Good luck finding a candidate that isn't bought and paid for by special interests.

Of course its subjective odds, but I tend to enjoy using Nate Silver against some Democrats ;)

Podcast: Totally Subjective Presidential Odds (Early August Edition) | FiveThirtyEight

Yes, that's Nate saying 85% odds for Hillary Clinton winning the nomination. Though on the bright side for all the Sanders' supporters, the last Bernie Sanders (Howard Dean) became the DNC Chair... so... there is that?

And this!

Senator Sanders, You’re No Barack Obama | FiveThirtyEight


Regarding polling:

I just don't see any possibility of anyone but Clinton getting the nomination. People are desperate for a horserace, but the polls are clear right now. Even if Sanders were to somehow win in NH, he doesn't have an infrastructure in every state.

I'm not even sure Mark Penn could fuck up this one.

I doubt he's going to win, but it would be nice if he could press her on the issues that matter.

I've also determined there's no way I'm voting for her in the general.

Joe Biden might be preparing a candidacy. Though it's hard to see why he'd be talking to Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders already captured most of the people who would favor Warren and has what would be her organization on the ground for him.

Obviously, Hillary remains the overwhelming leader in this race. The question is whether this Benghazi/email thing will last. Can the Department of Justice keep her out of serious trouble? Which rightfully sounds a bit Orwellian. Perhaps David Petraeus could be her running mate. Or at least keep her campaign calendar.

Latest Suffolk University folk came out for the Iowa Caucuses:

Clinton 54%
Sanders 20%
Biden 11%
O'Malley 4%
Webb 1%

The 34 point lead Clinton has in this poll is pretty substantial. I think that even if Sanders can pull out New Hampshire, that if Hillary can win Iowa by 30 points, it won't really matter as it'll mean South Carolina will go solidly Clinton and then Super Tuesday are a number of states that are more Clinton friendly.

Personally I think Biden is trying to fish for a Warren endorsement which might sway some of the voters that are going for Bernie.

I don't think a Warren endorsement for Biden would sway Sanders voters at this stage TBH.

Saw my first "Bernie 4 President" sign on a highway overpass tonight. It's actually the first "anybody" for President signage I've seen out here. All the Walker paraphernalia still refers to his last gubernatorial run. Haven't seen anything for any of the other GOP candidates, or a Clinton sign/bumper sticker that isn't 7 years old.

It seems Hillary is starting the final meltdown. Not sure what she was thinking by calling pro-life Republican candidates terrorists.

I guess she wants to deflect. But, then, why finally admit she screwed up on the email thing?

She somehow lost an unlose-able position to Obama eight years ago, and she seems to be on the way down again. For the Democrats, better now than later.

You are insane. Her lead over Sanders in the latest polls shows her at +26 and +23. Numbers higher than they were last week. Her endorsement and money position, as well as polls, are far, far, far higher now than they were in 2007.

Perhaps if Biden wanted to be president he could have shed that bumbling derp persona he cultivated over the past 8 years?

Still in anyone but Hilary mode. Why hasn't Gillibrand gotten out there?

This. She's been my Hillary alternate for a few years now.

Well Gillibrand isn't going to run in this election ;). She's one of Clinton's leading lieutenants in her Presidential campaign.

Heck, Gillibrand endorsed Hillary Clinton last November.

Gillibrand is personally close to HRC and won't run against her. At 48, she has time to wait and run in 2020 or 2024 with the full backing of the Clinton electoral machine. She's also got young kids, which makes the choice to wait even easier to make.

Des Moines Register poll this morning has it Clinton 37%, Sanders 30%, Biden 14%. That big lead is gone.

Bernie continues to build on his numbers in recent polls. Surely he won't stay at 5% with AA voters forever, right? I keep praying for the ultimate Hilary scandal to end this all. Too bad Gore won't run....he already won the presidency once.

Hillary will win the democrat party nomination, it is unavoidable. It beats the socialist policies of bernie. At this point Hillary would get my vote over Trump or fat bastard governor. If it were bernie versus one of them I may have to declare my property an independent country.

#FeelTheBern

Not much going on these days other than the media setting up 24/7 camps outside of Biden's home, office, grocery store, dentist and local pizza place trying to figure out if he's running.

