Hillary Clinton Battle Analysis

Still this state holds a crucial role for both party’s elections. The state of Iowa is the first to cast its ballots. Those ballots are a very good indicators of the way other votes across the nation will vote. According to the recent polls, it is still undecided in Iowa. People are very indecisive about who they can vote. Despite multiple visits by the both candidates, voters are still unsure in this 11th hour. The reason behind the both candidates’ numerous visit is the fact that Iowa is the first to vote and whoever wins it, can have a head start. Hillary Clinton is most likely would strive to grab those six votes. The reason is the state has voted the Democratic candidate in five of the last six elections. But Hillary is not a popular choice towards the state’s most conservative Christians. While Hillary has succeeded to sway some conservative and Republican women to her side, she has still yet to convince her Democratic nominee running mate, Bernie Sanders supporters and young people. Lot of people in Iowa thinks both of the candidates are going to be disastrous towards this nation. Bryan Branscomb, an IT Specialist, said “Honestly, I'm a little lost. I feel both would be a detriment to the country." Some Iowans would still vote for Bernie Sanders if they could. So now, only thing I could say that no one knows who will own the state of Iowa this November

According to Huffington Post, “Sanders beats Trump in this [NBC News/Wall St.] poll by 16 points, as opposed to Clinton’s 10 point lead” and “the Democratic-Socialist from Vermont defeats Trump in all the polls by an average of 5.2 points, as opposed to the 2.5 points for Clinton.” Although many people refuse to believe it, Trump actually does have a very terrifying chance of winning the Republican nomination, especially considering the amount of people supporting him already. Sanders thankfully beats Trump by 5.2 points, which is more than twice as many points that Clinton has, giving him more of a chance of winning presidency. By voting for Hillary, you’re putting everything on the table, in danger of losing it all! Not only does Bernie have a better chance of winning against Trump and the other Republican potentials, he’s always been on the right side of history, knowing what decisions would impact both America and the world negatively, and vise-versa. For example, Sanders had voted against the Iraq War, knowing that there would be unavoidable consequences if America jumped in and fought. Clinton, however, had voted for the Iraq War and actually said, “I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past.” Another example would be the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would be a pipeline carrying heavy oil from Canada to the refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas, that would threaten water acquirers. Bernie had always been against Keystone, unlike his opponent who only recently decided to change her mind like many other issues. Making mistakes is simply not justifiable for the President of the United States, because those mistakes are almost impossible to fix without full-blown wars and the future of the country being jeopardized. Hillary acts as though

Continuing in her speech Hillary acknowledges the support of Bernie’s crowd and praises Bernie as a sagacious legislator and public servant. This is done to draw in the fragments of population who previously voted for Bernie sanders; to show that the missions of Bernie and Hillary are in actuality united.

Bernie is now posting his best poll numbers of the campaign to date. He's only 4 points behind in Iowa and gaining, solidly ahead in New Hampshire, and has national momentum, too. What Sanders needed to do Sunday night was maintain that momentum, continue his appeal to liberal base voters, and blunt any attacks that Clinton might be tempted to unleash at him. He accomplished all of that, even if he didn't give a focused, dominant performance. His release of his single-payer financing details denied Clinton a major attack line, he avoided getting bogged down in guns (clearly his worst issue from the Democratic base's perspective), and he struck an tone that made him seem relatively above the fray as Clinton tried out various critiques targeting

Since each state has a different amount of votes based on their prevalence in the House of Representatives, candidates often spend time in those that have a greater impact on the votes. In the last two elections, turnout rose in 14 of the “battleground states,” but everywhere else remained unchanged (Plutzer). While it is understandable to campaign heavy in the states that would provide the best results, it still leaves a large majority of the population left unchanged, all because the candidate is assured they have those state’s votes because of its usual voting pattern. These “swing states” are fought for because they could be won by either major party, and so they experience heavy campaigning, rallying, etc.. Although some of the swing states may not have many electoral college votes, they are sought after because they are the primary source of more votes, as the other states are generally either “red” or “blue” by that

Miller mentions that Democrats have had other inspired, populist candidates before that tried to continue their organization post-election and failed. Miller’s primary argument is that the organization has to be quite nearly independently run by regular everyday people. A point is made that historically campaigns like this have claimed to be one with the working people, but regardless of Sanders genuine working class upbringing, his political organization has to be led by community leaders rather than members of his team if it is to continue to exist. This is so important because a movement requires the ability to replicate and sustain its ideals. For leftwing politics to be successful anywhere, a majority of the public has to be committed to being continuously informed about the issues and prepared to play their own individual parts in aiding the cause. Once community led activism and political awareness is achieved, the movement can then address Miller’s secondary arguments: the unseating of corporate democrats and student debt. The unseating of “blue dog” democrats is of great importance following the animosity many Sanders supporters had during and after the ladder half of the primaries, where it was apparent that Hillary Clinton had been boosted by

