When is a win not a win? When it's a virtual tie.

[Bubzer]

In the strictest sense of the word, Hillary won. She absolutely did. But, that lack of sense of victory from Hillary supporters, or maybe the lack of sense of defeat from Bernie supporters... that all stems from the results of the win being a virtual tie in the grand scheme of the run for the nomination.

It doesn't help that the expectation was that Hillary would win, and that she would do so by considerable numbers. That didn't happen. Even worse, the amazing political machine behind Hillary, and her own not insubstantial political prowess were not enough to prevent Bernie Sanders, an unknown nobody, from gaining momentum enough to rate being a hair's breadth away from being as good as Hillary in his few months of build-up, and Hillary has been with her long-established political machine.

A win is not a win, when contextually, it doesn't mean as much as it seems it should.

[DanTex]

1. Yes. Like the Broncos. They didn't actually beat the Patriots. It was a virtual tie.

One lousy 2-pt conversion. The game could have gone either way.

[Bubzer]

10. Show me where the Broncos and Patriots had a chain of smaller competitions in a much larger one.

Then you might be making an equivalent argument.

[DanTex]

16. That's a good point. It's more like saying that a 99-98 NBA regular season game isn't actually a win

Still absurd, but not at the same level. Bernie isn't out of the primary yet.

[Bubzer]

17. I, for one, will concede she won the caucus. The value of that win is what's at question.

It wasn't a decisive win... and more notably, it showed Bernie is a serious competitor...not someone Hillary can just ignore into non-existence.

[DanTex]

18. Obviously, it was a razor-thin margin. In terms of raw delegates, even a blowout win in Iowa

doesn't mean much. Iowa only matters so much because it's first: it's about perception and momentum. And this is why people are trying to deny that Hillary actually won.

And you can be quite sure that if Bernie had won by 0.2%, the entire media (and Bernie's online supporters) would be talking about how this is 2008 all over again and Hillary can't close the deal and so on.

[Bubzer]

20. Your right, it is about perception and momentum. In this case, a lack of momentum is being cited.

This was always supposed to be a blow-out in Hillary's favor... the media was expecting it, Hillary supporters were, of course, expecting it... even a number of Bernie supporters were expecting it. But it didn't happen. There's nothing to support the hype that was generated... in effect, the anticipation that was built has been deflated by a lack-luster result for Hillary.

There will always be people to say she won or he won and give reasons why... but at the end of the day, what matters is she didn't meet expectations, and Bernie surpassed expectations... so, yes, she won, but the momentum doesn't appear to be on her side.

[DanTex]

21. Well, obviously partisans on either side will claim they won the momentum race.

For example, here you are claiming it was supposed to be a "blow-out", when in fact Bernie fans on DU have been prematurely celebrating Bernie's HUGE WIN in Iowa for weeks. But now they pretend to be surprised that he even came close. Nobody is fooled.

Iowa was considered a must-win for Bernie, much more so than for Hillary, first of all because the demographics in Iowa are so favorable to him, and also because Hillary is ahead in the race, it's Bernie that needs some kind of game changer. And if Bernie had won, all the stories would have been about how this is 2008 all over again, which might have made a difference.

Anyway, at the end of the day, it's a win for Hillary. Even if Bernie's spin team can play this off as a non-event, a non-event is still a good thing for the favorite, which is Hillary.

[Bubzer]

25. There's a bit of disconnect here.

As I said before almost everyone believed the narrative that Hillary would have a blow-out-win in Iowa... and that didn't happen.

Equally part of that narrative is the notion that Iowa was considered a must-win for Bernie. That's been pushed by the media and Hillary surrogates for quite some time, as if they could make it an accepted truth. The same holds true for the narrative around demographics. But here's the thing; if the narrative was wrong about Hillary having a blow-out-win in Iowa, why would the narrative be right about the rest?

Obviously, I don't buy into that narrative. I also think it would be disingenuous for those following that narrative to claim insight into what the future holds. Yet, there are plenty sticking to the narrative.

Its ironic to me that you talk about spin teams while calling the caucus results a non-event. Hillary won... she won by far less than most anyone expected. Bernie proved he's a candidate that is to be taken seriously. The delegates are split amongst them... that's the result sans any spin.

[DanTex]

26. The disconnect is between your claim that "everyone" believed that Hillary was going to have

a blow out win, and the reality that Bernie fans have been prematurely celebrating a Bernie win for weeks.

I didn't think Hillary would have a blow-out win, and the polls certainly weren't pointing to it, and I hadn't read anything about a blow-out win, certainly not in the last few months, so I'm not sure who "everyone" is. I thought Hillary would win and most people who are not Bernie supporters probably thought that as well, and guess what, she did win!

That fact that Bernie needed a win more than Hillary is something that all but the most ardent Bernie supporters understood. He is, and was the underdog. Hillary can win by running out the clock, he can't. The fact that Iowa Dems are a hugely favorable demographic for Bernie, again, everyone understands.

The only disconnect is the drastic shift among Bernie fans from "Bernie's going to win Iowa" to "we all thought Bernie was going to get blown out in Iowa."

