Holy cow, it really does look like a “virtual tie.”
With 98.99%of precincts reporting (just 1.1% still outstanding), Hillary as 49.78%, Bernie has 49.64
Surely this must be one of the closest Iowa Democratic Caucus results in modern history, if not all time!
Given the geographical advantages that Hillary’s side was supposed to have (“wasted” Bernie votes in big college towns where extra voters didn’t help any because only a certain number of delegates no matter how big his margin) it seems more than likely that Bernie actually got quite a few more votes in this election. Or, conversely the analysts were all just completely wrong that Hillary would get more delegate “bang for the buck” due to more evenly distributed support (in other words, maybe Bernie had geographically broader support than the polls suggested). Seems like either one or the other of those two things must be true.
Fair enough, though I would just point out it’s possible they just got the reporting wrong. I don’t know, I wasn’t watching MSNBC and I don’t know if they said who in the campaign had “declared victory” or in what words. In any event, she was ahead, it was getting late and at some point viewers just start turning off their TVs and you need to say something, or risk losing the opportunity for the free media spotlight. And there is a sort of standard pseudo-victory speech that candidates rely on for just such eventualities…and Hillary’s was a pretty standard version of that. It is a delicate dance though – being ahead and all, the candidate wants to get some of the mojo of an election-night victory speech, but not look like a complete wanker if the late results go against them.
In any event, it looks like Hillary’s probably going to just squeak by – she has a **.**14 point lead, with only **.**71% of the precincts remaining to be counted. Unless those last couple precincts are all on or around college campuses, I think she’ll manage to hold on…but just barely. Quite a show!
There were reports out of the Clinton campaign that they were declaring victory when the vote was at 80% in. Granted, that is not an actual declaration of victory but the MSNBC talking heads were losing their minds wondering why she was even considering doing such a thing. Sounds like Clinton folks got the message and pulled back.
Ha, I was just saying that in another thread. He could barely keep that grimace on his face with a 2nd place finish. He knows that a big part of his appeal, maybe even a majority of his appeal, is his seeming invincibility, his alpha-dog, “strong leader” positioning, his followers’ belief that he’s the best at everything, and always wins, and will destroy all opponents, especially the dreaded Hillary Clinton. Take away all that, and what is he? A loudmouth bigot who names all the right scapegoats – but the GOP has a whole stable of candidates that fit that bill, including Ted Cruz, who just kicked his ass.
Now the faith of a True True Believer is not so easily shaken…but my sense is that many Trump supporters are merely Believers, who could suddenly turn out to be “fair weather friends” who may be more than happy to just go find a different authoritarian sociopath to believe in…and look, just their luck, there’s Ted Cruz holding up the Iowa victory trophy and beckoning to them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m far from counting Trump out at this point. But this was the very first skirmish, and he’s come out looking weak. Given that virtually his entire appeal is based on looking strong, he can’t afford to look weak again anytime soon. If he were to lose in New Hampshire, I think the bubble would burst and his poll numbers would tumble (and he would probably have a meltdown of one sort or another).
And, by the way, if it starts looking like a Bernie blowout in New Hampshire, I wouldn’t be surprised if some Independents who might have otherwise voted in the Democratic primary, might instead decide to vote in the Republican one, just to dump on Trump. That would be awesome.
I think Andrea Mitchell (yes, that about says it all right there) said Clinton declared victory before she even took the stage to give her speech. The media can’t help themselves, they SO want to create the narrative rather than report it.
Actually I think the surveys of site users here have tended to favor Bernie. I’d have to check on past ones, but I’m almost certain at least the last 2 or 3 times they reported those results that was the case.
Okay, thanks, at least that clarifies who is making the claim, if not it’s accuracy.
In February 2015, Williams was suspended without pay from Nightly News for “misrepresent[ing] events which occurred while he was covering the 2003 Iraq War.”[11] A subsequent investigation by NBC found that Williams had made a “number of inaccurate statements about his own role” in events he reported over the years and in June 2015, he was reassigned to breaking news and special events coverage on MSNBC
Not saying that in this case he’s lying, or even that he’s wrong. But I would want to know what his reporting is based on – who in the Clinton campaign prematurely “declared victory,” in what exact words, to whom, and when.
Really? Because I watched the entire speech and she did no such thing. So either MSNBC is full of shit, you are wrong in your claim, or a combination of both.
What’s funny is even CNN’s panel spent about 5 mins. all talking about the fact that she didn’t actually say she won. Yet “some say” and shitty reporting (and usually CNN is squarely in such a space) are trying to invent that she did.
[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.]
