Iowa proved Bernie Sanders can win – and that Hillary Clinton is beatable

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

The margin between Sanders and Clinton was razor thin all of Monday night – certainly thinner than anyone would have imagined possible last spring, when he was down by 42 points in a national poll. Coming in anywhere close to Clinton in the Iowa caucus would’ve been a significant victory for Sanders; the near-tie showed the deep resonance of his message.

The actual results underscored what he and his supporters have said all along: establishment Democrats have underestimated him and the power of his movement.

(snip)

But Monday night proved that he could win and, in proving it, he’s weakened Clinton by exposing her as something other than the inevitable candidate we had all but assumed her to be. Some Sanders staffers have argued Sanders definitely did win if you count raw totals and not state delegates; given the geographical layout of Iowa, that claim is likely if unproven. (More than a quarter of Sanders’ supporters come from just three counties – which awards only 12% of delegates; the caucus structure is thought to favor Clinton significantly).

“Together, the people of Iowa and millions of grassroots progressives all across the country, turned a candidate who was polling in the single digits just six months ago into a race-altering force of nature in the Democratic primary and national conversation,” he said in a statement.

(snip)

If Sanders had lost definitively in Iowa (as almost everyone once predicted) his campaign would effectively be over before New Hampshire voters hit the booths next week. Well he didn’t and it’s not – and Clinton’s staff had better get to shoring up that vaunted Southern firewall before South Carolinians feel the Bern, too.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/02/iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders-can-win-hillary-clinton-beatable

[Uncle Joe]

1. It will be interesting to see what the actual raw vote totals were. n/t

[redstateblues]

2. Proved he can win by losing?

I don't get it.

[Uncle Joe]

3. If you wish to presuppose that Bernie lost and how that can be a victory? It won't be the first time

in history that such a thing has happened.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. What about

all of those other non-Presidential nominees that won Iowa in years past (i.e. Bill Bradley)?

This doesn't mean that Bernie can/will win the Democratic nomination. It just means that he made a strong showing and he's (obviously) still in the race and competitive. Likewise, Hillary (barely) winning in Iowa doesn't prove that her campaign is in disarray or "in trouble" either.

[Uncle Joe]

5. The race is competitive, that's the point of the OP. Although it must be stated Hillary had

far greater name recognition and spent more in advertising dollars than Bernie.

[ljm2002]

8. Your point hardly bodes well for Clinton...

...are you sure this is the argument you want to hang your hat on?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. It could cut both ways

but Clinton is still heavily favored to win the nomination and is expected to do well/better in other states beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. There is still a long way to go in terms of convincing me that Bernie will be able to win the nomination. Gore in 2000 had a strong primary challenger in Bradley (who won Iowa) but then fizzled shortly thereafter. I guess we'll have to see how it all shakes out.

[Beacool]

6. It proved that in a state where 43% of Democrats call themselves "Socialists"

he tied with his opponent. The top three states where Democrats are the most liberal are VT, IA and NH. Of the two, Sanders needed the win more than Hillary to prove that he was a viable candidate. Hillary would have liked to have had a decisive win to put Sanders away. They both got a little of what they wanted. Hillary did well enough and Sanders proved that he is a worthy candidate.

On to NH where Sanders will readily win, but I don't think with as large of a margin as the polls are showing today. After that, I think the math mostly favors Hillary.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Bernie's appeal crosses partisan lines and that's why he usually matches up better against

Republican opponents.

When Tarie MacMillan switched on her television in August to watch the first Republican presidential debate, she expected to decide which candidate to support.

But MacMillan, a 65-year-old Florida resident, was disappointed. “I looked at the stage and there was nobody out there who I really liked. It just seemed like a showcase for Trump and his ridiculous comments,” she recalled. “It was laughable, and scary, and a real turning point.”

So she decided to back Bernie Sanders, the self-described “Democratic socialist” challenging Hillary Clinton. MacMillan was a lifelong Republican voter until a few weeks ago when she switched her party affiliation to support the Vermont senator in the primary. It will be the first time she’s ever voted for a Democrat.

That story may sound improbable, but MacMillan isn’t the only longtime conservative supporting Sanders. There are Facebook groups and Reddit forums devoted entirely to Republicans who adore the Vermont senator.

These Republicans for Sanders defy neat categorization. Some are fed up with the status quo in Washington, and believe that Sanders, with his fiery populist message, is the presidential contender most likely to disrupt it. Others have voted Republican for years, but feel alarmed by what they see as the sharp right turn the party has taken.

(snip)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-lifelong-conservatives-who-love-bernie-sanders/417441/

[WillyT]

9. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!