HILLARY ON FIRE: She's completely turned around her campaign with her best month yet

[DemocratSinceBirth]

There was a moment on Thursday when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in total control.

She had just finished the second round of four during a marathon, 11-hour grilling on the most controversial point of her tenure at the State Department.

But around 4 p.m. — about six hours after the congressional hearing into the 2012 attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, had started — she was all smiles.


"Are you going to come to my Katy Perry concert?" she asked one apparent supporter in the audience, referring to a campaign stop over the weekend in Iowa.

"I hope so!" the man said.

"I hope so, too!" she responded.


http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-biden-debate-benghazi-testimony-2015-10

[Iliyah]

1. Come on, 11 hours, really, and

WTF did they accomplish, egg on their faces, and triumph for HRC.

To falsify evidence and lie endlessly truly disrespected the 4 Americans killed and countless Libyans. GOPers are some sick mother****ers.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Yes, she has had a great month, two areas many thought she would fail, she not only met both with

presidential style but she hit both out of the ball park.

[MineralMan]

3. True enough. What people don't understand, I think,

is that presidential elections are not just about policies and positions. In fact, most voters decide based on other things. Hillary's on a roll right now. Unless she screws up in a major way, she'll be the Democratic nominee. If so, she'll be our President.

That's why I'm supporting her in the primaries. I want a Democratic President in 2017. She's got the best shot at that.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. You're so right, MM. Presidential elections is less about policies and more about personality

and temperament. In Hillary's case, it's also gender equality and having the first woman president (for many, though not for me even though I'm a woman and old enough to focus on issues and the reality of getting them through Congress).

Hillary is doing a phenomenal job so far and I don't see her screwing up in any way. I firmly believe she'll be our next president and for eight years, too.

[workinclasszero]

14. She not only has the best shot

She has the only shot. IMO

No way in hades could Bernie ever win a national election against a Koch bros funded demogoue.

He would lose in a landslide.

Hillary has beaten their asses for decades and she just got done doing it again in the Congressional witch trial!

[Attorney in Texas]

5. I like Clinton, but prefer Sanders. Why is Sanders leading in NH and closing in Iowa if this was

Clinton's best month ever?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Maybe because those are cherry picked polls and Iowa and New Hampshire are homogeneous hamlets:

Maybe because those are cherry picked polls with dubious methodology* :

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html

and IA and NH are homogeneous hamlets:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33000.html

Could you please cite aggregate polling from more heterogeneous states like Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, New York, California, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois, et cetera.

Thank you in advance.


*I will elaborate on the dubious methodology if you wish.

[Attorney in Texas]

7. The polls aren't cherry picked; they're the most recent. The states aren't cherry picked; they're

the first two electoral contests (and Iowa is now less than 100 days away).

I appreciate that Iowa and New Hampshire are not as diverse as I might prefer, but I did not set the primary/caucus calendar.

You agree, I assume, that the results in Iowa and New Hampshire have historically affected the campaigns and results in other subsequent caucuses and primaries. Agreed?

If so, what good is aggregate polling from states where the candidates have not yet campaigned and where we already know that the results will likely be skewed by the prior results in Iowa and New Hampshire? Polling from states where the candidates have not yet campaigned is mostly just a reflection of name recognition, and will necessarily fail to account for post-Iowa and post-New Hampshire momentum (if any) for the candidate who wins those early contests.

As a Sanders supporter who considers Sanders an underdog and who will financially support, campaign for, and vote for our nominee in the fall (regardless of whether it is Clinton or Sanders), I think that early celebrations by the Clinton campaign are the biggest threat to her campaign. Clinton has done well treating the contest as a policy-based discussion of the issues (this puts a stop to the harmful "coronation" meme and allows Clinton to position herself as a moderate going into the general election), and this is not the time to switch from a thoughtful-debate campaign mode to a victory-lap campaign mode.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. As my link to aggregate polling indicates there are other IA and NH polls of recent vintage

