Hillary Clinton did win the Iowa caucus event.

[MineralMan]

It was a very thin victory, but she has earned the right to claim the win. She got more delegates than Bernie did. Not many more, but more, nevertheless.

Personally, I don't think it is a large enough victory to spend much time on as a candidate. She will certainly have much larger margins in upcoming primaries and caucuses.

Still, she is entitled to claim victory, but I think she'd be well advised to minimize the celebration and focus on improving the results in New Hampshire, where she is likely to come in second.

Either way, those two events will soon be in the past, with 48 more to come. As they say, "it's early days yet." Primary season is, indeed, a long extended series of events. Iowa is just one small state with a small number of delegates. There's much more to see down the road. I'm looking down that road as far as I can see.

[Romulox]

1. LOL. I was waiting for the thread in which Mineral Man told us how he's spinning

facts that everybody already knows.

[MineralMan]

4. I "to he spinning" nothing at all.

Thanks for the reply.

On edit: The post to which I'm replying has been edited, so my quotation is no longer accurate.

[Romulox]

5. Not well, at least. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Wow. But are you sure? Perhaps you should

wait a few weeks before calling it.

[SheilaT]

3. She won by a number that is essentially a rounding error.

And she was way, way ahead just a month or two ago. And I keep on seeing that she's dropping faster than she did in '08, and Bernie's rising faster than Obama did in that same year.

You're right. It's early days yet.

[onehandle]

6. Yep.

[img][/img]

[MineralMan]

8. Momentum is hard to measure, really.

Only time will tell whether that momentum will carry him to the nomination.

As an analytical sort of election observer, I don't really consider momentum as data. Instead, I use caucus and primary results and track actual delegate counts. Those all go into a spreadsheet as the campaign continues. Those are the data I use.

Momentum is fleeting at times. It's a poor measure of success, I think, really.

That's just my opinion, of course. Yours might differ. We can talk again on March 2.

[MineralMan]

11. I also don't put money raised in my calculations.

Any candidate who is the nominee of either party will spend a pantload of money on the campaign. That's a given. It doesn't even enter into my thinking, really.

[Romulox]

12. Well, to be fair, you didn't do any calculations. nt

[MineralMan]

13. Didn't I? I didn't post any calculations.

That doesn't mean I'm not doing any. This thread is about the results of a primary caucus event. The subthread is about something else. You may be confused by that. I don't know.

[Romulox]

14. LOL. Let's see your made-up "calculations". Or, you could just stop making stuff up.

Your call.

[MineralMan]

15. Perhaps later, after a few more primary events.

It is my call, isn't it? Thanks for allowing me to post as I choose on DU. I appreciate that.

[Romulox]

16. Of course. Perhaps later you will show us your non-existant "calculations".

[MineralMan]

17. Well, if you're in a hurry for some mathematical analysis,

here's a thread that will lead you to some by someone far more experienced than I am with electoral analysis.

My stuff requires more data to enable an actual result projection. You might be interested in Charlie Cook's table.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511130493

[Romulox]

18. Oh no! I want to see *your* calculations. You know, the ones you alluded to that don't exist?

[MineralMan]

19. Sorry. Not enough data for that yet.

I'll have something for everyone on DU on March 2, though. I know it will be hard for you to wait, but please be patient.

[Romulox]

20. Of course not. As I said, no such "calculations" of yours exist. nt

[jillan]

10. By a coin toss! Woot!!!!

[basselope]

21. Sorry, still don't see the victory here.

[MineralMan]

22. Oh, OK, then...