Bernie Sanders could win iowa and new hampshire then lose everywhere.......Nate Silver

[a kennedy]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is now telling reporters that she is at risk of losing Iowa to Bernie Sanders in the February caucuses. One ought to view these stories a bit cynically: It almost always benefits a candidate to lower expectations in Iowa, and these warnings are often designed to activate lethargic supporters. At the same time, the campaign press loves stories that suggest it’ll have a competitive Democratic primary rather than a walkover.

But in this case, Clinton’s campaign is probably right: Sanders could win Iowa. He’s up to 30 percent of the vote there, according to Huffington Post Pollster’s estimate. What’s more, Sanders could also win New Hampshire, where he’s at 32 percent of the vote. Nationally, by contrast, Sanders has just 15 percent of the vote and has been gaining ground on Clinton only slowly.

One theory to explain these numbers is that Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats are early adopters of Sanders’s populist-left message. It isn’t a bad theory. These states have received the most intense campaign activity so far, and Sanders’s name recognition is higher among Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire — perhaps about 70 percent or 80 percent, based on recent polls — than it is nationally. If the theory is true, Sanders’s numbers will improve nationally as Democrats in other states become as familiar with him as those in Iowa and New Hampshire are.

There’s another theory, however, that probably does more to explain Sanders’s standing in Iowa and New Hampshire, and it’s really simple. Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa and Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire are really liberal and really white, and that’s the core of Sanders’s support.

Sanders, who has sometimes described himself as a socialist, isn’t likely to do so well with moderate Democrats, of course. That’s a problem for him, since a thin majority of Democrats still identify as moderate or conservative rather than liberal. But Sanders has a few things working in his favor. The share of liberal Democrats is increasing — pretty rapidly, in fact — and those Democrats who turn out to vote in the primaries tend to be more liberal than Democrats overall.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/

[HFRN]

1. Iowa is losing influence as a presidential selector

yes, it did advance Obama, but the republicans cancelled the straw poll when it became clear that anyone with a chance of winning the eventual nomination was skipping it, and had for the last few cycles

[winter is coming]

4. Is that why the GOP cancelled the straw poll?

I thought it was because there wasn't enough straw for every candidate to have one.

[HFRN]

6. good one - but seriously

for this cycle, it was clear that it was going to be 'king/queen of the also rans'

campaign suicide to attend it

which by extension, places Iowa's influence into question, at least for one party

ironically, (IMO) it's a side effect of Koch influence - Koch's couldn't care less about social issues, just money, whereas Iowa Republicans are strong social issue votors

so republicans have to run right wing social issue and slightly populist for Iowa, then back to corporatism for the general. you saw it big time on immigration with McCain - Iowa hated him, but he still got the nomination, same with Romney, who they didn't like because he was Morman

[jwirr]

41. What does the Rs annual straw pole show have to do with the Democratic Caucus? The straw

pole is a political stunt.

[winter is coming]

57. Absolutely nothing. n/t

[JaneyVee]

2. I think Bernie will probably win more states than...

Just Iowa and NH. I think it will be a pretty competitive primary. But who am I to question Nate The Great.

[Renew Deal]

3. Another interesting aspect of NH voting is the Independents vote

In NH indies can vote in either primary. I wonder which primary they will choose this time around. If they vote republican because of the greater competition, this could help Sanders. In fact, it could make both Democratic and Republican electorates more liberal.

[Agschmid]

14. Yes "switchers" are less likely.

[bunnies]

31. Anyone can vote in either primary. Not just indies.

Though Ive always been registered (D), I can chose the (R) ballot if I wish. We can same-day party switch the same way we can same-day register.

[Jefferson23]

5. Of course it will be tough for Sanders but how likely was it a few months ago Silver

would have thought Bernie would be where he is now? hmmmm.

Stay focused, work hard..force Clinton to speak to many issues and get her on the
record, if she refuses, remind voters. It may not be in your best interest to trust
that approach to running a campaign for the most powerful job in the world.