As my link to aggregate polling indicates there are other IA and NH polls of recent vintage and they paint a different picture and the methodology of the the yougov state polls are dubious at best:

The CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker is a panel study based on interviews conducted on the internet of registered voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The poll was conducted by YouGov, an online polling organization. The first wave was fielded between September 3-10, 2015, with 4,860 respondents, and the second wave fieldwork was completed between October 15-22, 2015, with 3,952 respondents, the majority of which are recontacts. Respondents were selected from YouGovs and two other online panels. These are “opt-in” panels which are open for anyone to join. However, YouGov also randomly selected persons from voter registration lists who had previously voted in primary elections and contacted them by phone. A total of 20,017 registered voters were contacted by phone and the YouGov sample includes 1,290 phone recruits.

It seems like a polling melange, prone to error...If you go to the aggregate polling you see a pattern. They appear to be outliers.

You agree, I assume, that the results in Iowa and New Hampshire have historically affected the campaigns and results in other subsequent caucuses and primaries. Agreed?

Not necessarily... Aggregate polling suggests African Americans and Latinos have shown no inclination to support Senator Sanders in significant numbers. I don't see how they are going to be swayed by him doing well in two of the most homogeneous states in the Union. In fact I suspect some of them feel alienated as other folks get to decide who the nominee is first instead of all folks deciding simultaneously.

I would also be remiss if I didn't state that the last five presidents have won the South Carolina primary while the last three presidents have lost the New Hampshire primary.

Your point about triumphalism is well taken. To me , it's an antidote to all the poo slung at Ms. Clinton and her supporters on this board. As Friedrich Nietzsche opined " Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."

I don't like to be a bad guy and fight with other Democrats...My opponents are those that revere the elephant.

[Attorney in Texas]

12. Aggregate polling shows Clinton leading Iowa but her lead narrowing and shows Sanders leading NH.

Don't we agree on those two points?

This current polling you want to de-emphasize shows Clinton narrowly leading Iowa and shows Sanders leading NH, agreed?

How different is it from the aggregate polling except in that it is the most recent polling? Only time will tell if this polling is a bellwether or an anomaly.

Sanders' appeal among African-Americans and Latinos has hardly been tested. Sanders is a Senator from Vermont and is not widely known in states with larger African-American and Latino communities. Likewise, the nature of the campaign has focused Sanders' efforts on Iowa and New Hampshire, and so this focus of the campaign has not necessarily remedied his unfamiliarity within those larger African-American and Latino communities. Ultimately, the campaign will expand into states with bigger African-American and Latino communities, and -- when Sanders has campaigned more extensively in those communities -- we might have more data calibrating the inclination within such communities to support Sanders, but it seems early to make such a definitive assessment based on the current data.

Clinton supporters should not be so defensive against the Sanders supporters. It is one thing for the underdog to rally the troops without seeming to cross the line into bullying, but it is a finer line to walk for the supporters of the almost prohibitive favorite to rally support without giving the impression of wanting to prematurely crown the favorite as the nominee. A vigorous primary debate benefits no one more than it benefits Clinton and so the contest is a fact that Clinton supporters should seek to perpetuate rather than seek to prematurely bring to a close. The fact that Sanders is debating Clinton on policy issues (and not engaging in the petty bullshit the Republican clown car is engaged in) is a fact that Clinton supporters should celebrate. Plus, the fact that Sanders makes Clinton seem relatively moderate (whereas if it was a Webb-Clinton or a Biden-Clinton contest it would make her appear relatively liberal) is a circumstance may benefit Clinton in the general election and so it is another facet of the primary that works well to Clinton's benefit.

Without Sanders, Clinton has no basis to appear in the news except to respond to FauxNews smears. Be glad that Sanders offers her a principled opponent who is keeping the debate focused on issues rather than Trump-style personal attacks. be glad that the primary isn't over because an issue-oriented campaign staying in the news between now and the convention is what will best serve our nominee no matter who it is.

