Jump to content

Official Iowa Caucus Thread...with some analysis.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

Take away from the Iowa results:

Cruz is cruising. He has a very good ground game and he is passionate. The People of the great state of Iowa voted for the right man. 

Hillary is in trouble. Not only did she win by coin toss over a socialist but she is in serious legal trouble. Will the DOJ go against the FBI? Probably.

The polls and the networks get it wrong again. CNN is such a cheerleader for Clinton, it's desperation time. Fox news had it wrong as well as did most others. The polls are wrong because the reporting of them is bias. The questions are biased and traditional political thought is out the window this election period.

The Big looser of the night. The Establishment republicans, followed closely by the Hillary Team at MSNBC.

 

The big WINNER was the Republican Establishment!!! 

A chink in the Donald armor, an extremely strong showing by Rubio, and Hillary looking vulnerable enough that she might need to shift to the left.
Just like that, Rubio looks likely to be the next president. At least until Kasich rebounds in New Hampshire.

Iowa is more of a referendum on Community Organizing than pure popularity.
BUT, for months the Republican Establishment has been wringing their hands trying to figure out how two wholly unelectable but wildly popular candidates could be kept from the nomination. Iowa just gave them a road map: Narrow the the field to one establishment candidate after Super Tuesday (NOT NECESSARILY Rubio). And rely on Trump to dilute the now 60% lunatic fringe from Cruz so the Establishment guy wins a plurality. Trump is actually the SOLUTION to the Republicans' Cruz headache.

How ironic is that? 

The polls were fine.  Iowa is always difficult because of the nature of caucusing.  Just as Obama's ground game resulted in him outperforming the polling on election day, Cruz got out the vote to outperform his.  Plus, look at the trends Trump and Rubio were trending in opposite directions.  Yes, Cruz was heading down as well, but again, his ground game made the difference.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

Take away from the Iowa results:

Cruz is cruising. He has a very good ground game and he is passionate. The People of the great state of Iowa voted for the right man. 

Hillary is in trouble. Not only did she win by coin toss over a socialist but she is in serious legal trouble. Will the DOJ go against the FBI? Probably.

The polls and the networks get it wrong again. CNN is such a cheerleader for Clinton, it's desperation time. Fox news had it wrong as well as did most others. The polls are wrong because the reporting of them is bias. The questions are biased and traditional political thought is out the window this election period.

The Big looser of the night. The Establishment republicans, followed closely by the Hillary Team at MSNBC.

 

SKEWED POLLS! 

Fact is, that the only ones the polls got wrong were Trump and Cruz, and that can be easily explained by Cruz's superior ground game.  The polls had Rubio and Carson right, and on the Democratic side the polls showed a very close race with a small Clinton lead.  

And just look at this biased question.  You can just feel the bias oozing from this question.  I mean, how could such a biased question not get the result it was looking for?

"If the Republican caucus were being held today, and the candidates were Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and Donald Trump, who would you support? (If undecided) If you had to choose today, would you support Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Huckabee, Kasich, Paul, Rubio, Santorum, or Trump?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Sanders needed to win Iowa to maintain momentum, especially since Iowa fits his supports' demographics. He'll win in New Hampshire but he's most likely going to lose in Nevada and South Carolina which won't bode well for him going into Super Tuesday.

As for the GOP, it was impressive that Cruz's ground game was strong enough to pull off the upset but Iowa is rarely indicative for Republicans. He may gain some momentum but I still expect Trump to win in New Hampshire to regain his own momentum. The Party and moneyed interests are also undoubtedly going to throw all of their support to Rubio now. At the end of the day I still expect Trump to win the nomination.

I think that won't happen until after Super Tuesday.  It is less than a month away and there are PLENTY of delegates available after Super Tuesday to prevent a Trump or Cruz from earning the necessary delegates.  Plus, there are not winner take all primaries until well after Super Tuesday.  The Establishment will, or SHOULD, wait to see which Establishment candidate performs the best among the most states.  As we have learned, Iowa is NOT predictive on the viability of Republican candidates. 

