A couple new polls show some big developments in the NH race. Of course, these are only two polls (one of which is from a not great outfit) so everything can be taken with giant heaps of salt. These polls are newsworthy for some other reasons beyond the numbers, though.
One poll from American Research Group shows Kasich (yes, that’s right) in second place in NH with 20%, compared to Trump’s 27%. Kasich hasn’t received basically any news, so this poll may be wrong – BUT it is news itself and may help his standing by getting some coverage when everyone else is just talking about Trump (and Cruz, at least in Iowa).
The other poll, from UNH, shows Sanders with a 27-point lead in NH. Again, that may be a complete outlier, but UNH isn’t terrible and it shows significant changes from their earlier poll showing a 10-point gap. That the race is close in the first two states or that Sanders is strong in NH is not so much news. The news, I think, is how the Clinton campaign responded:
For their part, Clinton’s campaign released a statement after the poll titled, “Hillary for America Statement on Republicans Aiding Sanders Candidacy.”
“While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate they’re actually afraid to face,” said Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri. “The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary.”
Admittedly, this isn’t that negative, but it seems wholly unnecessary. It also fits with how the Clinton campaign seems to be moving, with a negative focus on Sanders and fear-mongering about a Republican win.
You can really see this in Clinton’s press secretary’s (who I graduated high school with) twitter feed, which is almost entirely negative Sanders material.
There are a couple ways to draw distinctions in politics. One is more along the lines of “We disagree with Sanders and here’s why he’s wrong and we’re right” and the other is “Sanders is an idiot on this issue.” When you go with the latter, what you are also saying is that people who support Sanders are idiots. The Clinton campaign seems to be going with that route. (I admit, I could be overly sensitive on this as a Sanders supporter, but if that’s how I am reading it, I’m probably not alone.)
The problem is that it doesn’t seem to working because Sanders momentum has not slowed (nor have his negatives risen) and much more dangerously, it could be sowing the seeds of a backlash. Her campaign could be on their way to completely alienating the support Sanders’ campaign has built.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most experienced people to ever run for the office and she has loads of skills and experience that her primary opponents, and certainly her potential Republican opponents, do not have. She doesn’t need this and should be doing better.
But, it’s the big leagues and this is hardball, so there’s that. But does the campaign have the stuff to get it done for November?
They’ve blown an absolutely enormous lead to a little known socialist senator and now when it’s close they are resorting to negative (and often disingenuous) campaigning, which both is not working and may have medium/long-term consequences. I’m worried.
I think Sanders will win in NH, the question is if he wins in Iowa as well and how big in NH. Paul Tsongas won in NH handedly over Bill Clinton, but he became the comeback kid by getting a strong second place showing. So if polls show Iowa and NH going Bernie’s way prior to the races there, and he doesn’t meet expectations, it helps Hillary.
She has a huge firewall in SC and the bigger Super Tuesday states. Bernie would have to run the table in the first two contests and win a state with a significant non-white population.
The Kasich surge seems a bit odder, I think the Times has the best analysis of it’s implications whether they are true or not.
Were Trump and Cruz to get 1st and 2nd in Iowa, and a guy like Kasich to get 2nd in NH, that would seem to me to be great news for Trump. Jeb! and Rubio wouldn’t have credibility as establishment alternatives, but since Kasich is such an outlier, they would have little reason to stay in the race. I would think Christie’s candidacy couldn’t survive anything less than a top three showing in NH. But both Rubio and Jeb! have the kind of money and backing to stay in it, and divide the establishment lane, after bad showings in NH.
little reason to leave the race
A second in NH for HRC will not play the same way that it did for WJC in 1992. She’s been the inevitable nominee for 8 (12?) years. She should be running away with this. WJC’s campaign was floundering at that point in ’92, and many had written him off. That’s why he was able to claim “victory” and the mantle of “comeback kid” when he came in second. She’s been FLOTUS, US senator, and Sec. of State; not just a small-state, southern governor. Also, there were no expectations for WJC to do well in IA (and he didn’t); she should win IA. If HRC goes 0-2 in Iowa and NH, it’s not pretty, and it will not play well. Also, the field in ’92 dwarfs this field in stature, and candidates. ’92: Kerrey, Harkin, Brown, Tsongas, Clinton. This field is depressingly weak, and shallow. With SC and the southern primaries, she maybe able to pull it out even with two seconds, but it will really hurt her.
If Trump finishes second in IA (to Cruz) and second in NH (to anyone (but it won’t be Cruz)), where is he? Probably still the front runner? Amazing…
I want her to come in first and be the nominee, but I wouldn’t mind if Sanders consistently showed strong seconds, especially in states not known as progressive bastions, in order to demonstrate that there is more appetite for his message than conventional wisdom might give him credit for.
Another one mentioned that Bernie’s long game is focused on winning red state primaries, the assumption being that an Oklahoma Democrat is making a statement with their registration and is probably more liberal matched with the fact that he actually is getting a lot of calls/volunteers in places like Indiana, Kentucky, and even West Virginia. I really think returning to FDR’s roots would be a successful presidential campaign strategy.