[Bubzer]

29. There's a mile worth of difference between "almost everyone" and "everyone". I used the former.

You might not have been one to believe it would be a blow-out, but you would be one of the few.

I'm tempted to present a number of articles that run counter to the narrative you're pushing, and point out the numerous claims here and elsewhere that she would win in a landslide, but I know I wont convince you. So, instead of a protracted argument, I'll simply agree to disagree.

[DanTex]

30. It's not "almost everyone" it was "almost nobody".

People thought that it would be a close win for Hillary. Which is what it was. They didn't expect it to be this close, but on the Dem side, the result was within the MOE of the polling average.

I'm sure you can bring out articles from last fall saying that Bernie was going to lose, but for the last month at least, everyone knew that Iowa was going to be close. The only people predicting a big win were Bernie fans. And they got it wrong. And now they want to pretend that they knew all along he was going to lose.

[Bubzer]

31. As I said before, I will agree to disagree with you.

Have a good one.

[pkdu]

27. As someone who has 200 posts in the Bernuie Sanders Group in last 90 days , you really should know

that your first sentence in Reply #25 is complete bollocks.

[ljm2002]

32. Politics as sporting event, meh. n/t

[LWolf]

2. 49.9 to 49.6;

How many delegates does that .3 mean?

(That's the spread I read yesterday;if it's changed, my apologies.)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. It might be none. 22-22.

But Hillary's folks will claim the 8 superdelegates are hers. Of course, superdelegates are supposed to back the will of the people, and make the eventual nominee's tally look much stronger, not to overturn the will of the regular delegates. So if Bernie ends up with more regular delegates at the end, the superdelegates are supposed to back him. If they don't, they risk creating a major split in the party that would possibly cost Dems the general.

[LWolf]

9. This will be something to watch, for sure.

I keep hearing that Bernie can't win because the super delegates will back Clinton. That sounds like a major split to me.

[Bubzer]

14. The super delegates will folow how the states vote. That's almost always how it works.

About half of states require it by law... the other half do it out of fear of losing their spot in office.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. If superdelegates, who are literally drawn from the ranks of the establishment,

cross the will of the people as expressed through regular delegates, to shove an establishment candidate down our throats, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves for losing the general. Of course, they probably would prefer to lose the general than for Bernie to win it.

[riversedge]

12. The primary is all about delegates. Now you know.

[libdem4life]

3. Bernie got a million dollars in one 24-hour period. Hillary had to rush back to wherever for more.

Bernie's supporters and donors, if anything, gained momentum.

[madokie]

5. this mornings news said 3 million

in that 24 hour period

[libdem4life]

11. That is almost unimaginable. And more where that came from, I'm sure.

This may have been the best loss ever. -.02% and a huge haul of cash, enthusiasm, and likely new voters.

[madokie]

19. I've never been happier about a candidate

and I've been very happy with two before Mr. Sanders, once with Jimmy Carter and again with Barack Obama. But the Bern gets me all choked up inside when I think about him. He is so on point, never lets the pundits derail him no matter how hard they try, he keeps on message. This morning on good morning america or whatever charlie rose and company's show is called they tried. Oh they tried to trip him up but Bernie is not to be taken lightly. He was on top of his game as he is every single day. He is driven to want to do us right and I respect him for that. He doesn't want the Presidency for himself as much as he wants if for us the American citizens. Unlike a certain other who wants it for all the wrong reasons. Bernie is the real deal and will be our next President.

[libdem4life]

33. Agree 100%

[daleanime]

4. It's was just a few months ago the the meme was.....

Bernie wouldn't be able to win any states, times are changing rapidly.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. This could have been a death blow for Sanders.

She could have knocked him out in the first punch of round one. And she tried her hardest, pouring resources into Iowa she hoped to have instead for the general. And instead, he came out stronger than ever, with people finally taking him seriously, more money coming in from new donors - who will presumably be new voters as well, people who thought he was a no-hoper finally seeing that he does have a chance to unseat her Majesty.

The road ahead is rough, and he'll pass through some red states more friendly to the RW candidate before he gets to more LW states again, but he got the boost here, not Hillary.

[thomservo]

7. Plus he probably won the raw vote count...

[libdem4life]

13. Unfortunately in our "democracy", rules often override the people's will.

[oasis]

22. Your astute observation has earned you a virtual cup of coffee.

[jillan]

23. A win is not a win when a few coin tosses are the deciding factor

[anamnua]

24. When is a win not a win?

When the winner is Hillary Clinton.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. When the results are "Inconclusive" and no real distinction rides on the results

In other words, the results in Iowa didn't decide which person gets sworn in to take office and which person goes home to lick their wounds.

AND The Iowa Caucus isn't a winner take all affair. If it were then a win by .0001% would be meaningful - but of course in that case a recount of some sort would be essential in a very very tight race

Yes Hillary won and it is fine to claim that IMO if one also concedes that it was a virtual tie. For all those who somehow seem to have trouble understanding the language, saying something was a virtual tie is not the same as claiming that by some miracle the vote count on both sides was identical.