Discussion: Clinton Says She's 'Breathing A Big Sigh Of Relief' After Iowa Caucus

Discussion for article #245416

Sounds premature to me. Why comment at all when the results aren’t all in and you haven’t been declared winner? Is this a Bush-2000 move? Get the narrative started that you won and hope it sticks in the minds of voters even if tomorrow brings a different outcome? There seems to be an intention to drive coverage one way or the other–I won or I didn’t really lose–I proved myself, etc. Another narrative would be I nearly lost or actually did lose a giant lead.

1 Like

because she came in third last time, then went on to lose South Carolina – she probably should wipe her brow.


That’s what Chuck Todd was saying on MSNBC. But now that Bernie Sanders is on, he’s asking why he waited so long, wondering if, by waiting so long, he didn’t miss an opportunity to get ahead of the situation. My head is spinning.


Clinton and TPM should perhaps have held their breaths a bit longer, yes?



There was apparently a perfect moment for each of the candidates to deliver their speeches known only to certain Villagers. :stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, I thought the timing of Clinton’s speech was perfect, mainly because MSNBC cut away from Ted Cruz’s smarmy face and she gave a barn (ummm) berner :wink:

Sanders did well too. And both of them stuck to the issues. All good in my book.


I know. I don’t know why i’m surprised that he’s making my head spin with his brand of logic. It IS past my bedtime though.


Conspiracy! :wink:


1 Like

Hillary Sugar, your coronation has been cancelled. Iowa is a tie and New Hampshire will be a Sanders landslide.

The myth of inevitability has been shattered.

Maybe she wants to go to bed. And she knows that it is a statistical dead heat and that she and Bernie are Democratic equals who both have good ideas for the country. Not everything is gamesmanship.


It is obvious that the race is going to be within less than a point and these aren’t even votes, they are delegate equivalents. We don’t know what the actual vote was at this point.

Clinton didn’t need to win Iowa or NH to win the primary, neither is a real test of her support. So a narrow win is all she really needs.

If either was 10% behind the other it would be different. And it will be very different if Sanders loses NH because that was his best chance of a win.

1 Like

@chammy, answerflog posted something we can enjoy :slight_smile:

1 Like

What’s up with this talk of a “coronation?” Brian Williams used that same word tonight. For crying out loud, HRC was a United States Senator and Secretary of State. She is perfectly qualified to be elected (not crowned) POTUS. What is with that?


Fine speeches by both the Hillary and Bernie tonight. And both camps have something to be grateful for – Hillary avoided an embarrasssing (if not necessarily all that consequential) loss, if her lead holds she gets to call it a win (albeit a narrow one) and her campaign will argue, not without merit, that she fought him to a draw (or narrow win) on the kind of demographic terrain that has been most favorable for him so far. In other words, the Clinton campaign’s argument will be (as some article put it the other day) that IA and NH will be “as good as it gets” for the Sanders campaign.

Meanwhile, Bernie gets the well-deserved bragging rights that come from starting at nowhere in the polls with no money or organization and almost no name recognition, and fighting his way to a tie with one of the best-known names in the world, who had tons of money and the best organization imaginable. Whatever you think of Bernie or his campaign, there’s no denying that’s quite an impressive feat, even if he comes up just short of actual victory in IA (and that’s not settled yet, at least as of this hour).

So, Bernie comes in at least close enough to avoid the “that’s it, his campaign’s over” spin – or at least I think that’s the case – and he keeps his supporters, volunteers and legions of small donors all feeling hopeful and motivated. If he wins big in New Hampshire (which looks fairly likely), he may get a significant “second look” from voters in the next round of states (“second look” doesn’t guarantee they come his way, but it at least opens up that possibility). Not as big an effect on the narrative as a clean “sweep” of solid victories in both IA and NH would have got him, but could still be a decent bump.

And, most importantly, I believe that we all win, because this race continues to look like a real race, which keeps people paying attention to the Democratic race and keeps Democratic themes and issues and the Democratic contenders squarely in the media spotlight alongside the Republican race, rather than ceding all that free attention and airtime to the GOP and their hateful message.

[Standard Disclaimer: This commenter wishes it to be known that in November he or she plans to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be, and will encourage their fellow primary candidate supporters to do likewise.]


Iowa and next-door-to-Bernie’s VT are about the worst two states in the nation for HIllary demographically. I’d say winning one of the two is beating expectations for her. As much as I like Bernie, I think NH will be his campaign high point.

For those of us who want to regain control of a conservative Supreme Court this will be a good thing. The only reason Bernie polls better now agains Repugs is that they have held their fire against Bernie and spent the better part of the last year driving HRC’s unfavorables up between the Benghazi and email BS. However the instant Bernie wins the nomination they will play the socialist card early and often, drive his unfavorables sky high and put virtually every swing state in the GOP column.

They will have the Presidency, Congress and the Court, and Dems will have only their regrets. Imagine what 4-8 years more of right wing rule would do to gun laws for starters. If the NRA had carte blanche open carry laws will be applicable to children.

Seriously, your concern is noted. Do you really think this kind of rhetoric will help sway voters to the Hillary column. Try harder next time. And wipe your chin.

Democracy is messy and unpredictable, and folks should vote for the candidate that best represents their values. I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I am not going to vote for Hillary simply because I’m afraid the Republicans will win if Sanders is the Democratic nominee. Anything can happen and any attempt to predict the future of the next Presidential election at this point is moot. And yes, I’m very aware of the stakes at large with this election. I will only vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee in November. Go Bernie, go.

Based on this commentary I read the other day,

I’d say if Clinton is pretty much equal in a vote that’s mostly white folks, like I assume Iowa is, she’ll win in a vote with a large portion of non-whites. So a tie or close vote in Iowa seems like it’s good for her.

NYT also had some interesting polls and breakdowns by age, etc.

Hillary’s new nickname is ‘Coin-toss Clinton’.

She can claim whatever she wants- this was a defeat for her and the billionaires who poured millions into Iowa.