NBC poll says a Republican will probably win Iowa

[Eric J in MN]

NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of Iowa released today


Trump vs. Clinton - Trump 48, Clinton 41: Trump +7
Bush vs. Clinton - Bush 50, Clinton 40: Bush +10
Fiorina vs. Clinton - Fiorina 52, Clinton 38: Fiorina +14
Trump vs. Sanders - Sanders 48, Trump 43: Sanders +5
Bush vs. Sanders - Bush 46, Sanders 44: Bush +2
Fiorina vs. Sanders - Fiorina 45, Sanders 42: Fiorina +3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/


I hope it's Trump vs. Sanders in the general election.

[AZ Progressive]

1. Iowa is a swing state. Even if there's the blue wall, you still need at least one state

to go over. Either its Iowa, Florida, Virginia, or Ohio.

[LW1977]

2. In other news...

It's still 2015

[Fred Sanders]

6. What is that you say? One year to the election? Wake me up when September ends.

[jfern]

3. Probably if Hillary is the nominee. Seems pretty tossup if Sanders is the nominee.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Assuming much relevance one year before any election means you need a course in political science.

[Reter]

5. Nominating Hillary would be a colossal failure

Sanders is our only hope.

[stevenleser]

7. Hillary has already faced down everything the Repugs can throw at her. Sanders hasnt yet.

His numbers will be 30-40 points less than they are if and when that happens.

[Samantha]

8. I don't think the Republicans can find any real dirt on Sanders

and I also do not believe there is anything they can say that will intimidate the man. He cannot be intimidated.

Sam

[FSogol]

11. They don't have to find dirt, they can just make it up. Also, they don't have to intimidate

him, they have to intimidate a bunch of mealy-brained voters into being scared.

[stevenleser]

12. There is obvious real dirt. He's a Socialist. That's more powerful than any nonsense about Clinton

And as the other responder to you said, even if there was nothing, they have no problems making stuff up or manufacturing outrage about a non issue.

[Fawke Em]

16. It's not illegal to be a socialist.

It is, however, illegal to disregard federal chain of custody rules regarding digital evidence.

[Samantha]

19. He is a Democratic Socialist which is different than being a pure socialist

I am sure they will make stuff up; I am also sure many will disregard the soap opera.

Sam

[Chan790]

10. Hillary opposition/unfavorables/hate is entrenched.

The numbers aren't going to move for Hillary in either direction, probably at-all. That's what I don't get about Hillary's "electability."

How is a 95% certain outcome of a loss an example of "electability?" She's a dead candidacy walking...I don't care what her primary numbers look like...she's already losing the GE with no chance of a rebound because it's unprecedented for anybody to win the Presidency when their unfavorables are this high and this entrenched for this long.

I'm not saying Sanders numbers aren't going to swing, probably wildly, but they could just as easily swing 30% up as down where we now know Hillary is down a few points and almost certainly cannot make them up.

Let's stop throwing away elections with the Democratic myth of "electability." Kerry was "electable." Gore was "electable." Bill Clinton was an upstart. Carter was an upstart in 1976 and was "electable" in 1980. Obama was an upstart and has never stopped being the upstart.

Do you notice a trend? "Electable" Democrats lose. Nominating Hillary equals President Jeb! or President Hairpiece or President Jesus Freak Fascist but not President Hillary R. Clinton.

[stevenleser]

13. What is more entrenched than that is that 50% of the country won't vote for a Socialist.

If you are worried about things like unfavorables and polling about innate dislikes and prejudices, Sanders is a non starter from the getgo.

Those 50% of people will vote for someone they don't like before they will vote for a Socialist.

[Chan790]

14. I do not believe that.

Socialist is a lovely boogieman that doesn't stand up when challenged...but people know Hillary and hate Hillary.

People tend to change their minds about Socialism when they are confronted with what Sanders is running on. I've heard a lot of conservatives and Democrats say "If Sanders is a socialist...well, I guess I am too because I really like what he's talking about and running on."

I haven't ever heard someone say their opinion of Hillary had changed in a positive direction. Not once in 20+ years on the national stage.

Wild fluctuation vs. the Hillary sinkhole. We can't win with Clinton...I wish she'd do America the favor of realizing she has no path to the Presidency but could cost us the White House by not dropping out...and drop out.

[stevenleser]

15. Since there is empirical data supporting it, what you do or do not believe is not at issue. nt

[Chan790]

18. Steve...empirical data is statistics.

you know..."lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I believe that that data is about as deep as the finger-bowl in front of me at lunch in this sushi restaurant.

When we're talking about data, we need to discuss two pieces of information, not one. Those are metrics (the raw measure of information) and certainty (the depth of commitment to a position as well as the accuracy of that information)...you're really tied up on metrics and I'm dismissive of metrics that have low certainty. More people will change their mind about socialists than Hillary...and political scientists know this because, and this is key, certainty is largely a function of familiarity.

I'm saying that I believe to a greater degree that some of those people will vote for a socialist than I believe that Hillary can change anybody's mind about hating her guts. One of those is permeable...and one is set in bedrock stone at this point and will never ever ever change.

I can say "I will never root for the Yankees or like poi." You take both at face-value...but I've been a Red Sox fan for nearly 40 years, my hatred of the Yankees is in the marrow of my bones and I've never even tried poi; who knows, maybe I'll like it.

Not all data is created equal or is equally valid.

[Garrett78]

29. Not to mention the "socialist" tag will be applied to Clinton, too.

Just as it's been tied to Obama. The idiots who carry signs reading "Don't Steal From Medicare To Support Socialized Medicine" aren't going to vote for Clinton either. It's a fallacy (and lazy thinking) to assume that everyone who may have at one point expressed some vague opposition to "socialism" (or what they perceive to be socialism) via some survey wouldn't vote for Sanders. Recent surveys show that large majorities are in agreement with Sanders on virtually every substantial issue.

The Democratic nominee will win the blue states, lose the red ones and battle over a handful of swing states. That's true regardless of who the nominee is. It isn't that Sanders isn't electable--that's a canard promoted by Clinton supporters and people in denial about how corporatized the Democratic Party has become. It's that Sanders isn't nominatable. Why? He threatens moneyed interests and he lacks both Clinton's name recognition and political infrastructure. And Clinton is falsely perceived to be a stronger proponent of civil rights than her history warrants. *Those* are the reasons Sanders doesn't stand a chance.

[Samantha]

20. We will just have to disagree on this

I have confidence he will prevail.

Sam

[hrmjustin]

17. Sanders hasn't shown he can win.

[Hawaii Hiker]

9. And Quinnipiac has Cllinton very competitive in Florida (polling released Oct 7)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Polling is all over the place at this point

[tritsofme]

21. Ridiculous OP headline.

A poll 13 months out says absolutely nothing about which party will probably win Iowa in the general.

[ForwardMotion]

22. Way too early for GE polling.

[hifiguy]

23. Polling about the GE at this point is ludicrous.

Absolutely meaningless. May as well literally read tea leave or the bumps on peoples' heads.

[RBInMaine]

24. MEANINGLESS right now. Polls don't mean diddly squat.

[Stuart G]

25. I like that .....diddly squat......squat...squat..isn't the election next month?..no? in 13 months?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. And, it seems more likely if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

[vadermike]

27. Ugh

And she is losing big time in OH and PA. This is cause for concern for us all. If she is losing to these clowns why even bother nominating her if she's gonna lose pretty handily

[book_worm]

28. It's way too early & some polls this early for 2012 had the GOP

candidates winning Iowa against Obama.