As I said in the other post, the Establishment is actually catching a huge break with Trump in the race, otherwise Cruz truly would be invincible.  Trump gives the Party time to sort out it's best (Establishment) guy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, holymoses said:

I think that won't happen until after Super Tuesday.  It is less than a month away and there are PLENTY of delegates available after Super Tuesday to prevent a Trump or Cruz from earning the necessary delegates.  Plus, there are not winner take all primaries until well after Super Tuesday.  The Establishment will, or SHOULD, wait to see which Establishment candidate performs the best among the most states.  As we have learned, Iowa is NOT predictive on the viability of Republican candidates. 

As I said in the other post, the Establishment is actually catching a huge break with Trump in the race, otherwise Cruz truly would be invincible.  Trump gives the Party time to sort out it's best (Establishment) guy.

 

At this point Rubio is their only real option. Jeb has become a laughing stock between his bumbling campaign and how badly he did in Iowa and Kasich, Christie, and Paul have no real national support.

Meanwhile, Rubio has been gaining support nationwide, he did well in Iowa, and he's polling in third in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. If they want to make sure he makes a push to place better in the upcoming primaries and that he has a surge throughout February going into Super Tuesday then they should start the process ASAP. Hesitation only helps Trump and Cruz.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

At this point Rubio is their only real option. Jeb has become a laughing stock between his bumbling campaign and how badly he did in Iowa and Kasich, Christie, and Paul have no real national support.

Meanwhile, Rubio has been gaining support nationwide, he did well in Iowa, and he's polling in third in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. If they want to make sure he makes a push to place better in the upcoming primaries and that he has a surge throughout February going into Super Tuesday then they should start the process ASAP. Hesitation only helps Trump and Cruz.

Rubio has been the "Establishment Guy" for months now, yet his National numbers peaked at 15% and are now back down to 10%.  Of course Jeb has been in the spot light and failed to gain traction.  Christie has his own problems.  But Kasich seems to have all of the Establishment AND Conservative bona fides but has really yet to have the spotlight on him to gain National traction.  That could change in New Hampshire, which is notorious for reversing Iowa momentum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Worzone said:

I really can't imagine the democrats winning this election without some major windfall. I mean Hilary is struggling to beat out a self proclaim socialist. I don't even know what to say to that. the fact that so many of our nations youth are flocking to him is sad and scary going into the future.

The bulk of Sanders' supporters are white populists and Iowa has a lot of those. After New Hampshire, which also has a lot of white populists, he's going to struggle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The bulk of Sanders' supporters are white populists and Iowa has a lot of those. After New Hampshire, which also has a lot of white populists, he's going to struggle.

Interestingly, the exact same sentence applies to Trump.  He is doing very well among working class whites who are populists in nature.  That's why he'll probably walk off with a New Hampshire win, though another candidate could make it closer than it is now.  After that, especially with Cruz locking in evangelicals, Trump's going to have a harder time in the primaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The bulk of Sanders' supporters are white populists and Iowa has a lot of those. After New Hampshire, which also has a lot of white populists, he's going to struggle.

Most likely, but remember he was initially supposed to struggle in Iowa when his polls were down because they were supposed to be heavy towards the center and his radical ideas wouldnt win them over. I'm not sure what his strategy is in SC...if there even is one, it isn't working. It seems like that demographic would be in his wheel house, but he's not getting to the ears of minorities in the south. I don't think it would be a bad idea to cut out of NH early if his numbers hold, and get to SC to close the gap. Hes at a huge disadvantage considering he wont have months to spend there, and his main PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL media coverage has been minuscule compared to other candidates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Worzone said:

I really can't imagine the democrats winning this election without some major windfall. I mean Hilary is struggling to beat out a self proclaim socialist. I don't even know what to say to that. the fact that so many of our nations youth are flocking to him is sad and scary going into the future.

I don't understand why thats sad and scary? because of the whole "socialist" thing? I personally find it sad so many older folks are suggesting one should be scared of him because he calls himself a democratic socialist. Its as if they think if he's elected, there's a lever in the white house that will switch america from capitalist to socialism and the government trucks will be deployed to come get your things. 

