She hasn’t lost New Hampshire yet. That prediction may or may not be accurate. You also predicted that after she lost New Hampshire a “bigger name” would jump into the race. That prediction is almost certainly incorrect.
A batch of PPP Iowa polls also came out confirming that Iowa is a swing state in this election. Clinton is statistically tied with all her opponents. The most interesting thing is that Ben Carson fares the best against her.
And may I ask why pollsters are actually including Deez Nuts in their polls? No one is actually going to vote for Deez Nuts when the election comes around, so it’s skewing the polls.
I’m hoping a big name jumps in seeing that she’s trailing a non-Democrat.
Secondly, is Clinton a comeback candidate? I think not. She’s a frontrunner and has never succeeded as anything but a frontrunner. Once she’s the underdog, she’s toast, just like last time. Is there anyone currently for Sanders who would switch back to Clinton? Sanders supporters here on the Dope, is there anything you could imagine that would make you switch your support to Clinton aside from Sanders dropping out?
In the Democratic primary she is not the underdog and there is no indication that she will ever be the underdog. Talking about what will happen, “once she’s the underdog,” is about as useful as discussing what will happen, “once she punches the Pope in the face,” or, “once she cures cancer”.
She’s about to be the underdog in NH.
And talks of Clinton being the underdog aren’t exactly out of place, seeing as how she went from presumptive nominee to underdog the last time we did this.
So now you claim she’s tied when before, the same margin had her falling behind one the last bunch of polls you posted.
And she’s “ahead” on 7 out of 11.
Again, why are you judging a marathon on the first mile?
No one is a comeback candidate until they actually come back. Hillary had one opportunity, against a historically talented candidate with an extremely well-run campaign, and she came close but didn’t pull it off. That doesn’t mean she can’t come back.
To come back, you have to have attributes that allow you to come back. If Sanders gets ahead of her, what is the rationale for supporting her over Sanders? Is she better than Sanders on the issues? More capable than Sanders? More honest? More likeable? Once voters want Sanders, how would she lure them back?
Against Republicans there’s more of a plan. She can find an issue where Republicans are weak and hammer them on it. Go negative. Can she do that with Bernie, a man who has never run a negative campaign in his life and has pledged not to this time?
If monkeys fly out of her butt…
If Chuck Norris cries…
If the moon was made of green cheese…
He’s done it in NH. And while crowds don’t equal votes, I’ve never heard of a candidate drawing crowds that large that didn’t at least threaten to win before flaming out. And of course sometimes they actually do win(Obama).
More likely to beat the Republican, perhaps. A very big concern for most Democrats. And she’s not behind, anyway – not even close.
No he hasn’t. Polling is not an election.
Electability? Okay. What if Sanders is doing just as well against Republicans in polling?
No, but are we bringing out a skewed polls argument? Are we actually suggesting that Clinton is not falling behind Sanders? Even if you discount the latest poll, the NH polling has consistently shown Clinton losing ground to Sanders.
That’s a joke, right?
Then that would be harder. I’m not saying Hillary would come back were she behind, just that she might.
“Losing ground” is not “falling behind”. She could “lose ground” from now until the Democratic convention and still win the primary handily. She’s really far ahead, even in NH (by poll aggregates). So no, she’s not “falling behind” Bernie, and any ground-loss has slowed (check Nate Silver’s site for the evidence of this).
I like Bernie a lot. I may even vote for him. But Hillary is not in any significant amount of political trouble right now. We’ll know that she’s in trouble if Democrats start to see her unfavorably, and there’s no evidence of that right now.
Of course she might. Being a human being, she can always exceed her past performance or change things about herself. Giving over her private email server is something I never would have expected her to do, so maybe she’s learning. But part of prognostication, or even just talking about upcoming elections, is discussing what is likely and what is unlikely. If we talked about a football game, I’d say, “I don’t think the Bears can stop the Dolphins’ running game.” and you’d say, “Yes, but the Bears passing game exposes even bigger weaknesses in the Dolphins’ secondary.” If you just say, “The Bears might stop the run.” then well, sure, it can happen, but it’s only somewhat likely.
If another poll shows her behind Bernie, she’s fallen behind Bernie. Aggregates are better than single polls, but no less arbitrary, since the aggregate contains older data.
Last four NH polls, Sanders- 32,36,39,44. He has gained 3-5 points every week in the last four weeks. So if the trend continues, he’ll be up to 47-49 next week.
By that logic, Trump isn’t in trouble.
It’s not very likely that Bernie will take the lead. If he does, then who knows what will happen.
Such analysis, which predicts that Sanders will be at approximately 150-200% in a year, makes the baby Nate Silver cry.
The logic includes her fundraising, her huge favorable, her electability (based on polling), and the like. None of that applies to Trump.
I say he’s already in the lead. That poll is no outlier. Write that prediction down, it’s a short-term one. Be proven right or wrong in only a week or so.
I didn’t predict that it will go on forever. Only noting that he hasn’t peaked yet. If he’s peaked, we’ll see a couple more polls showing him also at 44% or a little lower.
Her favorables are solid in a Democratic primary. Pretty dismal for election. Romney and McCain had better favorables among the general electorate. her favorables have to rise from where they are now for her to win. And while national polls don’t look bad, swing state polls look pretty awful. Quinnipiac wasn’t actually an outlier it seems. PPP is finding the same numbers in Iowa. And Iowa went for Obama twice. Which means Republicans are expanding the field.
I was speaking about the race in general, not NH in particular. I think it’s very possible Bernie will win NH, but that doesn’t mean that Clinton will be “behind” in any way, necessarily.
You say “he hasn’t peaked yet” then you talk about how we’d know if he did peak. I would suggest 1st sentence-adaher takes this up with 2nd-sentence adaher.
Her favorable don’t have to be better to win – they just have to be better than the Republican (I guess you haven’t been keeping up with Nate Silver’s website for the last few weeks, have you?). I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Republicans “expand” their field, considering how bad their field was in '12 and '08.
Again, your predictions have always been wishful thinking. Sometimes your wishes are granted, and sometimes not, but I see no reason to go along with your wishful thinking for this cycle.
And the REpublican nominee doesn’t have a very high bar to get over to be more popular than Clinton. Fiorina’s off to a good start, at 30-11 favorability, although I suspect she’ll fall by the wayside.
Any of the likely Republicans can beat her on favorables pretty easily though. She’s in danger of falling below the major Republicans already. She currently stands at -6. That puts Walker, Rubio, Fiorina, and Carson above her.
The other problem is that you have to assume that the 2016 nominee will be a worse candidate than either McCain or Romney. How likely is that? Not saying they were horrible, but again, not a high bar to clear.
Is anyone else thinking of Karl Rove insisting Romney can still win Ohio?