We are programmed in a lot of ways to attach importance to being a "winner." But the practical reality is that it matters not a bit whether HRC got a few more votes than Bernie or vice-versa. The Democratic primary is not winner-take-all, and they're leaving Iowa with roughly equal delegate counts. That is the ONLY thing that matters.
And in 2008, it was the failure to understand this which cost Hillary the nomination. And it's a mistake her campaign team seem intent on making again, with this talk of "firewalls" and "locking it up on Super Tuesday." You cannot lock up a proportional race unless you get a commanding majority of delegates, and you cannot lock it up at all in the early third to half. And by commanding majority I do not mean 10 or 20 percent. If you think you have it locked up you are almost certainly wrong and that will make you vulnerable to someone with a better command of the math and a willingness to work with it, like Obama in 2008.
I have heard that Clinton has hired many of Obama's staffers from that day but I see little evidence that her team is actually listening to them. Anyone who thinks "who won" in IA matters even a little bit has no idea how the race works. What matters is that the race was close, and they came out with about equal delegate counts. That basically means neither got any kind of advantage at all from the state. That's different in very important ways from asserting that either candidate won, and the team that fails to recognize it does so at their peril. In Hillary's case, perhaps again.
= new reply since forum marked as read