He's no more socialist than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and probably atleast 95% of elected democrats..and probably some republicans too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EVIL Dan Quinn said:

Most likely, but remember he was initially supposed to struggle in Iowa when his polls were down because they were supposed to be heavy towards the center and his radical ideas wouldnt win them over. I'm not sure what his strategy is in SC...if there even is one, it isn't working. It seems like that demographic would be in his wheel house, but he's not getting to the ears of minorities in the south. I don't think it would be a bad idea to cut out of NH early if his numbers hold, and get to SC to close the gap. Hes at a huge disadvantage considering he wont have months to spend there, and his main PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL media coverage has been minuscule compared to other candidates. 

Not really. He lacked recognition but as he gained more his support grew, especially after New Years. After that he needed to ride that wave to win Iowa and New Hampshire since, demographically, they are the type of states his type of supporters are disproportionately large in so his lack of coalition building didn't matter that much. If he won both states he could point to that as 'proof' of electability and gain more recognition. Instead he fell just short in Iowa and after New Hampshire he's in for a lot of uphill fights, first in Nevada and then in South Carolina.

8 minutes ago, EVIL Dan Quinn said:

I don't understand why thats sad and scary? because of the whole "socialist" thing? I personally find it sad so many older folks are suggesting one should be scared of him because he calls himself a democratic socialist. Its as if they think if he's elected, there's a lever in the white house that will switch america from capitalist to socialism and the government trucks will be deployed to come get your things. 

He's no more socialist than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and probably atleast 95% of elected democrats..and probably some republicans too. 

lolno

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Not really. He lacked recognition but as he gained more his support grew, especially after New Years. After that he needed to ride that wave to win Iowa and New Hampshire since, demographically, they are the type of states his type of supporters are disproportionately large in so his lack of coalition building didn't matter that much. If he won both states he could point to that as 'proof' of electability and gain more recognition. Instead he fell just short in Iowa and after New Hampshire he's in for a lot of uphill fights, first in Nevada and then in South Carolina.

lolno

What part are you "Not reallying". I agree with what you've said, but not sure with what you disagreed with

and lolyes

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton's campaign did a great job getting their supporters fired up. When they were awing at the huge turn outs I was convinced that Sanders was going to blow the doors off of Iowa, but it turns out Clinton's minions weren't having any of that soshuhlizum

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Electability Spin Machine

Sanders has fought Clinton to a virtual draw in Iowa — it's time to crank up the spin machine

 

BY JEB LUND February 2, 2016

 

Here's where the spin begins.

Ordinarily you would think math would settle the issue of who won or did not win an election, but that's not the country we live in. The spin started months ago, and will continue forever. Barack Obama didn't win 2012: That RINO Romney surrendered it to him. And he didn't win 2008: The media didn't vet him, and George W. Bush's big-government conservatism handed half the country over while the New Black Panther Party and ACORN stole the rest.

Even now some buzz-cut Nixon die-hard gasping his last breath in a hospice named Shady Palms Death Quonset is probably still raging against the Daley machine for delivering 1960 to Kennedy. Or against that ghostwritten Profiles in Courage. Or Kennedy's father's money. Or the media, who televised that famous debate.

So naturally for the rest of the week we will learn that nobody who lost actually lost, and that all the winners are frauds. Campaign strategists have to justify where all that money went, and those in the media who prognosticate into lifelong panel-show sinecures have to course-correct reality when it gets in the way of a good story. And as for the candidates — if we absolutely must drag them into this — they have to persuade voters and donors that they haven't wasted their time, energy and money.

First up was the perpetual load billed as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who emerged at his headquarters to announce, "So this is the moment they said would never happen." Well, no. He was polling in third place, and that's where he finished. Apparently that's enough for victory.

He went on:

"For months, for months they told us we had no chance. For months they told us because we offer too much optimism in a time of anger, we had no chance. For months they told us because we didn't have the right endorsements or the right political connections, we had no chance.... But tonight, tonight here in Iowa, the people of this great state have sent a very clear message."

Once again, he came in third, which is where the Real Clear Politics average has had him ever since Ben Carson's numbers started nosediving around mid-December.

