Checking out updates, CNN writes about the challenge Hillary will have going into New Hampshire, having essentially lost Iowa that she was supposed to win. It's that "essentially" part (my summation) and ignore that she either slightly (votes) or largely (delegates) won that reflects the fickleness of expectations. Sure, if you believed polls from Iowa 3 months ago, it was game over. If you have any experience in this, you know that polls can close rapidly as the day comes close. In any case, it's funny to see CNN treat it as a loss.

Funnier, however, is that if you look at the delegate count, Hillary leads 28 to 21 with 3 to be decided. Eight years ago, Hillary was running close in popular vote but continually losing in the war over actual delegates - the ones that count at the convention. For example, Hillary had a draw in Nevada caucuses 8 years ago, but Obama ended up swamping her 2 to 1 on delegates. Super Tuesday was less a wipeout popular-vote wise (Clinton won by 100,000 votes), but Obama was seen winning 13 contests to 10, with a 13 delegate advantage out of ~1700.

Pre-caucus reports had Hillary's ground team not only doing a thorough job going door-to-door (seen as better than Bernie's ground game), but much better prepared for the Caucus itself, where chaos can easily reign, and a clever leader can quickly corral uncertain voters to his/her corner. Apparently it would seem that Hillary's team got that right this time - 4/7 of the delegates despite a draw in popular vote and precinct votes (plus likely she'll have pledged superdelegates to increase the tally).

Still, that may not be enough for some - the ground rules change as to "what's a victory", so that while some say Hillary wins by not losing (my take), others will play the "oh, she should have put it away, so Bernie comes out the winner", which will certainly be the Sanders takeaway. 

But was Hillary really expected to win? Sure, last summer. But as Bernie's message got going, as the continuing media slamming of Hillary (oh noes, another NY Times scuttlebutt or "derp" that Hillary will be indicted? I'm patenting the word "derpitude"), as the candidates hone their message and pour in money, we've gotten a much better assessment of the real odds - not just the fanciful notion from August or before Christmas. And while a lot of water's flown over the dam since she came in 3rd in Iowa, the fact remains she came in 3rd - beaten not just by Obama's blitzkrieg ground game, but also John Edwards' anti-poverty traveling road show. She came, she saw, she limped away.

While Bernie's team has done a wonderful job of making its liberal case, and built the case on where public's aspirations are, the graphic below shows that "liberal" is hardly the done deal that Team Bern promotes. One can guess that liberalism will never come around to the southern states on the bottom here, while Hillary's already proven strong showing in large Midwest states like Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, and it's questionable whether Bernie's Wall Street bashing will help him in New York and New Jersey, roughly Hillary's home turf these days.

But first things first - New Hampshire comes next week, and while a larger Iowa victory than a near vote tie would have made it easier for Hillary to claim momentum and reverse Bernie's numbers a bit, she's still found more of an edge the last week to inspire voters (stolen memes on wealth disparity or not). Overall, New Hampshire is a holding tactic to see if she can draw near even, as she goes into friendlier states like South Carolina and likely Nevada. Though it shouldn't be lost that 8 years ago she pulled out something of a surprise win when folks thought she was going under.

I don't expect that to happen this time with Bernie's home son advantage and a more liberal tilt, but it could be closer than imagined (and perversely, post-Iowa, a vote for Bernie's not quite the outsider vote as it was a week ago). I also expect more people will cross over to vote for Trump now that he's seen his shadow (or they've seen Cruz's shadow), but that's a finger-in-air projection, and if it comes to pass, I don't know who it hurts most.

It's also pretty obvious that the money difference will come into play by Super Tuesday - a month from now - as Hillary + PAC are holding or spending roughly twice as much as Bernie, who's been able to target Iowa and New Hampshire much better than he'll be able to work nationwide.

Still, Bernie's held his own to date. The 30% difference in South Carolina - 3 1/2 weeks away - no longer seems insurmountable in light of a quick since-new-years makeup of 15 points in Iowa. And Bernie doesn't need to win South Carolina - he needs to make an impressive enough showing to put him in the game for Super Tuesday, though that also includes putting Hillary away well enough in New Hampshire.

One key takeway is the Iowa contest relied on Bernie getting enough young voters out to make a difference (results are in: 18-29: 18%, a whopping 84% of which for Bernie; 30-44: 19%), and it looks like that's not a demographic he can rely on the way Obama could, and that will likely be much harder with young minority voters who have less skin in the game (oops, bad pun slipped in) and less track record getting to the polls outside of 2008. One tack that could change things would be a Ferguson-like rallying call that sees Bernie as taking on the mantle of anti-racism advocate, but that's been bubbling for a while with no real traction. Or there can be a "Hillary is racist" meme that takes hold, which Coates & others seemed to be grabbing at with her non-specific comments about Lincoln and Reconstruction.

But seeing as O'Malley's dropped out, the worst Hillary can shoot for now is only 2nd from last.