It's too bad Joan Quigley died last year.

How are going to get all the free stuff he is promising if you aren't part of the country?

Proving perhaps that the Iowa caucuses are pretty much worthless.

Bernie is up in both Iowa and New Hampshire FWIW

The latest PPP Iowa poll: Clinton 43, Sanders 22, Biden 17

And in the latest CNN poll, Clinton's lead nation wide has grown from the lows of early September:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politi...-sanders-2016/


It appears a lot of that closeness was a result of the bad PR Clinton was getting every day on the email scandal and as that has dissipated a bit, her numbers have gone back up.

Martin O'Malley is barely registering.

But, he's still better than Walker's last poll.

Biden seems to be doing significantly better than Clinton or Sanders in the head-to-head with Republicans polls - but that might just be the "backup QB" factor.

I'm thinking he's just hanging around the the periphery of candidacy as Hillary scandal insurance for the establishment.

Yeah. No one's attacking Biden right now. Pumps up his numbers. And I agree 100% that he's there to make sure that it isn't Bernie in case Clinton has to drop out.

It does seem that most Biden supporters would vote Clinton over Sanders (when you take Biden out of the question, Clinton is the one that benefits). But he has the tendency to not campaign well in national elections (see his last two runs for President).

I think most of you know my views on politics in the US. I won't dive into them again here, but I wanted to preface this post with that gentle reminder.

A little more background: I'm a "tech start-up" guy, and as you would imagine, my professional and personal network is made-up almost entirely of young, intelligent, influential, successful people. Over the past month, I have been overwhelmed by friends and acquaintances (from both political parties) urging me to check out this "Bernie Sanders" guy that's running for president. And I'm not talking a half dozen people, here - I'm talking triple digits. I didn't give it much thought, though, because...well...I'm famously stubborn. Just ask my CEO.

Last weekend I happened upon an interview with Bernie Sanders, and I was completely floored. I've been reading up on the field, watching debates, getting some perspective on Bernie, and asking around the "front lines" at my current company (almost entirely made-up of people 20-28 years old). Bernie Sanders is absolutely capturing the hearts and minds of the younger, thinking generation of this country. I sincerely hope he gets the Dem nomination this year, because if he does, there's nobody in the Republican party that stands a chance. I understand that pessimists continue to write him off, and not because he's incapable of doing the job (and doing it quite well), but because he doesn't have corporate money backing him.

You may not like me as a person, but you can't argue with numbers, and there's a trend here that's undeniable. Anyone with a working logical mind can see where the (attached) chart is headed. For the first time in my life, I'm considering voting for someone, because I genuinely believe that if he were running the show, I would feel something that I have never felt in my life...

...The hope that before I die, I will feel a sense of pride in my country. The feeling that I won't be looking longingly at progressive countries in the EU, wondering why we can't join them in the 21st century. And I'm not alone. If people aged 18-25 decide to participate in this upcoming presidential election, watch out.

(attached chart below)

People were also discussing the trend of Trump... so you know, in a few months, he'll be at 100 ;).

And interestingly enough, as the CNN poll linked above indicates, just about all of Biden's support would go to Clinton if Biden wasn't in the race... and it looks like he probably won't be (or will be around as a "just in case" option).

Look at the trend line again. See where Hillary Clinton really drops? Thats in July... you know who else really started to rise in July? Biden. I mean, yes, Sanders' support went from 10% to 25%.. but I don't see it going much higher, as the people who were going away from Hillary due to the email scandal decided to pick Biden.

I disagree with your opinion, but cool! ;)

But Biden's been running ahead of Sanders, mostly, since well before July. The rest of the candidates have been persona non grata. So where is Sanders' upswing coming from if your assertion is that the Hillary drop corresponds with the Biden rise, and not with the Sanders rise?

I mean, eyeballing that chart, Biden's gone from a fairly consistent 18% or so to 21% or so, while Sanders has risen from around 5% to 30%'ish. I just don't think, even with Biden's increase (likely within the margin of error) we can reasonably ascribe Hillary's drop to Biden's rise and not to Sanders'.

I'm guess Obama wasn't good enough for ya?

