Politico: Clinton will carry Iowa

[Jarqui]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/insiders-trump-and-clinton-will-carry-iowa-218492

Democratic insiders believe overwhelmingly that Clinton will win.
Democratic insiders weren’t nearly as divided as their GOP counterparts: They said by a wide margin that Clinton will defeat Bernie Sanders on Monday night, crediting what they say is her vastly superior organization.

“Hands down, Clinton has the best operation,” one Iowa Democrat said. “It doesn't matter who I speak to — whether it's in a big county or small, on the western side of the state or eastern — they all say the same thing: They see no evidence of Sanders organizing. They have a lot of people, but none of them are trained or prepared for what will happen on Monday. The lesson they took from Obama’s 2008 win was that big crowds equate [to] support in a caucus room. They seem to [forget] that Obama also had the best caucus campaign Iowa had seen up to that point. Unfortunately for them, Clinton has a stronger operation than even Obama did then, and her supporters are more committed than theirs.”
...
But while Democrats overwhelmingly say Clinton will win, Republicans disagreed. A majority of GOP insiders insist Sanders’ energized supporters will carry him to victory.

“My friends on the [Democratic] side tell me that Hillary will win due to organization,” one Iowa Republican said, “but it will be close and damaging.”

Bernie's in tough. Go Bernie's team Go!

[merrily]

2. We will know about Iowa soon enough.

[Robbins]

3. sounds to me dems again in their bubble

bernie has no organization

The anti-establishment guy has gone from 5% to tying clinton and he has no organization.yeah right.

remember back in 2014 dems said they would get their voters out.didn't happen.

we have seen no evidance of enthusim for clinton.

hiring people only works with good candiate.Clinton Is no Obama.

[askew]

6. I am an O'Malley supporter who is resigned to having to support Bernie after O'Malley drops out

so I hope the Dem insiders are wrong. But, Bernie's team seems really disorganized in Iowa. I volunteered in Iowa for Dean and he lost in large part because of that disorganization. I hope I am wrong because I think Hillary is unelectable and unethical and we can do better to follow up the best president since FDR with a mediocre joke like Hillary.

[Robbins]

12. well

as dean supporter back in 2004 i can tell you he was in freefall before Iowa.as he and Gephardht went at each other Kerry played retail politics and people were impressed with himEdwards being postive and poppulist message also caught on.This is different
because Bernie is more like Kerry in sense momenturm is on his side not clinton's.

I think we all agree both Bernie and O'Malley have gotten bad shake by MSM.I would love a upset like 2008 with bernie first.
O'Malley second and Clinton.I would also be fine with a Sanders/O'Malley ticket In the fall.

[askew]

13. Sanders hasn't gotten as much media as Hillary that is for sure, but at least he got some which

Is more than you can say for poor O'Malley.

My dream order for tonight's results is O'Malley, Sanders, Hillary but I would settle for Sanders, O'Malley, Hillary.

I am pretty worried about Sanders' team not being able to deliver though.

[tblue37]

27. The moderators also shut MOM out during the debates. They wanted a 2-person head-to-head,

so they kept blocking MOM. I support Sanders, but I found the treatment of MOM by the MSM to be unconscionable.

[askew]

29. Yeah, that killed him. They wouldn't let him talk at all and were openly mocking him.

That makes it hard to make your case to the people.

[snooper2]

19. LOL, we are in the same boat, Martin didn't get a chance from the get go (media wise)

Without Martin O'Malley we get stuck with another Clinton (who is 68 and out of touch), or Sanders (who is 74 and even more out of touch)...

I thought Obama would be the final nail in the coffers for boomers as he is considered the first (post boomer) president even though he was born in 61'.

[askew]

23. Yeah, Dems need young voters to turn out in 2016 and I don't see that happening with

Hillary as the nominee especially as this email scandal lingers on.

And Sanders can't seem to help shitting on Obama which isn't going to help keep Obama's coalition together.

I knew the second Hillary lost that we would be stuck with her running again. The Clintons will never give up on this dream. I was hoping that O'Malley would catch fire but the debate schedule just crippled him and he wasn't able to recover.

[KittyWampus]

25. Well, we agree on that. I support O'Malley and don't look forward to choosing

between two old people who have major flaws.