Follow the money trail too...always an eye opener.

[HooptieWagon]

7. If NS doesn't give Sanders credit for at least taking Vermont...

Then it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Sanders is going to take many states, both "white" and diverse.

[JaneyVee]

8. I think Vermont is pretty much a given.

That's probably why NS didn't mention it.

[Ed Suspicious]

9. I don't accept that. If he thought Bernie would take Vermont he would have written that.

[JaneyVee]

10. I haven't seen any polling from Vermont, perhaps...

He knows something we don't? I think a wonk like NS probably understands Vermont is a given.

[HooptieWagon]

18. If no polling, how can he claim Sanders loses the remaining states?

Heck, right now in Florida I'd bet Sanders polls at 30+%, and he hasn't made one appearance yet. There is def buzz and excitement, and several meet ups have already happened in my town. This has happened solely because of WoM and Facebook. By the time of primary, Bernie will be polling close to Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Res ipsa loquitur

Heck, right now in Florida I'd bet Sanders polls at 30+%, and he hasn't made one appearance yet.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-3556.html#polls

[HooptieWagon]

23. You've made my point.

The "average" goes back to March, when Sanders wasn't even a candidate. That pulls his numbers down naturally.
Let's look at the most recent poll by Gravis (3 weeks ago); Sanders polled over 21%. It's fair to compare to Gravis's earlier poll, since they use the same sampling formula...Sanders polled zero. I think in the past three weeks, given his surge elsewhere, that Sanders could be in the 30% range. This is with no campaign presence in the state yet. Got to be a concern for Hillary when he starts making stops here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Math is not my forte but 21% is 30% less than 30%

And since we are playing fun and games with math the one constant in the polls is that regardless of the challengers HRC has polled in the 60s in every of the 13 polls but one:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-3556.html#polls

She actually went from 52% to 65% in the Gravis Poll you cited.

[HooptieWagon]

28. 21% is from 3 weeks ago.

It is possible to be 30% now, which is what i said I'd bet it was.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Since we are playing fun and games with math, according to Gravis HRC can be at 80% by now.

[HooptieWagon]

32. Not likely, since theres no evidence she's surging.

In fact, she's been keeping a low profile, avoiding media, and just sending her surrogates out to attack Sanders. It didn't work for her in '08, and won't work now. She and the corporatist faction of the Party have severely misread the intense anger of the working class.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. She surged in the very Gravis poll you cited.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-3556.html#polls

[winter is coming]

34. He didn't say Sander *will* lose the remaining states. He said that he *could* lose the

remaining states. It's a way to diminish the significance of Bernie's numbers in Iowa and NH, as in "yeah, he's looking good there, but that's all he'll get." Folks are still whistling their way through the graveyard, telling themselves that Bernie's a fringe candidate. I have a feeling the whistling will only get louder as time goes by.

[ibegurpard]

11. Yeah he could

Or he could lose the both. Or he could win them both and go on to win it all.

[virtualobserver]

12. theory one is correct

Bernie's rise isn't due to him being liberal.

It is his authenticity. When people meet him in person, they are struck by how real he is.
His message feels authentic as well. He speaks the truth.

As he rises, people will continue to come up with reasons to dismiss his success.
That is good news for Bernie.

[global1]

13. Seems To Me If Bernie Wins Iowa & NH The Press Coverage He'll Get Will Increase His Momentum....

around the country and other people that weren't familiar with him will start taking note of his stances on the issues.

Couple that with the fact that I don't believe that the old labels of a 'moderate, conservative or liberal' Democrat hold the same meaning as perhaps they once did. Bernie's economic message really appeals across all of these labels and there will be a blending of support both within the ranks of all the Dems and he already has Independent appeal.

I think it has been noted here on DU also that many Repugs are buying Bernie's economic message as well. One has to remember that many Repugs belong to the 99% and are both embarrassed by the clown car of candidates that they are stuck with and they are hurt economically by the 1%, Wall Street and the Banksters as well.

