This is the kind of nonsense I'm dealing with on Facebook. And this comes from a person who's been ranting against Obama for so long and kept telling everyone how much better it would be if Hillary was president.

So what's a good name for the tea party of the left.

Bernbros?
Kos Kiddies?

Not sure I understand any of the logic here. If/when Sanders loses an eminently winnable election, surely the reaction will be for the Dems to move back to the center for the next 12-20 years? What does he think the reaction is going to be - oh well, we threw that one down the toilet but if we double down to the left, I'm sure it will be better next time?

THAT'S CAPITULATING1!!!

See also: Republican Party, 2008-present.

Quinnipiac, monthly polls, 2015-present:

3/2015: Clinton +42 over Sanders
4/2015: Clinton +58
5/2015: Clinton +42
7/2015: Clinton +38
8/2015: Clinton +23
9/2015: Clinton +18
11/2015: Clinton +18
11/2015: Clinton +30
12/2015: Clinton +31
2/2016: Clinton +2

New Hampshire, RCP Average:

Sanders +18 (six different polls taken this week)

However, no very recent polling of any state other than New Hampshire. The last South Carolina poll, two weeks ago, showed Clinton +37. Florida was +36 three weeks ago. There's been about a 5-10 point move in New Hampshire the last three weeks.

What does this mean? For now, yesterday's Quinnipiac poll is an enormous outlier. Especially since Clinton was +21 post-Iowa in a PPP poll. In general, PPP has been one of the most pro-Clinton polls during this cycle, however, while Quinnipiac has been about average. Sanders definitely has momentum right now, but surviving the SEC will be very difficult.

"eminently winnable"?

Well, if you consider that Hillary somehow managed to lose previously to the current idiot in office, yeah okay. She's already proven that she can basically lose to anyone.

But if she manages to lose this she'd have to go down in history, hands down, as the single biggest electoral failure ever.

Once? Shit happens.
Twice? That's epic fail on an unprecedented scale.

Nah.

Grandfather drank coffee with Harry every morning in Indepence at the local cafe once he was out of the Navy and Harry was out of office. They also had a weekly card game.

Not the context I was talking about. This is assuming that Sanders is the nominee and loses in this idiots FB scenario

I'm just as skeptical as you that he has a shot of winning the nomination

Occupy Party?

There isn't an equivalent to the tea party on the left. There are certainly people on the far left, but that kind of organized power isn't there.

I think the idea is that a lot of Sanders-ites wants to create a Tea Party of the Left... one that decides who is really a "Progressive" and whatnot.

I could see that happening, but at the moment the far left has almost no political power while the far right has the power to control legislation and remove a House speaker. When was the last time the far left won anything other than a conversation?

But... But... "political revolution!!" ;)

People are going to point to Daily Kos but a) their power peaked in 2006 and b) they're basically center-left.

Again, there are people on the far left, but as an organized presence with power the far left is nothing like the far right. Maybe that changes with the Sanders campaign, but currently the far left is all about websites and protest signs and little else.

It's hard to have a lot of power in your "radical end" after holding the white house for 8 years. The tea party didn't really prop up until 2009/2010 after Obama had taken over. Back in 2006, I don't remember a big radical right group with the power that exists right now. If Cruz or Trump win, by 2018 you will see a leftist group beginning to bubble in power.

The argument against that is 2000-2008 when the far left was just as impotent.

My bad. (At least it was obvious what I thought you meant)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, the Tea Party sprung up as a result of the Fed's decision to print money and bail out the banks. Those wheels were set in motion prior to 2009 and by QE was set in motion by a non-political *cough, cough* entity. The direction that it's taken since then, but it was not directly a result of policies of the Obama administration.

Nah, that's revisionism. The Tea Party popped up in the aftermath of the bailouts. The Tea Party as CONSERVATIVES UBER ALLES happened about ten minutes after Obama put his hand on the Bible, and that was pretty heavily Astroturfed by Fox News. It kinda grew into its current shape from there, but Fox (and others) hijacked it for political purposes when its original incarnation was pretty different from what it is now.

This is great.

New Hampshire seems to be tightening. Here are the last few polls (from RCP):

UMass/7News (Tracking), 2/5 - 2/7, 407 LV - Sanders +16
ARG (Tracking), 2/6 - 2/7, 408 - Sanders +12
Monmouth, 2/4 - 2/6, 502 LV - Sanders +10
CNN/WMUR, 2/3 - 2/6, 406 LV - Sanders +23
Boston Herald/FPU, 2/2 - 2/6, 407 LV - Sanders +7
Boston Globe/Suffolk, 2/2 - 2/4, 500 LV - Sanders +9

So it doesn't necessarily appear that it'll be a 25, 30 point win, but it'll be interesting to see how close it will end.

A single digit win for Sanders will be reported as a victory for Hillary.

All the boasting from the Sanders surrogates and die hards about how well he was doing in the polls might seriously backfire. Right now, if he wins by double digits, that's what was expected and the bounce will likely be minimal. If he wins by only single digits, then the bounce might actually go to Hillary.