In the year 1976 The democrat party really took most of their point from the southeast part of country where the value of the states is much higher than the state values of the mid to west states. The democrat party won states such as Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, And Louisiana that average around a value of 10, while the republican party won states such as Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming which have an average value around 4. So explaining the election of 1976, yes the republicans got a large chunk of states but the got a lot of states with low value. This resulted in the victory of Jimmy Carter. Now comparing the election of 2016. Hillary Clinton mainly won the east and west coast state while it seemed that Donald Trump had everything in between. Hillary went after the states that had higher point values but Donald just had so much of a bulk of states that he won. Another key to success for Trump is that he won major swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida which sealed his victory. So comparing the two elections, the keys to success were that you have to win states with the higher point value but you can not forget about the other states, and you have to win those swing states. The term “swing states” literally described what they are. If you don't win the majority of swing states, you do not win the

Sanders will receive 59 of the county's delegates to the state convention to 29 for Clinton, according to partial results from the Maine Democratic Party. Delegates to the state convention will select 25 or Maine's 30 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The other five are pre-selected “superdelegates.”

Thus, it is important to study the past trends of early primary results and candidate success. Chart 1 contains the results of the democratic primary and caucus of New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively, along with the resulting party nominee since 1976. Only one candidate, Bill Clinton in 1992, has lost both New Hampshire and Iowa and still been successful in obtaining the party nomination. Out of the six candidates that were successful in winning both New Hampshire and Iowa, all six were successful in clutching the

Blow, points out as why Bernie could win a state like Michigan. While, Clinton has the advantage in the south because she has the more connecting roots towards the south. Blow says that the south “favors regional candidates and the shunning of outsiders,” so someone like Clinton could win. While, in Michigan the regional and racial differences is why Bernie won. The reason Bernie Sanders won the Michigan primary is because of the increase voting for him in the racial category of African Americans. “The nonwhite portion of voters in Michigan’s Democratic primary, according to exit polls, was 30 percent. Furthermore, 21 percent was African-American. More important, Sanders won a larger share of the black vote in Michigan than he had won in any of the Southern states for which there were exit polls.” Sanders winning the African American vote in majority is how he could defeat Clinton. Specifically, “Sanders won just 11 percent of the black vote in Mississippi, but he won 28 percent of it in Michigan.” These statements implies that in the northern cities getting the minority voting majority, specifically African Americans, is where a candidate could

The Sanders campaign is mounting a last ditch effort to persuade most of the 712 super-delegates (541 of whom have already declared for Clinton) to reconsider, on the premise that Sanders has the better shot at beating Trump. They're increasingly in a go-for-broke mood. Many Sanders supporters are far more militant than Sanders himself, and some are openly expressing the

Hillary exposure towards the campaign is helping the economy and the public, middle class. She quotes “My dad played football at Penn State,” as she is speaking out to her voters. During the debate she quotes I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business.

Sanders has a deeper reservoir of support, the poll found. Thirty-nine percent of likely caucusgoers say their feelings about Sanders are very favorable, with just 8% having a negative view of him. That's a sharp contrast to Clinton: 27% view her very favorably, but 19% view her negatively.

The only thing that surprises me the most is that Hillary's supporters completely failing or ignoring the fact that Bernie's supporters didn't voted Bernie because he was running for the Democratic nomination. They voted him because he was Bernie. Nowhere in Democratic establishment or in Hillary's list I can see a single agenda that can match up with what Bernie wanted to deliver. No seeing that there is no possibility of Bernie getting nominated Bernie's supporters will ultimately decide to weigh who is less evil between Trump and Hillary and vote for him or her or even for third party candidate or they can simply decide not to vote. It's their choice. Hillary's supporters can yell about denial all day long and bang their head on wall all

Likewise, I wonder if Hillary Clinton will adopt a similar strategy. I believe Hillary Clinton must be more moderate to route Bernie Sanders in the South by appealing to traditional Blue Dog Democrats. Further, Clinton has to begin to strategically travel to these Southern states immediately. If Sanders was to win South Carolina his message will become much more appealing in the South. Thus, it is imperative Clinton travels to South Carolina and halt Sanders’s