It's going to be hard for the other Dems and the Repugs running for President to talk contrary to the economic stances that are the core of Bernie's platform.

It's too early to call this or attach too much meaning to the poll numbers that are currently coming in. The MSM initially said that Bernie wasn't going to be a factor. That he was only in it to pull Hillary to the left. But we're seeing that begin to fall apart as Bernie racks up crowd numbers around the country and people begin to hear his message. Also - in the last few days - Bernie is finally getting MSM coverage and is beginning to be taken seriously by the MSM. Some of the pundits are beginning to hedge their bets and starting to bend their stories as to how Bernie is making an impact. Hell - even some news shows lead off with a Bernie story.

I think Nate Silver needs to re-evaluate his theories.

[kenfrequed]

15. Indeed

Someone in Silver's employ is making use of polling that is inaccurate and they are actually systemizing spin based almost soley on Hillary's name recognition. They really don't have a good bead on this at all and they are likely to have to reevaluate their methodology fairly soon.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Respectfully...

Respectfully the man who nailed the 08 presidential election, the 012 presidential election, and was awarded the 2013 Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science for his work in the field applied statistics does not need to "re-evaluate his theories"

The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by one percentage point. He correctly predicted the winner of all 35 U.S. Senate races that year.


In the 2012 United States presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, he correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[11] That same year, Silver's predictions of U.S. Senate races were correct in 31 of 33 states; he predicted Republican victory in North Dakota and Montana, where Democrats won.

Silver's book, The Signal and the Noise, was published in September 2012. It subsequently reached The New York Times best seller list for nonfiction, and was named by Amazon.com as the #1 best nonfiction book of 2012.The Signal and the Noise won the 2013 Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science. The book has been published as well in nine foreign languages: Chinese (separate editions in traditional and simplified characters), Czech, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Romanian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

I would add South Carolina has much more predictive power than either Iowa or New Hampshire. The last three presidents have lost the New Hampshire primary. The last six presidents have won the South Carolina primary.

[John Poet]

25. Then maybe he needs to re-read the history of

presidential nomination battles, because his theory betrays ignorance of the effect these states have on the races.

When has any candidate ever failed to win the presidential nomination, after winning Iowa AND New Hampshire, let alone losing "all the other states"?

Nate may have done well predicting previous races, but this theory is just idiotic.

[Man of Distinction]

42. Excuse me while I laugh at Nate Silver

He'll be wrong at the end because he's *STILL* undersampling the undersamples on the polls.

I expect a full apology from Nate at the end.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. This gentleman expected an apology from Nate too:

He'll be wrong at the end because he's *STILL* undersampling the undersamples on the polls.

I expect a full apology from Nate at the end.

This gentleman expected an apology from Nate too:

[John Poet]

56. Nate seems to have no clue about how

the nomination processes have historically played out,
to make such a patently ridiculous assertion.

Perhaps he should stick to general elections.

[Deny and Shred]

16. Where did he have Obama in July 2007?

He provided no data. Who does he have taking the 2016 GOP nomination? He does model the GOP field. Why no prediction?

Elections can swing vastly from polling done in July the year before toward dark horses for a variety of reasons. Clinton in July 1991, W in July 1999, Carter in July 75. None had much of a chance at this stage.

He's viewing today's snapshot, that is all, and in so doing admits that Sanders has several factors skewing in his favor. His work is far from foolproof, and he can't predict how voters will react in the intervening months to all sorts of factors like hearing a vibrant message for the first time, gaffes, debates, grassroots movements, etc.

Silver didn't launch his site until March 2008, the equivalent of 8 months from now. The 2016 GOP frontrunner announced less than a month ago. Still a long way to go, even for the guy who called it for Obama twice.

[winter is coming]

17. +1. Looking at the crowds and the size of the donor list that Sanders has drawn in a

few short months, all I can say is that if his appeal is limited to really white, really liberal people, those folks are really excited. It's way too soon to claim that he can't/won't appeal to others as well.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. Well, then, we should all just go home

and put on our Hillary buttons.

