Bernie Sanders, By Poll Numbers, Has A Real Chance To Defeat Hillary Clinton In Both Iowa And New Hampshire!

Hard to believe, but it looks increasingly possible that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont COULD defeat Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Caucuses 20 days from now, and in the New Hampshire primary 28 days from today!

Latest polls show Bernie winning New Hampshire and in the margin of error in Iowa, an astounding situation.

Hillary is starting to sharpen her attacks on Bernie, and even Bernie, who has prided himself on running cordial campaigns against opponents, is starting to be more harsh and critical than he has ever been in past campaigns for the House of Representatives and US Senate!

Polls also show that in a theoretical matchup of Bernie and Donald Trump, that he would win in a landslide, while a matchup of Hillary and Trump, Hillary is only a few points ahead!

Who would think that a declared democratic Socialist would actually have more support than the former First Lady and even Donald Trump?

It is clear that the American electorate is very unhappy with the status quo, and that explains the growing support for Sanders, over one million people, and over 2.5 million individual donations, with the average contribution being about $27, and total contributions of $73 million, only a few million less than Hillary has been able to gain!

No one can say that American politics is boring, as it is ALWAYS interesting!

8 comments on “Bernie Sanders, By Poll Numbers, Has A Real Chance To Defeat Hillary Clinton In Both Iowa And New Hampshire!

  1. D January 13, 2016 3:45 am

    If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic caucus in Iowa and the Democratic primary in New Hampshire … it will be a new race.

    The national numbers between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, if they’re still many points in spread, would also be adjusting their reported trend toward Sanders. No way, for example, would he carry both Iowa and New Hampshire and would we see Clinton leading Sanders nationwide by, say, the 8.6 percentage points, or even worse, as indicated by the 01.12.2016 aggregated polls reported by RealClearPolitics.com. And conventional wisdom, from beltway professionals, would be discredited.

    We could be in for a Donald Trump (R-New York) vs. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) Election 2016.

    What would make that most interesting are both parties having nominees which piss off their party establishment figures—and Wall Street. So…

    Depending on one’s attitude, this could be an intriguing and appealing race.

  2. Rustbelt Democrat January 13, 2016 8:44 am

    People are tired of Clintons and Bushes.

  3. D January 13, 2016 8:01 pm

    Rustbelt Democrat,

    The People are not tired of the Clintons. (Check out those poll numbers at RealClearPolitics!)

    They’re tired of the Bushes.

    Jeb Bush doesn’t have support from his own party. This is not true with Hillary Clinton. For Jeb Bush to be polling so damn lowly, and for a few months, when the Iowa caucuses are just three weeks away says a lot.

    The reason Bush hasn’t officially withdrawn from the race is because he has a hell of a lot of money. But, in recent months, the campaign contributions have stalled. And he’s on a trendline suggesting he’s betting on early primary states, especially New Hampshire and the state he used to govern, Florida, as if he would win any of them and reverse the damage.

    Jeb Bush’s No. 1 problem is his last name. The last two Republican presidents were his father and brother. His dad became unseated with Election 1992. His brother brought down his party in the midterms of 2006 and the presidential election of 2008—and that is mentioned by me without going into details about his presidency—which many, including myself, conclude was a realigning election for the Democrats to win the overwhelming majority of presidential elections over a 30-plus period which began in 2008. (On January 22, 2015, I posted here about which states have historically had the best record in backing presidential winners. It was Ronald have written about “Swing States.” You can find that here: @ https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=23659 . And among the Top 10 are “Blue Firewall” states like Illinois, California, New York, and Pennsylvania while, among the 10 Worst are “Red States” like Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi and, right at the bottom, Alabama.)

    If any of this doesn’t mean much, I can put it another way: The Republican primary voters are saying, with regard to Jeb Bush, that they don’t want another Bush. That’s before we can discuss the general-election matchup.

  4. Ronald January 13, 2016 8:15 pm

    D, your assessment of Bush is right on base.

    I see no chance of him reviving, but still think Kasich could become a major factor, as his shortcomings are fewer than fellow “moderates” Rubio and Christie!

  5. D January 14, 2016 3:42 am

    Adding to what I wrote earlier, “If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic caucus in Iowa and the Democratic primary in New Hampshire … it will be a new race.”

    Iowa joined the presidential caucuses and primaries back in 1976 for both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries.

    In every case in which a Republican or Democratic candidate won both Iowa and New Hampshire…that presidential candidate ended up having won the presidential nomination from his party.

    This was applicable to incumbent president Gerald Ford in 1976. Even though I would prefer to not note incumbent years (especially ones in which the incumbent president won re-election), the 1976 Republican presidential primaries were memorable. Remember—Ford was primary-challenged by Ronald Reagan (who won his California gubernatorial elections in 1966 and 1970. So he wasn’t gone from that office for long). Ford ended up with 27 states—two of which were Iowa and New Hamsphire. Jimmy Carter, who unseated Gerald Ford, also carried both Iowa and New Hampshire among his 30 states. In 2000, Al Gore won all 50 states plus District of Columbia—so that obviously includes both states. And John Kerry, who won 46 caucus and primary states, carried both Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004.

    The years of this established pattern—with connecting the ten presidential election years of 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012—may or may not seem much. It would be even more compelling if we were talking 40 more years down the road (and 10 additional presidential elections having passed) and this pattern held. But, no less, there is a pattern. We know from the Republican side that the party supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire are a different, say, audience. (Even back in 1980, Ronald Reagan didn’t carry both states. He won New Hampshire while his eventual vice-presidential running mate, George Bush, won Iowa.) So, it would be something if one presidential candidate carried both the caucus [Iowa] and primary [New Hampshire] states.

    Although I don’t spend every waking moment thinking about this topic, I think it will be interesting to see how this will all unfold over the next month.

  6. Ronald January 14, 2016 6:25 am

    Yes, D. the next month will be fascinating to watch, with the history of the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary!

  7. Rustbelt Democrat January 14, 2016 9:07 am

    @D

    The fact that Bernie is increasing shows that people are not too eager for establishment candidates.

  8. Pragmatic Progressive January 14, 2016 9:15 am

    I second what Rustbelt said. As one of the latest articles on the Real Clear Politics blog that was mentioned said, there is a tidal wave of anti-establishment populism in both parties that is defining the 2016 campaign.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.