does sanders have a legitimate shot at winning the iowa caucus?

[WalterMitty]

yes.

[Gallium]

No. This isn't 2008 where Hillary was trailing Edwards in Iowa throughout 2007 and had to face a hugely gifted senator from the state next door. She's far ahead now, has the unanimous support of party actors in the state, and is running a smarter Iowa campaign that will have an extraordinary ground game on caucus day.

But I think Sanders has enough enthusiastic support that he'll be able to unite most of the ABH votes and do about as well as Bill Bradley did in 2000. He'll get around 30% of the vote and make her sweat.

This is much more 2000 and 2004 redux than 2008 redux.

[Tender Branson]

Depends on how effective Sanders' campaign will be and if he can score some points during the debates.

But I'd give him a bigger shot at winning NH than IA.

[WalterMitty]

Depends on how effective Sanders' campaign will be and if he can score some points during the debates.

But I'd give him a bigger shot at winning NH than IA.

vt and nh are very different, despite being neighbors.

[Blair]

Why does everyone think that democrat primary voters=Atlasian Democrats.

I doubt if Warren could win Iowa, and she's a more toned down version of Sanders with a bigger following. IIRC Hillary lost Iowa in 2008 because she ran an awful campaign, Edwards took up a lot of the white working class vote and Obama got record levels of people to caucus for him

How many people will want to freeze their asses off for Sanders?

[Meeker]

Almost certainly not, but lightening strikes every now and then. We should know by Halloween if he has any real chance.

As I mentioned in another thread, the Clinton campaign knows that debates are nothing but free ads for him. So they'll avoid or delay or limit them as much as possible. The DNC is not going to go against what Clinton wants, just as they wouldn't go against what the White House wants.

[Eraserhead]

Yes. It's not likely but it's certainly not impossible.

[Gallium]

Iowa's leading political blog recently rebuffed some of the revisionist narratives that gets written about the 2008 caucus:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Sanders manages to poach Obama's political team from Hillary's camp and break all turnout records, he isn't going to win. But he will make a good showing.

[bedstuy]

No way.

[WVdemocrat]

Well if he can consolidate the anti-Hillary vote and turn out far leftists to vote, then maybe, but I highly doubt it. Hillary in 2016 is much stronger than Hillary in 2008 and Webb and O'Malley will surely take doe of the anti-Hillary vote from him.

[IceSpear]

Iowa's leading political blog recently rebuffed some of the revisionist narratives that gets written about the 2008 caucus:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Sanders manages to poach Obama's political team from Hillary's camp and break all turnout records, he isn't going to win. But he will make a good showing.

Speaking of revisionist history, let's not forget how the media constantly talked about how "Hillary got a pathetic third place in Iowa", while continuing to say their darling John McCain "tied for third", a clear double standard considering he was a close fourth place just as Hillary was a close third place.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/01/05/media-declare-mccain-tied-for-third-in-iowa-but/142060

Anyway, caucuses are unpredictable, so he doesn't have no chance. I'll give him about ~3-5% odds. I'm not sure whether or not that qualifies as a "legitimate shot."

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Speaking of revisionist history, let's not forget how the media constantly talked about how "Hillary got a pathetic third place in Iowa", while continuing to say their darling John McCain "tied for third", a clear double standard considering he was a close fourth place just as Hillary was a close third place.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/01/05/media-declare-mccain-tied-for-third-in-iowa-but/142060

Anyway, caucuses are unpredictable, so he doesn't have no chance. I'll give him about ~3-5% odds. I'm not sure whether or not that qualifies as a "legitimate shot."

Didn't McCain skip Iowa in favor of NH?

I definitely agree with you on the unpredictability of caucuses. That's a fair likelihood of Sanders winning, I'd say. It makes voting in these yes/no type polls difficult. As much as I love Sanders, I have to be realistic. My guess at this point is that it will be similar to Gore and Bradley in 2000 (I do think that Bernie has a good chance at NH though).

[Maxwell]

Iowa's leading political blog recently rebuffed some of the revisionist narratives that gets written about the 2008 caucus:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Sanders manages to poach Obama's political team from Hillary's camp and break all turnout records, he isn't going to win. But he will make a good showing.

Speaking of revisionist history, let's not forget how the media constantly talked about how "Hillary got a pathetic third place in Iowa", while continuing to say their darling John McCain "tied for third", a clear double standard considering he was a close fourth place just as Hillary was a close third place.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/01/05/media-declare-mccain-tied-for-third-in-iowa-but/142060

Anyway, caucuses are unpredictable, so he doesn't have no chance. I'll give him about ~3-5% odds. I'm not sure whether or not that qualifies as a "legitimate shot."

McCain literally didn't contest Iowa. Fourth place, comparably, was downright impressive compared to the woman who was generally tied for first place in Iowa.

[IceSpear]

Iowa's leading political blog recently rebuffed some of the revisionist narratives that gets written about the 2008 caucus:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Sanders manages to poach Obama's political team from Hillary's camp and break all turnout records, he isn't going to win. But he will make a good showing.

Speaking of revisionist history, let's not forget how the media constantly talked about how "Hillary got a pathetic third place in Iowa", while continuing to say their darling John McCain "tied for third", a clear double standard considering he was a close fourth place just as Hillary was a close third place.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/01/05/media-declare-mccain-tied-for-third-in-iowa-but/142060

Anyway, caucuses are unpredictable, so he doesn't have no chance. I'll give him about ~3-5% odds. I'm not sure whether or not that qualifies as a "legitimate shot."

McCain literally didn't contest Iowa. Fourth place, comparably, was downright impressive compared to the woman who was generally tied for first place in Iowa.

Maybe, but that wasn't the point. Either McCain was tied for third and Hillary was tied for second, or they were third and fourth respectively.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

What is Sanders position on corn?

[WalterMitty]

sanders voted against the brady bill.  great.  another gun loving populist...  should play well in iowa.