http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanderss-path-to-the-nomination/

This is an interesting article, but one that I feel has several weaknesses (and an article that doesn't enamor me to Silver's supposed skill).

It ignores the differences between open and closed caucuses/primaries for the most part, and very much ignores the idea that shifting states by arbitrary and equal amounts don't directly reflect the national polling.

Still, it's interesting. Right now, it would seem that Clinton is polling about +7 nationally by this chart.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-superdelegates-democrats-219286

As we know, Clinton commands a wide lead in superdelegates...therefore the process itself is corrupt, unfair, and must be abolished.

I've tried to point out to these sorts that the Primary process is not an election, it's the decision as to who will represent the Democratic Party. Of course the officials (the vast majority of whom ARE THEMSELVES elected to office) get a say as to who they can and are willing to work with--or simply prefer.

In a more personal observation, I feel that any candidate should read, understand, and realize that they have to play by the rules before running for office in a given party.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2016/primary/dem/scdem.html

This is another terrible poll, with a weight at 538 of a scant 0.40. However, as in NV, it's the only recent poll we have in SC.

In this case, Clinton performs at +38 over Sanders in SC.

ARG rates a C- at 538, mostly due to large errors. Their lean is Republican +0.1 on average, so at least they're non-partisan. Ratings are listed here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nv-toplines.pdf

538 gives this poll a fairly low weight, and given the questions, you can see why. There's a definite lean in the candidate questions.

They've also chosen 55% first time caucus-goers, a number that's not borne out by Iowa and New Hampshire.

Still, it's a starting data point and might assist Clinton in places where she could shore up her constituency.

Cross your fingers, off we go...

http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/franklin_pierce_herald_poll_clinton_sanders_just_7_points_apart

Seven. Points. In my old idle guessing game, that puts the Sanders campaign in "Danger of Serious National Shutout" territory once we pass NH.

Now, NH is notoriously hard to poll, but Mrs. Clinton does have a reputation as the Comeback Kid in NH, as well as an excellent ground game.

From the article:

The Vermont socialist senator was beating the former Secretary of State by a 57-37 percent margin right before the caucuses, but he now clings to just a 51-44 percent lead, according to the new Franklin Pierce-Herald poll of 407 likely Democratic primary voters conducted Feb. 2-6.

Clinton's favorable rating increased to 75 percent since Iowa and she also regained some of her aura of inevitability, with 61 percent saying she'll be the nominee while just 27 percent picking Sanders - a 13 point margin increase since last weekend.

I was thinking about this during the debates, and please feel free to criticize the below.

NH is pretty much a foregone conclusion as a Sanders win. The question remains...how much? Data from mid-week showed Sanders about +30 points ahead in the state and this time we'll see voting totals.

Personally, I expect some buyer's remorse post his slight loss in IA. The thing to watch for is erosion of that +30 as "protest voters" come home at the realization that a vote for Sanders really could make him the Democratic candidate.

The bands I've idly come up with are:

Clinton Win: Highly improbable, but on the extremely off chance it happens, Sanders' campaign effectively ends right there.

Sanders +0 to +10: Severe cracks showing in the Sanders campaign. While not the effective end, the long term outlook is a certain Clinton win faster than expected.

Sanders +10 to +15: Significant erosion of support. Clinton's win is still expected, but not as quickly.

Sanders +15 to +25: Around what I'd expect. The prognosis is still demographically good for Clinton with a probable win, but this will stretch well into May.

Sanders +25 to +35: Sanders performing well. Clinton still probably wins, but this goes into June as we approach the convention. The superdelegate vote now becomes quite important.

Sanders +35 or greater: An extremely good performance for Sanders and Clinton would be wise to change her tactics at this point. Her win is no longer certain (but by no means impossible).

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-democratic/

538 currently has NH at +12.8 Sanders.

Does anybody want to pitch in an estimate at this point? I'm betting the race tightens, and I'm putting a gentleperson's bet on Sanders +10 when all is said and done.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-vote-count-tight-finish-iowa-caucus-clinton

Presented without comment, because I'm certain all you good people are thinking the same and will happily say it.

From the article:

“I honestly don’t know what happened. I know there are some precincts that have still not reported. I can only hope and expect that the count will be honest,” he said. “I have no idea. Did we win the popular vote? I don’t know, but as much information as possible should be made available.”

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia02012016_Ifsmb28.pdf

Quinnipac's new poll today puts Sanders up +3 over Clinton in the Iowa caucus.

It's interesting to note that the history of the Quinnipac polls over the last three has been Sanders +5, Sanders +4, and now Sanders +3.

The release notes that both Sanders and Trump are heavily dependent on first-time caucus-goers.