What Rubio was really saying — through the perpetual vocal quaver of alternately traumatized patriotic horror or beatific patriotic awe he has sported during every public speech since 2010 — was that he needed to repudiate the Cruz/Trump argument that this was a two-man race and prove that a third person was involved. But, "I showed 'em all by coming in third!" isn't much of a sales pitch.

Not that the PR wing of the Republican Party hasn't been making it. Fox News spent the evening pumping up Rubio's surging numbers in a recent Quinnipiac poll to prove that the ethnic telegenic candidate situated firmly between the establishment and the Tea Party wing is just as prime for an "inevitable" breakout as he has been every week since around August 4, when Donald Trump started eating his (and everyone else's) lunch.

The Rubio team's calculus is that, once other "establishment lane" candidates drop out, either humiliated by Iowa or New Hampshire, all the reasonable conservatives who hate black people, Muslims and Latino immigrants but who don't want to go full neofascist will get on the bandwagon. And that's a fine argument, but it's nothing close to inevitable. People enjoy backing winners (there's a reason why so many people still hold betting stubs for Secretariat at the Belmont), so why trade up for Rubio when you can go higher and pick one of the other two guys?

Chamber of Commerce types have no reason not to like Trump, apart from "electability," which is just as much a problem with a Rubio campaign that thinks "take a second job with Uber" is a solution to income inequality, is just as hardline anti-immigrant, and sounds increasingly determined to go full neocon by peppering speeches with casual calls to start conflicts with roughly two billion people. As for the culture-war types, why not pick Cruz? He and Rubio keep sounding the same War on Christianity notes, and if anything the ferocious pettiness of their attacks amounts to two guys trying not to sound identical. The only concrete way that Rubio proves an alternative to either of the frontrunners depends not on policy but on whether voters already personally hate those frontrunners.

Meanwhile, if overnight media Twitter is any indicator, the "Donald Trump Is a Loser" narrative is already in full swing. It's fine; it's funny, and needling anyone who overreacts to negativity as much as Trump does is a great pastime. There's just no way to argue that this is any more inevitable than Rubio's ascendance.

The argument goes something like this: Donald Trump says he will win all the time, so if he loses once, nobody will vote for him now, and they'll all like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. It kind of makes sense, and that would be a great line of reasoning in a party that didn't make so little sense that it made Donald Trump its frontrunner for five months, despite the horrible things he says and all the ways in which he's repeatedly displayed a supposedly fatal heterodoxy.

You can find counterarguments without trying too hard. For one thing, Trump has been running a national-media campaign, which is a disadvantage in caucus states like Iowa, where he only dedicated serious attention for the last couple weeks. Meanwhile, Cruz flung everything at Iowa for months on end and still won by only 4.4 points, which might not mean much in light of Trump's absence of a ground game. Trump currently holds a large lead in New Hampshire, where his style of campaign and the easier voting process can pay off, and then we move to South Carolina, where he has a 16-point lead. And while it's late to start an operation from scratch, who's to say he doesn't throw a bunch of money at the problem and make a more serious get-out-the-vote effort now that he's been beaten once?

All of this is excellent spin. Wonderful, fantastic spin. Beautiful, luxurious spin. Trump has a spin guy, he's very very good. 

But if you want maximal spin, just raw, thick tar spin, look to the Democratic Party and a legion of electability-policing flunkies.

What Bernie Sanders did Monday night was incredible. Until very recently, even a good showing would have sufficed to confirm his candidacy's seriousness, and any characterization of his loss as critical merely demonstrates how rapidly the goalposts can be moved when narratives need to be upheld. 

At the start of last May, he was 54 points behind in Iowa to Hillary Clinton, a frontrunner with the most open path to the eventual nomination in primary history. Sanders is a cranky old Jewish man from a tiny state and proudly considers himself a socialist, which in the rarified air of Beltway Centrism and in the swamp-gas of an America that still thinks the Cold War can be lost at any moment is somehow a more revolting word than "pederast."

With the exception of a few pro-Biden holdouts, almost the entirety of the Democratic Party establishment and the big money lined up behind his opponent, including veteran organizers and advisors. The Democratic Party chair scheduled a tiny number of debates on broadcast evenings so hostile to reaching a mass audience that their only purpose must have been minimizing exposing the electorate to any names that aren't Hillary Clinton's. Against this apparatus, Sanders decided to refuse to use super PAC money.