Obama picked up a lot of delegates in red-state caucuses that Hillary misunderstood, and often simply didn’t organize. Perhaps Sanders sees some daylight there.
The updated predictions have Sanders at 63% chance of winning to 37% in the “polls-plus” model and 85% to 15% in the “polls only” model.
will actually be a benefit Clinton in the expectations game, which is really the only game that matters re. Iowa and NH. Of course, if it’s actually accurate then it much worse news. Though even a crushing defeat in NH creates the opportunity for a spectacular comeback narrative. Any chance at the nomination for her will then be riding on a win in SC.
Things will get incredibly dirty if that’s the case.
It’s one poll. If another comes out in the next ten days that puts him 8 points ahead, it fades into the noise. I can’t find the crosstabs on this poll….NH voters are infamous for offering soft support until a couple days beforehand, and are prone to being highly influenced by last-second events. How firm is this supposed support, anyway?
…is the spread in Sanders’ favor in the latest Iowa poll I’ve seen reference to. What did I miss that has caused this sudden surge in Sanders support?
I think this piece from Ezra Klein is a perfect representation of the race.
Similarly, in that UNH poll with the 27-point Sanders’ gap, his favorability is +84% among Dems (91%, 7%) compared to Hillary’s +39% (65%, 26%).
Despite major concerns about some of his experience and the problem of enacting many of his loosely-planned policies, people really like him and think that he is completely on their side. That’s why he’s gaining. It’s also what makes the Clinton’s campaign’s current negative approach really stupid.
…so that baffles me, but I guess there’s no accounting for taste. I wish she weren’t attacking single-payer so directly, but I also don’t think she’s going nearly as negative as some Sanders emails I’ve seen lately seem to be whining about.
If given the choice of which statement is more true, which would you go with?
Hillary Clinton wakes up every morning thinking about being President.
Hillary Clinton wakes up every morning thinking about fighting injustice.
I don’t mean that to be cute. I think that’s the distinction. She can care about people and want to do great good, but between the candidates, voters feel that one candidate has an internal driving force that is different than the other’s.
She has fought injustice since working for the Children’s Defense Fund, though I’m sure as a leading candidate for the presidency she wakes up thinking a lot about that too. Nothing wrong with ambition, BTW. You can’t run a credible campaign without it. I see HRC as using elective office to advance the cause of justice; ditto for Sanders.
Clinton is reminding folks like me why we don’t like her. She agrees with Bernie Sanders almost in lockstep on the direction our nation should go. She just doesn’t think his plans to get there are politically feasible. Yet she’d be all for single payer and free college if she thought those were realistic targets in the next 8 years.
Yet she’s slipped into what seems her default mode, which is that those who dare oppose her must be bad people. It makes her come across as a thin-skinned grasper. It’s particularly crazy in this case because she needs Bernie’s voters to win in November. She ought to be sending the message they share the same values, but disagree on how to put them into action. The gratuitous jabs against a fellow traveler have got to be eroding her support.
I completely agree.
Her campaign recently has been a disaster.
…that she thinks those who oppose her are bad people. I have never gotten that vibe from her. She had no electoral ambitions until 2000 and didn’t try for the top in 2004. It’s her husband who wanted to be President since he was a teenager. As Obama once said she’s “likable enough”, but quite frankly I’m electing my President, not my best friend.
I’m a Bernie supporter, primarily because I like him and also because Hillary will be a better nominee if she has to face a strong primary challenger. I used this line in 2008 when I was 19, I wouldn’t use it today because I recognize that it’s generally not applied to male candidates. If it wasn’t a liability for Bill or Barack than it’s not for Hillary. Attack her on the choices she made you disagree with, many of them were bad, but don’t hold her to a double standard.
But, it contributes a lot to the general idea Hillary is in trouble & it does provide a benchmark with which she can argue…if say she loses NH by 7…that she’s gained 20 points in the last two weeks and has the momentum. No idea how firm the support is supposed to be.
It’s possible this poll is a sign of a tidal wave that’s about to engulf Hillary. But, if no tidal wave exists this poll probably helps her more than it hurts her in the end.
…and Nate Silver continues to give her excellent odds there.
Today I was hearing reporting of an eight-point lead for Sanders in IA AND another poll with a 29 point lead for Clinton in IA. I think ultimately the weather will decide who wins Iowa.
…about Republicans helping Sanders is interesting.
Earlier, I asked why Registered Democrats were being included in GOP primary polls, and got the answer that they lean Trump. So do the Registered Republican lean Vernie?
Or are corrupt poll and media outlets just bending over to lean in the direction of controversy?
I am having real problems with pollsters controlling debate participation
That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there were one. They all supposedly start with rules about time, but then keep asking the perceived major candidates. I always assumed the point of debates was to compare answers to the same questions. They should just ask a question and go down the line, rotating who gets to start, but give everyone the same chance to answer every question. Of course they should invite all the candidates to participate.