Hillary finishes 3rd from last

    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.

     

    Comments

    Twitter flareup over Hillary calling victory too early - comments say "It's rigged, I tell ya".

    Further proof? she won 6 coin tosses - probably DNC/Debbie Wasserman-Schulz involved. 

    Team Bernie is flirting a bit with the conspiracy-and-poutrage, working the refs when things don't go their way.


    Iowa keeps touting that because of its small size requiring one-on-one contact with voters, it is the best representative of the way candidates should be selected. The truth is that Iowa is not predictive. More recently, all Iowa has shown on the Republican side is that Iowa Republicans are Evangelical wingnuts. The caucuses are ridiculous.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-history-wrong-president_us_56b0...


    Huckabee, Santorum & Cruz - wow, they're on a roll. Such party depth, such consistency.


    You know, the Daily Spin generally forgets Yesterday's Spin, let alone Last Week's Spin, which was so last week.

    So yeah, two days ago it was Bernie Has Big Momentum in Iowa (!!!). Clinton may lose!! (!!)

    CNN desperately wants a competitive contest, and they've been heavily pumping up Bernie in the run-up to Iowa. That's not a criticism of Bernie but a caveat about the media's agenda.

    On the flip side, the Spin of the Day is that Cruz's win is a Good Thing for the Republicans, despite the fact that last week party actors were trying to stifle Cruz. The truth is that side of the aisle can't get anything right these days.


    Per Dr. Cleveland: "So yeah, two days ago it was Bernie Has Big Momentum in Iowa (!!!). Clinton may lose!! (!!)"

    From Nate Silver two days ago -

    "Sanders’s momentum may have stalled right when it counts the most."

    "Sanders hasn’t gained on Clinton."

    "No late surge for Sanders."

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-may-win-iowa-after-all/


    Please differentiate between 538 and CNN - shouldn't be hard.


    Dr. Cleveland's post did not specify that the claimed spin emanated from CNN. In any case, I haven't found any evidence that CNN suggested Sunday the race was moving Sanders' way.  If it did it was ignoring all very recent poll results as the pertinent ones released Thursday through Sunday showed stalled momentum for Bernie or a shift to Hillary.  On the other hand, to the extent CNN did claim Bernie was surging it was right.  Sanders was behind in 6 of the last 7 Iowa Democratic caucus polls yet finished in a dead heat with Clinton.


    I was pleasantly surprised by the turnout of the Sandernistas but what was more interesting was how opaque, corrupt and undemocratic the Democrat Party operates. The Republicans vote for their choices and those votes are counted and displayed for all to see while the Dems hide their shenanigans behind state convention delegates and even worse Party Bosses called superdelegates  who can and do overrule the peoples choices. The rubes can't really be trusted with with important decisions so the Super Democrats relieve them of that burden.

    Even with this warped democracy on their side  the mood in the Clinton Winter Palace is probably near hysterical and the minions will be lashed for their incompetence, all out of public view. The coming weeks should bring out the Dark Side that always lurks near the surface of HRC's shallow public image.


    Glad those night school creative writing classes paying off.

    Purpose of those superdelegates is probly to keep the party from driving off the cliff. Hasn't hurt so far, eh?


    Why do you react so strongly and insultingly to criticism of Hillary Clinton and descriptions of the way the Democratic party is desperately trying to game the election on her behalf?  Why is this so personal to you?


    That's pretty funny coming from the guy who takes this so personally he's willing to make up insulting stereotypes of Hillary supporters to create strawmen to knock down.


    "Incurable romantic"?  is that bothering you?  Did I not defend the use of the term?  Moreover, I did not point to any individual.  I was referring specifically to those who claim Sanders supporters are voting with our hearts and Clinton supporters with their heads.  That was not an insult at all unless you think the converse is.


    I thought he was channeling the Russian Tsars and I was doing Ming the Merciless. It's a tango, a game.


    "[I]f you look at the delegate count, Hillary leads 28 to 21 with 3 to be decided." 

    The 44 votes decided by the actual caucus participants are likely to break 22 to 22.  Clinton will win Iowa's superdelegates who are Democratic party insiders.  This is not evidence that Americans prefer her or that she is better for everyday Americans.  It is evidence that fundraisers and Democratic bagmen and women are more comfortable with a Wall Street darling.  For example,

    New York’s superdelegates are all elected officials or party insiders supporting Ms. Clinton. Superdelegates include former President Bill Clinton, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, both U.S. senators, all Democrat members of the House from New York, and members of the DNC, including Clinton backers like Jennifer Cunningham, Jay Jacobs and Maria Cuomo Cole. 

    http://observer.com/2015/12/whats-a-superdelegate-anyway/

    Vote accordingly.


    With all the hoopla over the Iowa Caucus i almost missed the revealing report on the Big PAC donors reported yesterday, multi million dollar investments in 'their' candidate. HRC's gang, those she represents includes Soros, Saban, Sussman and Herb Sandler. The Bankster clown Sandler was the most interesting as he is the genius who introduced the option ARM to the unsuspecting public through his World Savings Bank that imploded after he pawned it off to Wachovia Bank for a tidy profit. The ARM was the financial IED that burst the housing bubble and left the rubes who lost their homes  to rent from the same MOTU's who put them out on the street and the real economy in permanent recession.


    She won, Hal - get over it. Learn to lose - you'll be getting lots of experience before long.


    Iowa is a joke. Iowa represents nothing. Trying to figure out how the caucuses work is difficult.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-caucus-kill-it_us_56b11910e4b08...

    Some delegates were awarded based on a coin-flip.

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucu...

    This is nonsense.


    Yes, but a whole year of nonsense - that should draw your respect, no? It takes a lot of staying power to keep up this amount of pretense for that long.


    Btw, delegate count up to 29-21 Hillary with 2 up for grabs. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-02-01

    afaik, the state delegatee equivs that Hillary won 5-6 coin tosses for don't mean so much. But it proves the DNC must have provided a rigged coin!!!


    Hmmm... Looks like Bernie wants to be "the boy who held his breath till he turned blue" - reveal the raw vote in Iowa? Didn't he get the memo - its a clusterfuck, totally messy, always has been - that's why some people like the caucus. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-v... - Bernie's not helping himself.


    Bernie fares well in racially monolithic states like Iowa and New Hampshire. South Carolina will be the first test of his broader racial appeal. Sanders has supporters in the black community like Killer Mike, Danny Glover, Rep. Keith Ellison, Ohioan Nina Turner, and Cornel West. Killer Mike and Cornel West could make inroads with young black voters. 

    http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/bernie_sanders_cornel_west_the_radical_a...

    The downside of Sanders selecting Killer Mike and Cornel West is that Killer Mike referred to Obama as a "house slave" in one of his songs and older black voters remember West's rants against Obama.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/22/how-cor...

    Ta-Nehisi Coates notes that Sanders is a radical on many issues, but is not radical when it comes to directly attacking white supremacy. Sanders sees black poverty as solely an economic issue. 

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-repar...

    South Carolina will be a Sanders first true test of his appeal to black voters. Obama is very popular in the Black community. Clinton is clinging as close to Obama as is politically feasible. Sanders is running a campaign against the Presidency of Barack Obama. It will be interesting to see how black voters respond.


    I am so late on this.

    But I hereby render unto Peracles, the Dayly Headline of the Week Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me.

    After all, you are correct.

    I mean there were only three entrants to the debacle and one of them actually resigned from the proceedings. dhahhhahahahahahah


    Well hello, Mr. White Rabbit - late for the caucus race? No worries, we saved a place for you.

     


    Latest Comments