[John Poet]

22. Any candidate who wins both Iowa and New Hampshire

gets a ton of media coverage and momentum and money, and becomes very hard to stop.

Remember John Kerry in 2004? He won practically every contest after that, but had no significant national polling advantages prior to those victories.

I'm not going to say that Bernie would, but to say he could lose every single state after that, while technically possible, is otherwise just idiotic and ignores the effect that winning these contests has on undecided voters and those whose support for other candidates is weak.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. The last three presidents have lost New Hampshire. The last six presidents have won South Carolina.

And Nate The Great addresses the momentum theory:

Otherwise, just as was the case throughout the 2008 campaign, the media will misconstrue voting patterns that occur because of demographics and attribute them to “momentum” instead.

[John Poet]

27. Momentum isn't a "theory", it's a fact.

We've seen the bandwagon effect enough times...


I'm sure the last three presidents would have preferred to have WON in New Hampshire as well as elsewhere. If they had, their nomination battles would likely have been over sooner.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Bill Clinton lost IA and NH in 92. Bush* lost NH in 00. BHO lost NH in 08.

They all recovered in South Carolina because the demographics of South Carolina looked much more like the demographics of their respective parties than the demographics of homogeneous New Hampshire and Iowa. That was the gravamen of Silver's analysis in the article we are discussing.

I will rely on the analysis of the man who nailed the 08 and 012 elections and is regarded as a leader in the field of statistical modeling in politics and sports over the analysis of a random internet poster.

[John Poet]

36. The article being discussed presumes WINNING both Iowa and N.H.,

so losing them isn't even relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up who lost which state.

Bill Clinton didn't really compete in Iowa in 1992, as it was candidate Tom Harkin's home state who won it. Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire that year. Bill Clinton was able to spin his "close" 2nd place in New Hampshire into some sort of "victory".

In 2000, George W. Bush won in Iowa before losing in New Hampshire...

.... so again, no ONE candidate won BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire (in the modern primary system), and then lost the nomination.... let alone lost all 48 other states afterwards.

[John Poet]

37. And I'll rely on history over the pre-mature opinion

of a statistician, and another random internet poster....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I agree with you...

I will rely on the history of South Carolina as having excellent predictive value, predicting six of the last six presidents.


I am going back, in my head, to the 60 JFK-RMN race and not one candidate lost SC and won the presidency.


Homogeneous hamlets like IA and NH are not representative of an increasingly heterogeneous nation and therefore are practically useless in predicting primary and general election success...

Nate is right, as always, and he will be vindicated in the fullness of time as he always is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Deleted-not wasting a response on a PPR Poster

!!!

[freshwest]

61. Aw, c'mon. I wanna read it for talking points or a laugh. Post it for me! n/t

[John Poet]

48. Ok. Since you're so stuck on South Carolina,

the state which led the secession bandwagon, and couldn't wait to fire the first shot to start the civil war, should really NOT be one of the first four states to vote in the Democratic nomination process. They don't deserve to have such influence on the presidential nomination of a liberal party.

If we need a southern state to be among the early states voting for the Democratic nomination, it ought to be some other southern state--- for instance, one that didn't start a national bloodbath, and one that isn't STILL flying the friggin' confederate battle flag on government property, for christ sake.

It's not as if our nominee ever has a chance to win the general election in that state anyway. We should let North Carolina or Virginia go early instead-- ANYPLACE but South Carolina!

For all those reasons, I don't really give a shit how South Carolina votes. It doesn't count for much in my book.

Good Democrats ought to evacuate the state if at all possible, IMHO. I know there are some, I am sorry they have to live there-- but maybe they ought to have put up more of a fight against that flag flying there for the past fifty years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. If it wasn't for white people of good will and the 30% of African Americans in South Carolina...

If it wasn't for white people and others of good will and the 30% of African Americans in South Carolina I wouldn't care if they seceded again.


