Lately it seems like Bernie Sanders people are everywhere you turn—and I'm talking about in real life, not just on the Internet where reality is meaningless.

This is a bit of a shift from where we were for most of 2015. You heard a lot about Sanders, but it's because his supporters, while few in number, were extremely vocal. Now they've actually swelled their ranks, to the point where he's polling ahead of Clinton in some states.

But so what?

There's a wide gap between what polls say and how people vote. And an even bigger gap between how people vote and who wins the election. Clinton still has two big advantages over Sanders: money and endorsements.

Clinton raised about $29.9 million in the third quarter of 2015, while Sanders trailed close behind at $26.2 million. He had more individual supporters, which is nice, but Clinton has more crazy-rich donors ($97 million from outside groups versus Sanders's $41.5 million), and that means more opportunities for her to reach out to investors again and again as the campaign drags on.

Also, even more importantly, Clinton has way more endorsements. In the past, this has been a much better predictor of victory than anything voters do. There's really no contest here: Nate Silver's outfit has Hillary with an endorsement score of 457 (that's one point per representative, five for senators, and 10 for governors) and Sanders with a score of two. Martin O'Malley has one point. (And it's from his longtime friend, Eric Swalwell. Aw.)

But then there's a polling. There's no denying it's good news for Sanders, at least in the two first states: He's leading by 53 percent to 29 percent in New Hampshire, and he's trailing by just three points in Iowa, 48 percent to 45 percent. That's well within the margin of error.

And here's where the numbers get fiddly: Those are just the numbers among likely voters. Among Democratic caucus-goers, Clinton's lead doubles in Iowa. So who knows what'll actually happen at the caucuses on February 1, when America will once again demonstrate to the world what a dumb election system we have clung to.

Of course, winning Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't guarantee success. The (comparatively) high concentration of white liberal voters in those states might tip them in favor of Sanders, only to see support dry up in the later, more diverse races.

For their part, the candidates are both clearly aware of how close the races are likely to be. Sanders is touting his poll numbers; the Clinton campaign is fighting back by highlighting Sanders's support for guns. (But it's important to note he hasn't taken any money from the NRA, so they don't own him.)

Sanders is also, for some reason, getting sexy. "We really do need a serious national discussion about sexuality," he said, which is true, though a little surprising to hear from this particular messenger. I have to admit I'm curious about how Sanders's thoughts on sexuality compare to my own, but I'm a little scared that it'll lead to dreams about him shouting at me naked at a bathhouse. Thank God this particular metric doesn't count, because then I'd have to be rooting for Marco Rubio.

Which candidate would you most like to see naked? Don't tell me you're not curious about Rand Paul's carpet and drapes.