In the end, Clinton would have the most chance of not only winning but making some legislative progress while Bernie would be an ineffective mess.

That said, all three Democratic candidates are competent and lions compared to the vermin running for the Republican nomination.

[Ferd Berfel]

32. No She won't

From twitter-new Quinnipiac IOWA poll
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511108580

Dems-Bernie 49% Clinton 46% O'Malley 3%
GOP-Trump 31% Cruz-24% Rubio-17% Carson-8% Bush-4% Paul 4%

[justiceischeap]

47. There's a huge difference between having supporters

and then organizing those supporters to work for you in ways that matter.

[amborin]

4. Politico leans right; head to head polls show Bernie does better in the GE, so rethugs want HC nt

[snagglepuss]

5. Did Politico or any pundits mentioned foresee the massive turnouts for Bernie's speeches?

[mikehiggins]

7. That's just people. They don't count them because

most pundits have a vested interest in keeping the status quo in effect. There may have been times in the past when people such as the pundits and experts and talking heads would speak out but those days are not these days.

So thousands of people support Sanders. That just doesn't matter because they are just economic units being given the opportunity to protest getting screwed. Once the media circus moves on the pundits know those angry voices will dissipate and give up. All those thousands supporting Sanders got less coverage than a dozen or so Reich-wingers in Oregon.

[Renew Deal]

8. Interesting to see who the republicans are rooting for.

[workinclasszero]

9. ..."they all say the same thing: They see no evidence of Sanders organizing"

This makes me very happy!

[KingFlorez]

10. Ground game matters

Clinton's campaign knocked on far more doors than Sanders over the weekend, so it is evident who has the better operations.

[Trajan]

28. Knocking on doors ...

Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on my doors many times over the years ...

I'm still an atheist ...

So much for knocking on doors ...

Yeah - I know ... It has to be done and it does help a candidate to get out there and be seen, but it's not a done deal just because a door got knocked ... A persuasive argument must be presented and accepted ... Good luck with NO WE CAN'T ...

[KingFlorez]

31. Doors knocked at the last minute are voters who already said yes

In the last few days of campaign, there is infinitesimal persuasion. It's all about getting your confirmed voters out.

[demwing]

36. Back that up

How many doors did team Clinton knock on, and how many for team Bernie, and what's your source?

[KingFlorez]

38. Clinton's campaign knocked on 125k doors, your boy knocked on 77k

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-01/clinton-campaign-manager-returns-to-his-field-organizer-roots-for-final-iowa-push

The Sanders campaign said its volunteers knocked on close to 77,000 doors on Friday and Saturday, while the Clinton campaign knocked on more than 125,000 doors over the weekend.

Yeah, I'm not a liar. Sorry to disappoint you.

[demwing]

44. I'm not disappointed, in fact I'm glad

Many people just make up shit to suit their agenda.

That being said, the only source that I see with those numbers is yours - a pro-Hillary article from a pro-establishment media source.

I'm not saying it's biased, I'm just saying that those numbers aren't verifiable.

[demwing]

45. I'd say that Sanders had game

especially when you consider that he went up against the best that the establishment has to offer.

[Jarqui]

11. Some of this isn't jiving

Clinton had about 4,000-6,200 volunteers? (I think)

Bernie said his campaign had 15,000 volunteers

And folks are saying they weren't out knocking on many doors when I saw footage of it on MSNBC?

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/big-crowds-back-bernie-in-iowa-nearly-63000-see-sanders-since-campaign-kickoff/

The crowds on Friday pushed to 62,866 the total turnout at Sanders’ rallies and town meetings in Iowa since his bid for the White House officially began last April 30.

Somewhere between 145,000 to 250,000 have voted Democrat in Iowa since 2004.

Getting 63,000 out is 25%-43% of that electorate.

The crowds have definitely been bigger for Bernie and according to the above, they did that with not many knocking on doors?

Frankly, I don't believe it.

Daily KOS: Bernie Sanders: 15,000 Volunteers on the Ground Today, Hillary Clinton: Not So Much
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/31/1477866/-Bernie-Sanders-15-000-Volunteers-on-the-Ground-Today-Hillary-Clinton-Not-So-Much

[askew]

14. It depends how those volunteers were being used.

I saw reports that there were way too many volunteers in Des Moines and not enough outside of it. That is going to be a big problem for him.

