he needs to more than double his current support in order to become the frontrunner, something which still is very unlikely to happen.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Dems care little of her FBI investigation.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Also - we noted that the last batch of YouGov polls were very, very positive for Bernie, looks as if that trend continues. While it obvious there are big gender and age gaps, I don't quite buy the scale of the age gap, frankly.  

It seems to me that among older voters, a combination of experience, being electable, coming across as presidential, continuing the Clinton & Obama legacies and electing the first female president together trump almost anything. While among young voters, it seems like one issue and one issue only, trumps almost anything, namely finally reversing the catastrophic trend of increasing income inequality we've seen during the past 50-60 years, which in itself is destroying capitalism at its very core and ripping up its roots with the consequences of destroying the very fabric and cohesion of society. I think both age groups make a lot of sense and that they should start listening to one another, as I'm sure they will as time goes by. While Hillary is focusing on a whole range of issues, perhaps a couple of dozen different issues, Sanders is focusing 90% of his energy on combating income inequality. He has a clear message, just like Obama did in 2008 with Hope and Change. Hillary doesn't have the same clear message, yet she has a whole lot of other things going for her. Sanders' support will just continue to rise, especially outside of the early states, yet he needs to more than double his current support in order to become the frontrunner, something which still is very unlikely to happen.

I actually completely disagree with this premise.

Obama 2008 was driven by a positive message, hope and change, as you say. Sanders' campaign seems based in a (completely legitimate) frustration and anger. Also, Obama's campaign 'themes' were hope and change, but he didn't present himself as a single-issue candidate.

There's a reason why I see Sanders as Dean 2.0, not Obama 2.0. Dean's issue was that he hit a hard ceiling and he ran out of puff (the 'scream' was after he fumbled IA... so that wasn't the reason). Sanders is trying to lead a movement, but a movement toward what? How? In 2008, I was deeply concerned about the wishy-washy policy grounding of the Obama campaign, but at the same time, it's much easier to get people motivated and excited about YOU and invest in you, when the message is broad and positive.

I respect Sanders, he's done a great service to this campaign, but he is NOT Barack Obama.

[eric82oslo]

Also - we noted that the last batch of YouGov polls were very, very positive for Bernie, looks as if that trend continues. While it obvious there are big gender and age gaps, I don't quite buy the scale of the age gap, frankly.  

It seems to me that among older voters, a combination of experience, being electable, coming across as presidential, continuing the Clinton & Obama legacies and electing the first female president together trump almost anything. While among young voters, it seems like one issue and one issue only, trumps almost anything, namely finally reversing the catastrophic trend of increasing income inequality we've seen during the past 50-60 years, which in itself is destroying capitalism at its very core and ripping up its roots with the consequences of destroying the very fabric and cohesion of society. I think both age groups make a lot of sense and that they should start listening to one another, as I'm sure they will as time goes by. While Hillary is focusing on a whole range of issues, perhaps a couple of dozen different issues, Sanders is focusing 90% of his energy on combating income inequality. He has a clear message, just like Obama did in 2008 with Hope and Change. Hillary doesn't have the same clear message, yet she has a whole lot of other things going for her. Sanders' support will just continue to rise, especially outside of the early states, yet he needs to more than double his current support in order to become the frontrunner, something which still is very unlikely to happen.

I actually completely disagree with this premise.

Obama 2008 was driven by a positive message, hope and change, as you say. Sanders' campaign seems based in a (completely legitimate) frustration and anger. Also, Obama's campaign 'themes' were hope and change, but he didn't present himself as a single-issue candidate.

I respect Sanders, he's done a great service to this campaign, but he is NOT Barack Obama.

I didn't mean to imply that Sanders is in any way Obama, and you're right that Obama campaigned on just as many different issues as Hillary did. My point was simply that they both have/had a concise message, Obama's Hope and Change and Sanders' something like No to Income Inequality, while I can't see that Hillary is trying to adopt a similarily concise message in any way, which may or may not be a good thing. It might be a good thing not to have a very limited message in the end. I guess the closest Hillary so far has come to some kind of unified message would be something like Yes to Madam President or Say No to the Republican Agenda, if both messages are working just fine for me. Cause even though reducing income inequality is crucially important (and even more important than to prevent climate change in my humble opinion), it's still not quite as deadly important than securing that the future Supreme Court will at least have some kind of sanity. Cause if not, the future USA might very well turn into a state almost in some kind of a lawless limbo, where the basic laws of gravity no longer exist, some kind of revived Wild West, and with its still enormous influence in the world, the rest of the world would be in grave danger as well. Just see how the current Supreme Court has gravely undermined the very basic structure and idea of democracy by single-handedly changing campaign finance laws and gutting the near universially accepted (even among the most conservative of Republican congressmen) Voting Rights Act, thus once again making it harder for blacks in the south (and perhaps even other minorities) to vote for the very first time since the 1960ies.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think the issue for Hillary, moreso than Obama - is very similar to discussions we have about Oscars, sometimes, getting the nomination is the real race and winning the main prize is the easier part.

Obama's challenge in 2008, to me, was to beat Clinton. The structure and organisation of that race meant it transitioned (especially considering how quickly the foes met and urged unity) quite easily into the General. Clinton's challenge in 2016, to me is much more about the general. You have to ensure you win the primary, naturally, but you kind of end up treading water until the 'real' campaign starts.