Okay, regarding the latest CNN poll, no one should be all that surprised that there has been a change. I diaried the last CNN poll that showed that the lead was changing with the same question about the NAs and what looked like a lack of younger voters polled. It threw the diarist earlier today off as well. It's a simple error because no other poll ever shows NAs.
I also diaried the recent NH poll showing Bernie's lead narrowing.
Anyone who's been through more than one campaign cycle will be aware of how these things shift and move. What I would like to do is put this in perspective compared to 2008. (Follow over the break)
(And to head off the "BUT ALL THESE SANDERS DIARIES SAID!" Comments. Yes, Sanders supporters are rightfully excited about their candidate doing well, so yes they will write triumphant headlines. Guess what? So did Obama, Edwards and Clinton supporters in 2008. It would be nice, just once, if people on this site could stop attacking each other's enthusiasm for our candidate and save all our snark and vitriol for the Republican candidates, you know, the jackasses that deserve it. Thanks)
Let's talk about the last election where we had a spunky outsider challenging the system, 2008, and here's why.
From Wiki
At the end of the year, December 31, Clinton held a substantial lead in superdelegates, and she was leading in the national polls with 42% of likely voters, over Obama, 23%, and Edwards, 16%.[30] However, Edwards and Obama remained close in state polls for the early contests, including the Iowa caucuses, where the final polling average had Obama leading narrowly, 31%, over Clinton, 30%, Edwards, 26%, Biden, 5%, and Richardson, 5%.[31]
This was after Oprah campaigned for Obama and it was estimated she pulled in a lot of votes for him. Sanders doesn't have an Oprah level endorsement but he does have
128 other celebrities. Who knows how that will affect votes, if any. The variety in race, gender and age are interesting though.
Back to 2008:
Obama won the Iowa caucuses with 38% of the vote, over Edwards, 30%, and Clinton, 29%. His victory brought him to national prominence as many voters tuned into the race for the first time. In a speech that evening, he defined change as the primary theme of his campaign and said, "On this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do."[40] The delegate count was virtually tied, but Clinton's surprising third-place finish in the popular vote damaged her image as the "inevitable" nominee.[41] However, she remained upbeat, saying "This race begins tonight and ends when Democrats throughout America have their say. Our campaign was built for a marathon."[41] The following day, reports described "panic" among some Clinton donors,[42] and rumors of a staff shake-up began to circulate.[43] Biden and Dodd withdrew from the race.
The momentum generated by Obama's larger-than-expected win in South Carolina was deflated somewhat by the win Clinton claimed in the nullified Florida primary the following week. John Edwards suspended his candidacy on January 30. He did not immediately endorse either Clinton or Obama, but said they both had pledged to carry forward his central campaign theme of ending poverty in America. Neither Clinton nor Obama had a clear advantage heading into the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries, with 23 states and territories and 1,681 delegates at stake and more media attention than any primary election day in American history.
Now the current poll numbers are:
CNN/ORC
9/4-9/8 9/17-9/19 Difference
Clinton % 37 42 +5
Sanders % 27 24 -3
IPSOS/Reuters
9/5-9/9 9/12-9/16 Difference
Clinton % 42 46 +4
Sanders % 28 25 -3
Morning Consult
9/4-9/7 9/11-9/13 Difference
Clinton % 51 54 +3
Sanders % 27 24 -3
Which means Sanders is right around where Obama was in 2008. Now, once the media stops pushing Biden, things will of course change. However, as far as the polling is concerned both of these races are 3 person set ups.
Now let's talk about the differences. Obama had a ton more media coverage, positive and negative and raised more money in the first three months than Bernie has. Yet Bernie is still running the same in the polls as Obama was back in 2008. Obama also had the added benefit of being a historic candidate, which Sanders, although being an avowed Socialist, is really not. Whether or not Sanders can continue in the similar pattern as Obama remains to be seen.
What we do know from what Sanders has hinted is that his fundraising for this most recent quarter, when released will be newsworthy, which could push him back up. We also know that he is starting to focus on Super Tuesday states now.
With regards to money, I found this article from the NYT which is rather interesting. It shows how much money campaigns have spent so far. Sanders is being incredibly frugal. He's raised $15.2, spent $3.1 million so far and has not gotten any PAC money. Hillary has raised $67.8 million, both PAC and individual donors, has spent around $23 million so far. For all that money spent she is barely pulling in 50% of the vote at the moment. She has spent around $4 million in ads in New Hampshire and Iowa and is trailing in both states. This is not me bashing, these are facts.
This election, like 2008, seems to be shaping up into a completely different beast than we are used to seeing. So everyone take a breath, focus on helping your candidate of choice and try to keep the history in mind. Things change quickly in elections and it doesn't take all that much for fortunes to change overnight.