If Hillary Clinton loses the Iowa Caucuses tonight, full panic mode is in effect, and one of the following might enter the Presidential race belatedly:
Vice President Joe Biden; Secretary of State John Kerry; Former Vice President Al Gore
It is claimed that Hillary will not be in panic mode if she loses tonight, but to lose tonight AND New Hampshire next week, if it happens, will be a major blow no matter what future states might do!
Bernie Sanders has great ideas, but despite polls that show him beating Donald Trump and other Republicans, it is hard to believe that will happen, as Sanders’ background as a democratic Socialist will be made to look as if he is a Communist, with the hammer and sickle emblem to be planted on all commercials and in all speeches by Trump or any other GOP Presidential nominee!
Sanders is, sadly, reminiscent of South Dakota Senator George McGovern, a wonderful human being with great ideas, who defeated Establishment favorite Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine in 1972, and then was smashed by a landslide of epic proportions, 49 states, by flawed President Richard Nixon, soon forced out of the Presidency due to the Watergate scandal. But the Nixon campaign was able to make McGovern out to be an extreme leftist, and the Democrats went into eclipse, and moderation took over with Jimmy Carter in 1976.
It is very sad, but already Trump is labeling Sanders a Communist, and for the ignorant population of much of America, that will be enough to make it impossible for Sanders to win the White House!
And as said before many times, the Supreme Court future is at stake, so we may yet see other Democrats enter the race in the near future, IF Hillary has major troubles in the next eight days!
Anything the Democratic Establishment can do to stop a real liberal from representing the party at the presidential level!
I’ve been disgusted by Team Blue trying to malign Bernie Sanders—and his supporters (who want leadership which addresses today’s issues, like “income inequality†and the 1 percent’s war on the have-nots)—and the Clinton Campaign is acting like they don’t get where the base of the Democratic Party is at; so the Democratic Establishement launches Republican-type tactics in attacks using fear and dread. (Think Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill’s pathetic attempts, which actually date back to at least last summer, to portray Sanders like the 2016 version of a 1972 George McGovern. The party wasn’t expressing such lack of confidence, for whether the Demicrats win the general election, over the prospects that frontrunner Donald Trump would end up being the Republican nominee.)
The Democrats can be very craven.
I understand what you are saying, D, but I am scared to death that the Republicans, with or without Trump, could win all three branches of government, and that means the Supreme Court is gone for 20-30 years, and we will live in a Fascist nation!
Winning Progressive’s blog says that Bernie is actually a Social Democrat and not a “socialist”. https://www.facebook.com/WinningProgressive/posts/1211950335482137
I agree about Sanders, Princess Leia, but he is being called a Communist by Trump and other Republicans, not good!
I heard on MSNBC’s coverage that a poll was taken in Iowa at the caucuses of how the Democrats felt about President Obama’s policies. Most wanted to continue his policies and maybe move leftward.
Just heard that Martin O’Malley is going to be suspending his campaign.
I think O’Malley will be heard from in the future!
MSNBC is announcing Ted Cruz as the projected winner for the Rethugs.
Trump has lost, the beginning of the end, and Rubio will be the beneficiary, as I predicted on the blog on December 31, that Rubio would be the nominee!
Huckabee is dropping out in the Rethug race.
Chuck Todd said it should be interesting to hear Trump’s concession speech. LOL! 😉
The Clinton campaign has self-declared victory but MSNBC is saying it’s too close to call.
It’s still too close to call, so MSNBC is naming Hillary as the apparent winner instead of the projected winner. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/iowa-caucus-clinton-and-sanders-leave-state-virtual-tie
According to polling, Democrats at the caucuses were split by demographics and ideology. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/iowa-entrance-poll-results-what-happened-among-democrats
New York Times says the virtual tie favors Hillary. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-the-virtual-tie-in-iowa-helps-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1
Democratic Party of Iowa confirms that Hillary won. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/new-hampshire-primary-2016/index.html
I am horribly confused by the media narrative. According to the media now, Iowa was Hillary’s to lose, and now Sanders has momentum and is surging.
Where to begin here…
Iowa was Clinton’s to lose? A state where 43% of the Democrats call themselves socialists when she was running against a Democratic socialist is somehow Clinton’s race to lose? A state she came in 3rd place 8 years ago? A state her husband got 2% of the vote in his primary in 1992? Iowa was Clinton’s state to lose? Really?
And now Sanders is surging? It looks like he lost. How you spin a loss as momentum is beyond my scope of comprehension.
The media just wants the illusion of a competitive race for ratings and clickbait purposes. I get it. But it’s still annoying nonetheless. The woman can’t win even when she wins.
I hear that some of his supporters are acting like sore losers. http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/2/sore-loser-why-whining-about-iowa-caucuses-wont-help-bernie-sanders
Last night, Bernie supporters could be seen on the national news yelling and screaming “Liar!†at the televisions in Bernie headquarters as she was giving a speech that was actually quite respectful of Sanders. This is not how progressives should act, period.
The PCTC blog has some good advice. http://pleasecutthecrap.com/iowacaucus-post-mortem/
Southern Liberal writes the following, “I am horribly confused by the media narrative. According to the media now, Iowa was Hillary’s to lose, and now Sanders has momentum and is surging.”