Meanwhile, every dead-eyed hack angling for a gig taking "Socks II" for walkies in the new Clinton administration has responded to Sanders' rising popularity with the Clinton-endorsement equivalent of Marge Simpson holding up her excised frontal lobe in a jar and groaning, "It's bliiiiiiiiiiiissssss."

You have Ezra Klein really taking it to some bozo named Ezra Klein over Sanders' health care plan. Along with assists from The Atlantic and The New RepublicSalon has gone balls-to-the-wall stupid peddling a mythic creature named the Bernie Bro whose existence is about as well documented as Prester John's

The most substantial claim is that Bernie Sanders has some fans on the Internet who are ********. Which puts him in exclusive company with literally everything. The same thinkfluencers who argue that Bernie Sanders needs to take personal responsibility for people he's never met being rude to journalists on the Internet (who are already berated and ridiculed by fans of everything else) are also filling column inches by doing the human-dignity equivalent of reaching a whole arm through a buzzing garbage disposal to latch onto yet another slime-slicked take festering in the U-bend and explaining why Hillary Clinton does not need to explain anything further. She doesn't need to justify that Iraq War vote again, or the destabilization of Libya, or that desire to go hog wild in Syria, or that 1990s support for welfare reform that hit women hardest, or those 1990s tough-on-crime policies she endorsed along with private prisons, or those speaking fees at Goldman Sachs or that opposition to reinstating Glass-Steagall. 

Against this habitual sycophancy, you have a 24-hour news and legacy media structure that has consistently pushed the "conventional wisdom says that a socialist like Bernie Sanders can't win" line to hammer home the message that Bernie Sanders can't win underneath a veneer of objectivity. It's not advocacy, after all, if you're only saying what everybody thinks. Even if your job is literally to help shape how everybody thinks.

Against all that, Bernie Sanders fighting Clinton to an essential draw in a state in which his opponent held a huge advantage in terms of local political operators and influencers is nothing short of extraordinary. Which, combined with Sanders' 18-point lead in New Hampshire, means it's time to crank up the RPMs on the spin cycle fast enough to rip apart space-time.

You will hear that Sanders can't win South Carolina because black voters love Hillary Clinton, without the qualifier that black voters largely don't know who Bernie Sanders is. You will hear the Clinton team again attack universal health care from the right, scaremongering about taxes while ignoring the savings people would enjoy from no longer paying health insurance premiums. You will hear Chelsea Clinton or some other mouthpiece again claim that Bernie Sanders — the guy who wants to give Medicare to everybody — is going to take away everybody's health care. 

You will see Clinton wrap herself in the mantle of Obama's legacy not only to appeal to black voters but to obfuscate her record with that community. Embracing Obama obscures her support for her husband's welfare reform and tough-on-crime policies that harmed that community. It obscures that his first presidential bid is remembered for a "Sister Souljah moment" that amounted to a repudiation of Jesse Jackson, literally sitting next to him on the dais, and a reassurance of the white audience "right there in [that] room" that they were good white people. And it helps to wipe the memory of Bill embarrassing himself in front of the black community in 2008 while Hillary herself challenged Barack Obama's electability because white people wouldn't vote for him.

This isn't just another leg in the 44-year-old Democratic-hack sprint away from McGovern suddenly made more frantic by Bernie Sanders' visage haunting them from the left, like George returned to life to remind them of their sins. This is a long low road stretching toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, un-illuminated by any purpose greater than the tautological — that we use electability to win elections, that we win elections by being electable, that we cannot fail to be victorious, that we must be victorious for we cannot fail. 

This is the dim path where a career pro-gay-rights feminist looms as a misogynist and an enemy to identity politics because some people with egg avatars sent some tweets. Where a candidate who personally earned millions in speeches and whose campaigns were significantly funded by Wall Street firms that nearly broke the world is equivalent to the candidate whose whole campaign opposes them because, apparently, he took money from a nurses' union. Where a legitimate candidate of the working class will be hammered over and over in an authenticity battle with a campaign that weekly releases some "How do you do, fellow kids?" embarrassment and whose Instagram manager is a woman with her own HBO series. Where the real progressive candidate has already pledged not to raise any middle-class taxes and once called people on welfare deadbeats.