Among Sanders supporters, is there a hope that Sanders can get his more liberal policies through Congress in a way Obama couldn't? Or is his appeal about the more symbolic value of having a self-described "democratic socialist" in the white house? It's tough for me to understand because I think the best way to enact more liberal policies is through someone who would have a better relationship with the right, a deal-maker (i.e., a Clinton).

If I had to pick between the two weirdo outsiders I think Trump has a better chance than Sanders of actually becoming president. But I though Trump had zero chance just a few months ago, so who knows.

I never really saw Obama as being jarringly different than what we've had for the 3 decades of presidents before him (can't comment on anything prior to my lifetime). So no...not really. He doesn't boil my potatoes, if that's what you're asking.

But do those 20-year old liberal chicks? I bet they do. :)

Yeah, I've been on record as saying that you want your liberal (or conservative) firebrands influencing legislation in Congress, and that you want your Presidential candidate to be a) electable and b) sympathetic to your goals even if he isn't overtly a flag-waving standard bearer for your ideology.

Democrats shouldn't want a President Warren or a President Sanders. That takes them out of the Senate where they can influence the legislation that whoever gets elected can sign.

Republicans shouldn't want a President Cruz. Same rationale.

Now, I mean...I can see an argument for "if we get the guy who's a self-described democratic socialist elected and the world doesn't end, maybe we'll finally get traction on getting democratic socialists elected to Congress in any numbers."

I don't think it'd work out all that well, but I can see the argument for putting the cart before the horse that way.

Outside of that, I think it's mainly wishcasting that Sanders would be their liberal dream with the muscle of an LBJ to force compliance from Congress.

Nobody is going to get anything meaningful through congress, so I don't think the difference between Sanders and Clinton matters. Thhrough 2020 at least the GOP is going to have a lock on at least one house of congress and their districts provide no incentive to compromise. The one advantage I can see with Sanders is pushing the window of acceptability to the left.

That being said, I don't think Sanders can win and I'm more in favor of Hillary.

Well, when I talk about about the President signing anything, I'm talking in general terms. In general, you don't want your Presidential candidate to be a lightning rod. You want a candidate acceptable enough to win and pliable enough to sign the legislation your ideologues in Congress send to him or her.

It's going to take a massive GOTV, either in 2016 or 2020, to get the House back, but getting the House back is secondary to getting control of the statehouses back. If you can get the statehouses back in 2020, then you can redistrict something that doesn't have you winning 60% of your state's ballots cast and getting 40% of the state delegation to Congress (he said as he eyed his own state).

I think Obama's biggest failure was a lack of a plan for 2010. That cost him six years of GOP veto and will guarantee a first-term GOP veto if a Dem wins in 2016.

And that's where the GOP has been playing varsity while the Dems have been playing JV. The GOP got that the presidency is a big important job and they tried to win it. But their real successful efforts have been at the state and local level. They have realized that the majority of policy happens at that level. And that control of the states gives you control of the federal districting. And they've worked to get those state houses, while the Dems have under-committed resources to those races.

And, when the GOP does get control of the statehouses, they have plug-n-play ALEC bills that they push through on party-line votes. They don't waste time figuring out what to do when they are in charge. They immediately push through their policies. I don't agree with those polices, but I give them an A+ for execution.

The high-profile nature of the presidency, where the Dems have done pretty decently, masks the single biggest development in American politics in the last 15-20 years: how much better than the Dems the GOP is at politics.

+1 to that

If you add up 60 and 20 you get 80. That means 20 are undecided.

I mean just look at that graph. Look at Hillary's drop from July and Biden's rise from July. They literally look like mirror images of each other. Sanders' rise started before July and doesn't seem to exactly match Hillary's fall. I think it's quite apparent.

And when you look at things like CNN's poll that says when you take out Biden from the equation, Hillary has 30-40 lead on Sanders... well, there you go. I'll quote the CNN poll:

It's pretty funny when a debate features the frontrunner, a guy who can't win, 3 fractional percentage support candidates and doesn't include the 3rd place guy who can't even be bothered to decide. Should be interesting tonight.

So are you predicting/expecting Biden to enter the race then? Because he's the only potential candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of beating her.

People still underestimating Bernie.

+1

The differences between he and Hillary will really start to show tonight. This debate gives Bernie the platform to reach those who aren't familiar with him.

I'm excited.

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!