Last exit polls I saw had Hillary Clinton having carried the female voters by 9 percentage points (53 to 44 percent) and Bernie Sanders having carried male voters by 8 percentage points (50 to 42 percentage points). This was according to CNN’s Exit Poll information. The numbers may have since been changed. When I first looked last night, I was guessing Hillary Clinton would win by about 3 percentage points. But then that gap was getting closed to a point of having that absolute tossup race. (By the way: With the gender vote, this was more a female tilt for the size of the vote; the opposite was the case on the Republican side. In general: Republicans carry men before women; Democrats carry women before men. The last Republican president to have nationally carried women better than men was Dwight Eisenhower, with his re-election, in 1956.)
That 2016 Iowa Democratic presidential caucus result is not a blowout for Hillary Clinton. There were split outcomes in numerous demographics. In addition to male-vs.-female, Bernie Sanders won the younger half of voting-age groups (especially “17 to 29” with 84 percent of their vote).
Please refer to this source:
@ http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ia/
Much of this has to do with “momentum,” and the narratives emerge from them. (There’s already “concern” for Donald Trump.)
Weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was pretty much expected to win in Iowa by, say, 6 to 10 percentage points. Months ago, she was leading Bernie Sanders by around 46 to 50 percentage points (which is basically saying 70 to 24 percentage points; the remaining 6 percent to other candidates; who knew it would whittle down to just three?). Someone alerted me that, in April 2015, Public Policy Polling, which is Democratic polling firm, polled Hillary Clinton ahead of Bernie Sanders 62 to 14 percent (a 48-point margin).
Also from Southern Liberal: “Where to begin here…
Iowa was Clinton’s to lose? A state where 43% of the Democrats call themselves socialists when she was running against a Democratic socialist is somehow Clinton’s race to lose? A state she came in 3rd place 8 years ago? A state her husband got 2% of the vote in his primary in 1992? Iowa was Clinton’s state to lose? Really?”
Well, I covered it already. Months in advance, it was looking like everybody serving as “competition” would be vanquished immediately. So, it’s not surprising that those meaningless polls, too far in advance, would figure that Hillary Clinton would dominate in terms of the percentage margins. (And 43 percent of the self-identified Democrats is not yet a majority. Bernie Sanders ended up with more than 49 percent of the party’s caucus vote.)
Also from Southern Liberal: ” And now Sanders is surging? It looks like he lost.”
This depends on the context of your understanding of this. To be as far as behind as he seemed to be, and then to close a 40-plus-point gap to turn the 2016 Iowa Democratic presidential caucus results into a tossup which couldn’t be projected on Election Night! And to have those near (or, if it’s later confirmed, equal) split numbers of delegates from Iowa! That’s not really what I call a “loss.”
Take a look on the Republican side! Ted Cruz, who won, doesn’t reap substantially more delegates than second-place Donald Trump and third-place Marco Rubio. (Last I looked, it was Cruz, 8; Trump, 7; and Rubio, 7. Cruz carried his race by at least 3 percentage points. One would think his delegates would be one more than Trump’s.) And Iowa’s caucuses are not winner-take-all. They’re a proportional distribution of delegates for both respective political parties.
Please refer to this link (delegates for Republicans):
@ http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/parties/republican
From Southern Liberal: ” How you spin a loss as momentum is beyond my scope of comprehension. The media just wants the illusion of a competitive race for ratings and clickbait purposes. I get it. But it’s still annoying nonetheless. The woman can’t win even when she wins.”
You may want to read Chris Hedges’s “The Election March of the Trolls” (which was written in 2011). Hedges tapped into a good amount of the nonsense). But, I will tell you this: Mainstream Media (which I prefer to more accurately identify as “Corporate News Media”) fears Bernie Sanders. If a winning Republican or Democrat continues to keep Corporate News Media’s taxes low, they’ll be supportive (but go ahead and continue their Election Theater of the Absurd narratives with their 24-hour news cycles of not-really-news “reports”). They love Hillary Clinton. And, despite people taking some sources, like Fox News, literally, the Corporate News Media would be much more comfortable with a President Hillary Clinton than a President Bernie Sanders. Now, as for wanting a “competitive” race: Of course! They want close general-election outcomes so that they may be able to get larger viewing audiences. Are people thinking that Corporate News Media are in “news” but not business? This is what they figure is good for their business. And they love to troll for possible more viewers who are good for their business.
I think people tend to forget this is a marathon, not a sprint. The media seems to focus way too much on Iowa and New Hampshire, but they’re atypical when it comes to size and demographics. The only thing they really do is thin out the herd. I fully expect Bernie to win New Hampshire, since it’s his neighboring state, but I have some real doubts he’ll get much further than that.
@Southern Liberal – The media will prop Sanders up as long as possible to make it look like a competitive race. They won’t be able to do this after South Carolina.
@Southern Liberal –
The only count that matters at this point is the delegate count, which she remains in command of.
Exactly. The nomination on the Democratic side isn’t won with votes, it’s won with delegates, and delegates aren’t “winner take all.” At this point, Hillary has almost half of committed superdelegates, which could technically switch, but Bernie would need blowout wins in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina leading into Super Tuesday, and I don’t see that happening.
I think he’ll win New Hampshire.
Nevada – It’s a majority Latino/Hispanic state, demographics which favors her.
She’s going to win South Carolina.