This is the claustrophobic world of small meaning that is born when everyone knows the only idea you have to aspire to is the reaffirmation that the Republicans are worse. It's the logic that says that nothing we do to each other in this room — that nothing we do anywhere — matters when we know there's a monster behind the door. It is a mean and interminable partnership with nihilism that will get much worse before it gets better, and no one will blame you if you fill your pockets with rocks and walk into the sea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

That he was supposed to struggle in Iowa.

And how is Sanders just as socialist as Obama, Hillary, and the GOP?

Oh..yea that was just the narrative going on when his numbers were down, I mean..after the fact when his support grew, it was easy to point to the reason why he was gaining support, which was a legitimate reason

I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers started increasing in other places once he starts running ads, then after the fact we will be able to say...ah yea well there are a lot of angry poor folks in that area... but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if he does continue to struggle just based on the fact that he doesn't have the name recognition and wont have months to spend campaigning as he did in Iowa. 

as far is the socialism.. how is he not? his views and principles line up with theirs..specifically democrats...just forget I said republicans, I was just referring to the support for social programs, but that's just diving to deep into the conversation that I feel like going. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's only a matter of time before Trump starts playing up an 18-year-old, "always short of cash" Marco Rubio getting arrested for being at a Miami public park known for homosexual prostitution after hours, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rubios-summer-of-90-an-arrest-then-newfound-purpose/2016/01/21/3582a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports coming in that 90 precincts may be missing. We also have the news that coin toss's were used to decide other democrat precints, of which, Hillary won 5 out of 6. The Clinton cabal is already in full swing and the cheating has just begun. 

Maybe a troll or 2 can explain this all to us minions on the AFMB. I'm sure at least 2 here are ready, willing and able to deflect all of the egregious Clinton deeds.

FRAUD? While Hillary declares Iowa victory, look what happened in 90 PRECINCTS…

Written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor on February 2, 2016
HILLARY CLINTON
 

The first main event of the 2016 election cycle is barely in the books, and already we’re getting whiffs of somethin’ fishy in the reporting of results.

 

It appears that Democrat results from some 90 precincts may be missing.

Via The Blaze:

The Bernie Sanders campaign said early Tuesday morning that it was informed by the Iowa Democratic Party that results from 90 precincts were missing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

So it's only a matter of time before Trump starts playing up an 18-year-old, "always short of cash" Marco Rubio getting arrested for being at a Miami public park known for homosexual prostitution after hours, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rubios-summer-of-90-an-arrest-then-newfound-purpose/2016/01/21/3582a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

 

 

 

Oh my. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HRC has officially won the Iowa Caucus. It may not be the win that some HRC supporters wanted, but I think this is one of the best possible outcome. No longer are people crying about coronations and the media is viewing it as a race, even if it really isn't. She tied bernie in a state that was 90% white and largely liberal with 43% of voters self identifying as socialist. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-43-percent-problem-218405

Other than Vermont and NH, the rest of the states are going to be more favorable to her also Bernie is not going to have 6 months of campaigning in each state to combat the lack of name recognition. Hillary will have surrogates in these states that will campaign for her who are much better connected to the voters than bernie. 

Bernie wins because he can continue to campaign and reach voters with his platform. I also think this will mean that Bernie is going to make it to all the debates. 30% of dems still will not support a socialist, but maybe he can chip away at that number as the primary goes on. 

Her biggest problem going forward is going to be converting youth voters after locking up the nomination. With that being said, if the polls in Iowa are any indication, only 4% more people in Iowa are not okay with Hillary as the nom compared to Bernie. Both these numbers are much smaller than any of the republicans and their base in Iowa.  The December yougov poll showed that over 70% of voters(in Iowa and NH) liked Hillary, but preferred bernie and vice versa for bernie with HRC supporters. 

 

And the main thing I got from the coin toss controversy is that HRC is in bed with BIG Gravity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...