The problem for Sanders is he badly needs a bounce, because:

Michigan: Clinton 62, Sanders 30 (Target Insyght)
Arkansas: Clinton 57, Sanders 25 (Hendrix College)
Georgia: Clinton 63, Sanders 22 (Landmark)

These results make me highly doubt that Quinnipiac 44-42 result. And I'm still failing to see where Sanders can get his delegates from.

I'm generally with the conventional wisdom that when the race moves to states where the demographics favor Clinton, she will easily pull away. Iowa and New Hampshire are perfectly crafted for Sanders. But Clinton should bury him in South Carolina. Nevada might be much closer, but come the SEC primary, Clinton should start to roll.

Unless ... Sanders has a sheen of legitimacy. I think he's benefiting to a degree from the GOP race taking up a lot of media oxygen. I don't think he's electable in November, unless the GOP nominates Trump or Cruz and then anything can happen. Winning will make him look credible, but he needs more than NH. The Sanders campaign is over if he doesn't win Nevada.

I've thought for a few weeks the biggest concern for Clinton is the women vote, and that was before the last few days with commentary from Bill, Albright and Steinem. Iowa entrance polls had her +11 among women. She generally trends about +10 among women in most polls. She performs well in state polls where there are more minority voters because she has huge margins there. She should be +20 among women, but she isn't.

That's the concern for November. Democrat can't win without women, and more so for Clinton because she will lose men more than usually. Maybe this is just liberal Dems backing the super lefty candidate and coming back to Hillary in November. But she needs to be able to prove she can win moderate women big time.

Not sure how much credence to put in these rumblings that Biden may jump in the race. Seems impossible to raise the money he would need this late not to mention the ballot access to actually be a viable primary candidate. Probably the best thing he could hope for is to make it a three-way race and try to win a contested convention but that's crazy. And his entering the race would actually probably clear the field for Clinton. He's much more likely to pull supporters from Sanders than Clinton.

My prediction for New Hampshire: Sanders 58-41. Polls may indicate it's getting closer, but Sanders is liked in New Hampshire. This is a case where it matters.

My prediction for New Hampshire: PAIN!



But seriously Sanders by 15

I've tried a few times but I simply cannot figure out how the whole primary/caucus thing works. I'm not sure if it's possible to create a more convoluted system.

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/nh/

Why does Clinton already have 6 delegates?

Superdelegates, I believe.

I guess I never realized that superdelegates pledged their support even before a primary was held. Seems kinda fucked up.

Why? The primary has nothing to do with their votes.

Sure they can vote for whomever they like, but I thought they'd at least want to see what the general voting population is supporting, even if they end up ignoring it.

This was a huge deal in 2008, if you recall. Hillary had amassed a large number of superdelegates, and as the early Obama tide started to build among the electorate, a number switched to Obama. John Lewis was probably one of the most notable switches.

Switches will probably be much harder to come for Sanders this time around, since he's barely in the party. Obama was always a Dem and had fairly early support from real established Dems like Ted Kennedy.

There would be a riot in the party if the superdelegates handed the primary over to Hilary. This would be a best case scenario for Republicans.

Maybe we should elect somebody that gives everybody free organized power.

Makes more sense to bring this to the Democratic discussion from the GOP discussion ... this is why Bloomberg would jump into a Trump/Clinton or Cruz/Clinton race:

FBI confirms Clinton email investigation - Yahoo News

Investigations, of course, don't equal indictment.

For convention purposes, superdelegates are part of their state delegations and as such are counted with their home states. However, I think the practice of the media reporting and counting them with primary/caucus delegates is a fairly recent phenomenon. It gives the appearance of the helping the establishment favorite appear stronger than they are.

New Hampshire has eight superdelegates, and six have endoresed Clinton. The endorsements are non-binding and can be flipped at the convention or any other time.

There was a fairly similar poll in Iowa that went pretty much the same way. I think it was something like 25% of Dems saying "honesty and integrity" most important, and they broke maybe 85-15 Sanders. Checking now..:

Iowa Caucus 2016: Election Results - NBC News

It's a bit down the page, but it was 24% saying honesty and integrity was most inportsnt, and they went 83 Sanders, 10 Clinton.

One interesting thing I heard rattled off in a string of demographic losses for Hilary tonight. The ONE constituency where she broke even (according to WSB radio talking heads) was ... Democrats. (Presumably they meant registered dems or equivalent vs whatever other options there are for voting in the primary in NH)

If that's actually accurate, what an enormous flaw in the primary system.
(Georgia has the same issue, it's an open primary state as well)

I would rather the president have a freaking clue, so Sanders would be dead last in that poll.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with you. I want someone who has an idea of what it takes to swim with the sharks. I see Clinton as being much more valuable to that end than Sanders. Clinton is going to lock up the nomination. Between the two of them she is simply the better choice for the Democratic party. The Presidency of the next 4 years will be critical, I don't think they want to waste that opportunity on Sanders.