[DCBob]

13. Those polls are pre-Benghazi hearing plus the fact those are actually gains from previous polls.

"Bolstered by Iowa Democratic caucus-goers who say she won the recent debate, Hillary Clinton now has an edge over Bernie Sanders in Iowa. She's up three points there, after re-allocating the supporters of Vice President Joe Biden. Those caucus-goers were then asked who'd they support if Biden decided not to run."

"In New Hampshire, Sanders is still up, though Clinton has cut into the lead he held in September."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-atop-iowa-gains-in-new-hampshire/

You also forgot to post South Carolina where Hillary is up huge. Bernie still has not found a way to connect with African American voters. He cant win without them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. The three women closest to Hillary are two black women and a brown woman

The three women closest to Hillary are two black women and a brown woman; Cheryl Mills an African American woman, Maggie Williams, an African American woman, and Huma Abedin, an Arab woman... They have been her friends and confidantes for decades...Her association with Ms. Williams and Ms. Mills goes back nearly thirty years...They aren't window dressing for the campaign...Bill and Hill have been fixture in the African American and Latino communities since they were registering Hispanic voters in Texas for George McGovern in 1972.

These bonds aren't going to be shaken over the course of an election season, anecdotal information notwithstanding.

[DCBob]

17. Yeah, but Bernie pals around with Cornell West.

Doesn't that count?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I don't want to be like the VT senator and engage in negative posting.

I prefer to make the affirmative case.

[Cha]

28. LOL! Yes that "counts".. against.

[Ed Suspicious]

16. Never discuss polls with these people! You cannot win based on their shitty polls and when you do

they will tell you how shitty your polls are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Maybe you have evidence for your allegation

I cited aggregate polling:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=724017


not this or that poll that makes me feel better or worse...



Thank you in advance, Mr. Suspicious.

[reformist2]

9. Wall Street and the Dow Jones are happier than anyone about this!

[ToxMarz]

22. What about that graph has anything to do with Hillary or the entire 2016 election

That shows the sell off in August caused by panic and sell off in China/Asia markets, then clawing back the losses when fears quieted. I'm not saying Wall Street is or is not happy, but that doesn't bolster your claim. The market drama in that chart has nothing to do with who the next President may be.

[Agschmid]

23. Nothing...

[reformist2]

24. Nothing... except that it looks exactly like her poll numbers.

[Agschmid]

25. Obama sure looked like grumpy cat the other day...

Does that make him a cat?

Again as correlation does not cause causation, especially when the x-axis is not the same timeframe.

[ToxMarz]

27. It could be the graph of the days temperature if a sudden thunderstorm passed through

Maybe Hillary could go to California and end the drought too.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I agree that she's had a very good couple weeks.

If I were running vegas-style odds, hers have certainly gone up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. They have

http://www.predictwise.com/

The precipitous decline of Jeb Bush is astounding as well... He might be out of the race by March...He has to win IA or NH or SC.

The good thing is nobody is better at dirty campaigning than the House of Bush so they might destroy some of the stronger general election opponents was well as himself...

It's hard to believe the House of Bush will go out with a whimper.

[Attorney in Texas]

20. Predictwise on the general election: Clinton 55%, Rubio 14%, Sanders 9%, Trump 7%, Bush 6%, Carson3%

It is shocking to me (and pleasing) that Bush has fallen below Sanders as a likely president just 99 days before the Iowa caucus.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. That 55% is crazy high and it eclipses the 51% when she announced her campaign...

I suspect no non-incumbent presidential candidate has been that high at this point in the campaign calendar, 100 days out from the first primary, since Ike?


Before anybody attacks me I realize betting markets/ predictions markets are fluid* and they change as events change. That being said it doesn't surprise me that the San Antonio Spurs are have much odds to win a championship than say, the Los Angeles Lakers:


http://www.predictwise.com/node/4129



* I check them daily at HRC at her nadir was at 67%/41% so she has got a huge bump in the past couple of weeks.

[cantbeserious]

26. Why Is The Democratic Party (HRC) Afraid Of Larry Lessig?