I just mentioned SC because it's a heterogeneous and early on the primary schedule...The same phenomenon would assert itself in FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, WV. CA, NM, AZ, NY, IL, OH, et cetera, because their demographics are fundamentally different than those of NH and IA . That was Nate's point.

[Gothmog]

35. Nate Silver makes some good points

Sanders appears to be competitive in a couple of states but will not well in other states. In Texas, I am fairly comfortable that the socialist label will not play well

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Nate just uses the data to make reasonable inferences

Could his inferences be wrong, of course but they are much more likely than not to be right.


My favorite is he crunched the numbers and predicted the reigning World Series champ would win 71 games the next year and the "old hands" laughed at him...I will leave it to you to imagination how many games that team won.

He was crunching the numbers on the 012-013 MIA-SAS Finals and said they were so closely matched that it could be decided by an arrant pass... That's essentially how it played out.

[RobertEarl]

40. Texas could vote for Bernie

They sure didn't vote for Obama tho, and won't vote for Hillary.

If the Democrats in Texas get united behind Bernie they could at least help in the primaries.

[Gothmog]

51. You are very very wrong

Texas used to have a system called the Texas two step where two-thirds of the delegates were picked in the primary and one third in caucuses that occured the night of the primary. Hillary won the primary but Obama won the Caucuses and ended up with a couple of delegates more. Hillary had very very strong backing here in Texas. I was on the nominations and credentials committees for our county convention and I can assure you that Clinton's supporters were very forceful.

My county is starting a grass roots club for Cinton with the first meeting on Saturday and several of the other counties including Harris County has organizations up and operating.



The DNC just killed the Texas two step and under current rules, Sanders will need to get 15% of the vote in a State Senate District to get any delegates and I really doubt that he will make that threshold in most of the senate districts. I hate to break it to you but the socialist label will not play well here in Texas.

As for Hillary's chances, this polling is a little dated but is still interesting http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-win-texas.html

[John Poet]

54. I hate to break it to you, but

Texas doesn't play too well in the rest of the country.

[Gothmog]

59. But we still get to elect delegates to the Democratic National Convention

Again, I am not sure that Sanders will break the 15% threshold in Texas to get any delegates from the state.

I am thinking about trying to be a delegate to the DNC 2016 convention. It is a time consuming and expensive process to qualify as a delegate

[okasha]

63. Irrelevant.

What counts is our electoral votes.

If Texas goes blue for Hillary, the R's lose right there. Game over.

[RobertEarl]

55. Yeah

As much as we hope, Texas is a lost cause. Oh well, Obama won without Texas, Bernie can do the same.

[Gothmog]

52. If Julian Castro is the VP nominee on a Clinton Castro ticket, Texas could be fun

The State Democratic Party printed these bumperstickers up over a year ago and I have a couple at home

[okasha]

62. And my jackalope just had babies.

Males, $1000.00 after weaning; females $3000.00. Champion bloodlines on both sides.

Reserve your adorable bunfawn now!

[DCBob]

43. He could also lose Iowa and NH and everywhere else.

Which is a more likely scenario.

[RobertEarl]

45. Bernie will win in Iowa

And then go on to win it all!

[DCBob]

46. I admire your optimism.

[John Poet]

49. Hillary "could" WIN Iowa and New Hampshire, and then LOSE everywhere else.

Anything is technically "possible",
even if it is far from historically likely.

Pigs could fly out of Hillary's ass and carry her to the coronation!
Again, not historically likely, but anything is "possible", right?
(and pigs flying out of asses seems to have something to do with Nate's latest prognostication, amirite?)

Again, 2004 !

Kerry couldn't be stopped after winning both Iowa AND New Hampshire,
and he wasn't even that great of a candidate.

[TheNutcracker]

53. Aren't the Iowa caucuses in January?

[still_one]

58. except for this important line in Silver's analysis

"Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t representative of the more diverse electorates that Democrats will turn out elsewhere. It just so happens that the idiosyncrasies of the first two states match Sanders’s strengths and Clinton’s relative weaknesses."