Just how good was the Clinton campaign's ground game in IA/NV?

[IceSpear]

IA/NV may have been seen as "underwhelming" wins for Clinton at the time, but after seeing all these other caucuses results with Sanders winning by 20-60 point margins, I have a newfound respect for the campaign's strength in these two states.

[RJEvans]

IA/NV may have been seen as "underwhelming" wins for Clinton at the time, but after seeing all these other caucuses results with Sanders winning by 20-60 point margins, I have a newfound respect for the campaign's strength in these two states.

No idea, but it was definitely robust given the circumstances. She needed a win in these two states to stay alive. Clinton did not contest UT or ID. She did not spend money there or visited the states. Sanders did and he won ID by margin 5-points less than Obama. Can't make a comparison in UT given it was a primary in 2008. But he also outspent her 2-1 in Arizona and spent much more time in the state than her and he lost it by 18-points compared to the 8-point margin in 2008. He should be happy he netted more delegates than expected, but this does not bode well for the larger more favorable Clinton states.

[RaphaelDLG]

Not, like, the greatest ground game in the history of the Democratic primary or anything, but, as you imply, decidedly good.

Turning out the unions in LV (with help from Reid) was very important.  Iowa should be one of Bernie's best states for many reasons and, though it was early in the cycle, he only managed a "virtual tie."

[Mehmentum]

Clinton has actually done better in caucuses this time around than in 2008, her margin has been 7.7 points better on average.

State/Change from 2008
Iowa: +4.68
Nevada: -0.38
Minnesota: +11.39
Colorado: +15.59
Kansas: +12.72
Nebraska: +21.1
Maine: -9.34
Idaho: +5.53
Average: +7.7

The only states she's done worse in are Nevada (the only caucus she won in 2008) and Maine (in New England, where Sanders has an advantage).

I think Clinton invested a lot more into MN/CO/KS/NE than she did in 2008, which explains how she did so much better.  She basically left Idaho alone, and she only slightly improved as a result.

[psychprofessor]

it's the mook effect

[Figueira]

I don't see how Iowa and Nevada were underwhelming for Clinton, especially Iowa.

[IceSpear]

I don't see how Iowa and Nevada were underwhelming for Clinton, especially Iowa.

I don't really either. I was one of the few people at the time arguing the result was great for her considering it's a caucus in Iowa of all places. But later caucuses have only strengthened this argument.

[RaphaelDLG]

Clinton has actually done better in caucuses this time around than in 2008, her margin has been 7.7 points better on average.

State/Change from 2008
Iowa: +4.68
Nevada: -0.38
Minnesota: +11.39
Colorado: +15.59
Kansas: +12.72
Nebraska: +21.1
Maine: -9.34
Idaho: +5.53
Average: +7.7

The only states she's done worse in are Nevada (the only caucus she won in 2008) and Maine (in New England, where Sanders has an advantage).

I think Clinton invested a lot more into MN/CO/KS/NE than she did in 2008, which explains how she did so much better.  She basically left Idaho alone, and she only slightly improved as a result.

You should adjust this for the fact that she's clearly much farther ahead of Sanders nationally and was not ahead of Obama

[Figueira]

I don't see how Iowa and Nevada were underwhelming for Clinton, especially Iowa.

I don't really either. I was one of the few people at the time arguing the result was great for her considering it's a caucus in Iowa of all places. But later caucuses have only strengthened this argument.

It might have been underwhelming if you expected her to have a 49-state sweep, but in a competitive race between Clinton and Sanders, Iowa is one of the states I would normally expect to vote for Sanders.