Why ‘Virtual Tie’ in Iowa Is Better for Clinton Than Sanders

[JaneyVee]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-the-virtual-tie-in-iowa-helps-hillary-clinton.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=https://t.co/2mH5lSGBGJ

But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.

He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.

[cali]

1. Lol.

[JaneyVee]

2. Tailor made to his strengths, still lost.

[Live and Learn]

6. LOL you 'won' Iowa by .2% or cheating and you brag about it? You are too funny. nt

[JaneyVee]

8. Didnt Bernie camp steal campaign data?

And posed as union workers. And used the AARP and LCV logos on mailers even though they backed Hillary? Right.

[Live and Learn]

13. Nope. But Hillary did vote for the IWR. nt

[JaneyVee]

14. Yup. And Bernie voted for the Afghan War.

[Live and Learn]

17. Not exactly, he voted to fund the soldiers that were already stuck there thanks to Hillary

and friends.

[JaneyVee]

21. Uh no, he voted YES on fighting Afghan War.

You new to this?

[Live and Learn]

22. Comprehension is everything. Try it. nt

[Live and Learn]

20. Do you not see the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan anyway?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan was harboring bin Laden. There is a big difference.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. LOL. I am not surprised the NYT is spinning on all 8 cylinders for their candidate.

[Hortensis]

11. You should be. The Times is famous for slamming

Hillary at every chance. You might go check the other articles. Not much so far, but in the middle of the night, with caucuses still reporting results, one claims this has "slowed" Hillary. Apparently consulted his crystal ball for looking into the future.

[Fawke Em]

18. Except they endorsed her.

Whatever.

[Hortensis]

23. NY Times Editorial Board endorsed her THREE TIMES,

actually. Twice for the Senate, once for president.

A whole lot of people look to the board for its evaluation. If it became irresponsibly partisan the paper's reputation would be severely damaged. The board gave its reasons at length. Perhaps you should review them. As a good citizen making a careful, informed choice.

Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination: Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 30, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html

[Live and Learn]

4. Oh please, what a joke..

[Ed Suspicious]

5. They have no meaningful insight into the way politics works.

Pure, unadulterated, happyfuntime propaganda.

[Hortensis]

15. Nate Cohn? The NY Times?

Why not just say they're not always right? It'd be 100% true and not sound profoundly silly and dishonest in the least.

Here are a couple things I hope aren't too offensive to read from it: "Bernie Sanders is right: The Iowa Democratic caucuses were a “virtual tie,” especially after you consider that the results aren’t even actual vote tallies, but state delegate equivalents subject to all kinds of messy rounding rules and potential geographic biases."

"In the end, Mr. Sanders made good on all of those strengths. He excelled in college towns. He won an astonishing 84 percent of those aged 17 to 29 — even better than Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucus. He won voters making less than $50,000 a year, again outperforming Mr. Obama by a wide margin. He won “very liberal” voters comfortably, 58 to 39 percent."

[longship]

9. Oh dear.

Spin, spin, spin.

[DCBob]

10. It should give the Hillary team some confidence going into the more diverse states..

which will be to her advantage. Also now we know this year is not a repeat of 2008.

[SunSeeker]

16. Exactly. She went from coming in third in 2008 to winning in 2016.

Nope, it's not a repeat of 2008.

[Fawke Em]

19. She wins. She loses.

I will not vote for that.....

[John Poet]

12. Well, a virtual tie is certainly better than a clear loss

for either candidate.

[Kalidurga]

24. I don't think so

From now on she is going to have the worst nickname ever. Hillary Coin Toss Clinton. That is not winning that is just luck. If it was luck.

[2pooped2pop]

25. Because they were going to replace her if she lost?

[EdwardBernays]

26. Clinton spent $13,000,000 to win 5 delegates

and won some of those on coin tosses...

hardly a victory for someone that was at one point leading the race by 40%+ in Iowa polls and was given 90% more media coverage for most of the campaign.

Hillary lost... she may have lucked into/bought literally a handful of delegates, but now Sanders will be given a LOT more media time, especially as he's about to trounce her in the next contest... anything other than a resounding victory is a huge loss for Clinton, considering her massive advantages, her other-worldly luck with coin tosses, and her dominance in the media...

[global1]

27. What Do You Expect The Establishment To Say When....

they are so afraid of Bernie becoming President?

Of course, the 'presumptive' nominee - who has all that money from the 1%er's and started out with such a big lead over a candidate that was blacked out by the MSM from the start of primary season and had no chance in winning - sure - a virtual tie is better for her.

Yeah - the momentum is surely with her. Right......?

How else would they rationalize this?

[dsc]

30. yes poor guy can't get an interview

he just has been on the Sunday shows more often than anyone else in 2015 but guy can't get coverage.

[global1]

28. I Also Heard Them Say This Virtual Tie Will Energize Her Base....

in New Hampshire. What - the establishment doesn't think Bernie's base will be energized by this 'come from behind virtual tie'?

[Gothmog]

31. Iowa was a must win for Sanders

Sanders is only polling well in four states where the voting population is 90+% and if Sanders can not win in Iowa then he is in trouble in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/01/iowa_caucus_stakes_for_hillary_clinton_and_bernie_sanders.html

For Bernie, meanwhile, a Hillary victory would be an undeniable blow. With the exception of New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont, the Hawkeye State—with a Democratic electorate that skews white and liberal—represents the friendliest terrain on the map for Sanders. If Bernie can’t win in Iowa, Clinton and her allies will have no problem brushing off a Sanders win in New Hampshire next week as little more than the result of the senator being a near-native son in the Granite State. Sanders, then, would be in need of a win elsewhere to reset the race—and soon—but won’t have any obvious place to turn.

South Carolina and Super Tuesday will be fun

[DanTex]

32. Obviously. Bernie needed a win. There aren't many states as white and liberal as Iowa.

[NurseJackie]

33. Iowa was Bernie's to lose ... and he did.

Go, Hillary!