However, there is very little enthusiasm for Hillary outside of her diehard supporters, so I think Sanders will have any easier time picking up supporters on the 2nd round.

[Jarqui]

18. The polls suggested he'd get O'Malley people 2:1

I saw that too but they were sending them other places (so I heard)

I can't ever recall a campaign saying "we've got too many volunteers"

15,000 volunteers is 12%-20% of the total vote Sanders would need.

- that's like "if you each bring five Sanders supporters to the caucus with you, we will win"

Maybe they're not as well organized but for that size vote, they've sure got manpower for GOTV

[askew]

24. Dean had too many volunteers as well.

I was one of them so I remember what a mess it was. There are way too many out-of-state volunteers in Des Moines right now for Sanders and they are understaffed in other counties. That's the problem. It doesn't matter if they win Des Moines by 5 votes or 5000, they are going to get the same amount of delegates.

That's why Hillary is better poised to win because her support is an inch deep and spread evenly throughout the state. Sanders is concentrated in the college towns and in Des Moines.

I hope I am wrong and that Sanders can pull it together but it sure isn't sounding too promising.

[JackRiddler]

15. Shocking reversal of everything Politico's ever claimed until now.

Not to mention "Democratic insiders," the measure of all values. Very important to get it in with a few hours left before the actual thing will render it irrelevant (regardless of result). Example of why polls - especially for caucuses but also primaries - are far more important as tools to mobilize rather than predictive instruments.

[Darb]

16. What happens if Hillary wins by double digits?

Where do we go from here?

[JackRiddler]

17. What happens if aliens land?

Just wait a few hours, will ya?

[Darb]

20. If aliens land all bets are off.

What happens if Hillary wins by double digits?

[JackRiddler]

21. What happens if Hillary suspends her campaign by 6 pm?

What happens if Sanders levitates?

What happens if O'Malley wins?

[Darb]

22. Sanders will not levitate, O'M won't win Iowa,

and Hillary is definitely not suspending. So far, only my question is remotely possible. I get it, you won't speculate. I will continue if you want to, but it doesn't look like you are going to answer.

[JackRiddler]

33. I would have been happy to speculate up until yesterday.

Why do you still think this is an important question to ask an hour before the caucuses begin, though? If you're in Iowa, of course, it's understandable and good for you to think about this as an argument in the caucus.

[Darb]

34. Some of us aren't wedded to a candidate and might like to speculate.

Others not so much. I am wondering what happens next. Nothing I say will have any effect on tonight's outcome.

If I voted today it would be Hillary. No big though, I would gladly vote for Bernie if he manages to get the nom.

[demwing]

39. He has answered

The answer is "the question is so speculative that it can't be answered accurately"

[Darb]

41. Must have missed that. Could you direct me to it?

It's not that speculative at all, really. All right, if you insist, what happens if Bernie wins by double digits?

There, is that better?

[demwing]

42. wont happen

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just won't happen.

If it does, I'll apologize, and then we can discuss. Fair enough?

[Darb]

43. Ok, sure.

No big though.

[demwing]

48. I have to admit, I didn't see this coming

this is as close as you can get. As a Bernie supporter, I have to say that I'm sorry to the team, but I expected Clinton would win by a point or two. This is the most political fun I've had since Obama's last debate with Romney

[Trajan]

26. Politico should know ...

They've been carrying Hillary's water for about a year now ...

[libdem4life]

30. Democratic insiders...well, I guess that settles it. I'll just wait for tonight/tomorrow for the

real vote. It is what it will be. I'm sure some sage taught me that.

[hifiguy]

35. Well if Tiger Beat on the Potomac* says so

who are we to question?

*Charlie Pierce's pet name for Politico

[jillan]

37. I wish I had a crystal ball too - don't you?

[Jarqui]

40. If Bernie could pull this off, he'd put a bunch of shutdap in a lot of these pundits

I know, I know, there will be a long list of excuses for their denial...

[Fearless]

46. Evidently they didn't get the memo. .2% lead currently is a tie.