From Huffington Post a gentleman by the name of HA Goodman offers up what is labeled an analysis of why Bernie Sanders  will be the next president. A little disclaimer here. I’m a progressive and I support Bernie Sanders. In my writing about election campaigns and contests however, I try to speak from my head and not my heart. Mr. Goodman provides us an example of the latter. It’s a storage unit chock full of random odds and ends of incoherent ideas and notions delivered with all the enthusiasm of a pennant waving kid at his first major league baseball game.  I posted a long comment. I’ve posted an edited version of it after the jump.

Mr. Goodman first states that Bernie’s ascending poll numbers are unprecedented. “[N]obody in American politics goes from 5.3% support in the Democratic Primary race on March 9, 2015 to over 30% support in December, without media attention.”

My take: Bernie’s rise in the polls is certainly heartening, but it is by no means an extraordinary occurrence. George McGovern’s average poll numbers from January to June 1971? 5% with name recognition of 50%. Jimmy Carter’s average poll numbers for the same months in 1975? 1%, name recognition, 30%. Dukakis for the same months in 1987? 7.5%, name recognition 30%. So, good to see Bernie’s rise in the polls, but certainly not unprecedented and really not an indicator of whether he will beat Hillary.

Next he states that Bernie is sure to sweep both Iowa and New Hampshire and this will propel him to certain victory because…well, because it will.

My take: Bernie has a great shot at taking New Hampshire, but Iowa is a much steeper climb for him. Hillary has a vast, well-trained field machine in place there and the reports are they are much more professional and are getting greater penetration than Bernie’s organization. It’s not too late, for him of course. But if anyone wants to put their time where their mouth is, they should get to Iowa and knock on doors for the Bern.

More importantly though, Iowa and New Hampshire are not even close to being the whole ball game. Hillary could lose both and still cruise to victory. After all, Bill Clinton didn’t win any of the first five primaries in 1992. So, if anyone thinks if Bernie pulls off wins in Iowa and New Hampshire it’s game over, they are very mistaken. There is often little momentum that an insurgent candidate gains from a victory in one of the early primaries. Huckabee got no bump in 2008, and neither did Obama–who did not top Hillary in the polls until four weeks after Iowa.

Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War will be a significant factor in people voting against her.

My take: I despise the fact that Hillary voted for the Iraq War; but let’s face it, nobody loses an election because of a detestable vote. And it’s way too early to say whether the email situation will present problems for her. But I tend to side with Bernie on this one. Nobody cares about her damn emails.

Polls show Hillary is distrusted by voters. Also, Mr Goodman personally does not trust Hillary.

My take: There is zero correlation between trust/distrust polling and how people vote. Plenty of studies out there on this; and anyone who’s ever run a campaign knows this. Sad to say, it just has no effect on how people vote. Similarly, and a fortiori, the fact that Mr. Goodman personally doesn’t trust Clinton is not a factor on her chances for being elected. Cheerleading is fine and analysis is fine, but they don’t taste good together in the same soup. One should stick to one or the other.

People will vote against Hillary because of the specter of future scandals during her presidency.

My take: people do not base their vote on future scandals.

Wins in Iowa and New Hampshire will propel Bernie to a series victories in primaries in southern states because they will “lead to a complete paradigm shift within America’s political landscape.” 

My take: A win in Iowa can help a conservative Republican in the South (Huckabee, Santorum). Where’s the evidence that wins in Iowa and New Hampshire by a liberal candidate helps him/her in the South? There is none because it doesn’t. Look, you can’t win an election unless you solve the problems facing your campaign and you can’t solve those problems if you don’t face them. There are no magical solutions (a category I place this IA-NH momentum theory in). The hard reality is Bernie is not currently polling at all well in South Carolina and he is going to face great difficulty there and in winning southern states. That doesn’t mean he can’t win them. It just means he has to do more than just take Iowa and New Hampshire to win them. A “paradigm shift?” Uh, no. Wishful thinking at best.

Hillary’s committed delegates mean nothing because they are not bound by public statements.

It’s true delegates are not bound by public statements but the vast majority of delegates are bound by a candidate’s performance in primaries. Super delegates that commit have endorsed one candidate or another and endorsements do have an effect on the outcome of primaries. (see fivethirtyeight.com).

Hillary’s current lead in the polls is vulnerable because she was also leading in 2008.

My take: Clinton’s lead in the polls is different this time around. While it is true that Bernie is currently polling better than Obama did at the same point in 2008, Hillary is also polling much higher than she did in 2008. There were a lot more undecided voters in 2008 a large portion of which Obama deftly turned in his favor. Far fewer this time around, which makes it harder for Bernie to break into the 40s polling-wise.

Edward Snowden says there is no way Hilary’s private email server was not hacked. National security concerns will turn people against her.

My take: Edward Snowden’s opinions will not affect this election in the slightest.

In addition to the above, we get Putin, Donald Trump’s roast, and Monica Lewinsky all thrown into the mix and playing a part in the analysis. There’s really nothing in the article to support the argument that Bernie’s election to the presidency is a foregone conclusion, which seems to be the premise. It is certainly not going to happen by trashing Hillary and through magical conjecture, which seems to be more of the point of this piece.

The things that pass for analysis I can’t understand…. (with apologies to Donald Fagen).