Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Kissing your sister

Or in Ted Cruz's case... like kissing your daughter.  With coin flips awarding split delegations in six precincts to Hillary, the "inevitable" candidate's campaign might finally be able to declare actual victory sometime this morning.  If they find that missing 5% of the vote, that is.  I'm sure it's amongst all those scraps of paper in a postal bin or a plastic bucket, in a half-dozen or so high school gyms scattered across BF Iowa.  In the middle of a blizzard at the moment.

This is the most even-handed account, but that doesn't mean someone isn't spinning...

The Democratic battle in Iowa was so close that both Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — the 74-year-old socialist with no major endorsements — and Hillary Clinton left the state without a clear-cut victory.

The race was too close to call when the candidates headed to the airport to escape an impending blizzard, bound for New Hampshire and its primary just over a week away. 

How about that?  Old and socialist in the first sentence.

 Aboard a charter jet bound for New Hampshire, Clinton Press Secretary Brian Fallon told reporters that "we believe strongly that we won."

"It's not clear post-Iowa what Senator Sanders' path to victory is," Fallon added.

He means "post-new Hampshire", but whatever.  He was probably exhausted after being up so late, maybe a little drunk from all that champagne.

(Fallon's) claim got a boost at around 4:00 a.m. ET, based on a statement from the Iowa Democratic Party which NBC News reported showed Clinton was the apparent winner.

Oh, so they did find those missing votes.  Good.

With just one precinct yet to declare, NBC News has declared Clinton the apparent winner based on a report from the Iowa Democratic Party showing her narrowly ahead of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"Tonight we saw an historically close Iowa Democratic Caucus," the party said in a statement shortly before 4 a.m. ET.

NBC News has allocated 21 of the 52 available national delegates to Clinton and 20 to Sanders as of 2:37 a.m. EST.

The Iowa Democratic Party said Clinton has been awarded 699.57 state delegate equivalents while Sanders has been awarded 695.49. 

A five-delegate margin because they went for six-for six in coin flips.  VICTORY!

The narrow victory in Iowa could offer a whiff of vindication for Clinton, who in 2008 lost Iowa in humiliating fashion to Barack Obama when her third place finish set in motion the destruction of her first presidential bid. 
But for Clinton this time to barely edge out Sanders, who was dismissed as a gadfly just months ago, showed continued weaknesses for the former secretary of state among significant portions of the Democratic coalition — particularly younger voters and those seeking a more progressive vision. 
And it demonstrated the limits of a state-of-the-art political operation to make up for lingering doubts with the candidate herself, who on paper seemed build a campaign that did everything right this time around in Iowa.

I missed Clinton's win by six percentage points on the high side but did a little better with Cruz, Trump and Rubio.  I called it 26-23-20 Carnival, Clown, Cubanito and it came out ...

The Texas senator garnered the support of 28 percent of caucus goers, a significant win in a field of a dozen candidates splitting the vote. Trump finished a disappointing second place, four points behind Cruz.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had a surprisingly strong showing, coming in a close third place with 23 percent and performing better than polls had suggested. 

With Martin O'Malley and Mike Huckabee turning in their resignations early in the evening, the field clarifies somewhat.  Jeb Bush at 5% and sixth place is a dead man walking, has been for some time.  Chris Christie needs to make something happen in New Hampshire.  John Kasich's NYT endorsement didn't help at all, and the rest of the stragglers need to go on and go home for fresh clothes, or maybe forever.

So a woman, an old Socialist Jew, and two Cubans, one born in Canada, will be duking it out in the headlines for the next week, until the media can get Trump back on his feet in the Granite State. That stands a better chance of happening than Clinton making a comeback there (JMHO).

In other breaking news...

Groundhog Punxsutawney Phil saw no shadow when he emerged from his Pennsylvania home this morning, meaning early springlike weather, according to tradition.



meme said...

74 is old, and he is a socialist (so he portrays himself) truth is truth.

PDiddie said...

Democratic Socialist, Manny. Truth is truth and knowledge is good.

Here, for everyone, as simply as I have ever found it explained: It is not accurate to describe Bernie Sanders as a socialist because his ideas are more about endowing the government with enhanced ability to regulate the means of production than about actually transferring ownership of means of production to social organizations (such as unions). This was true for FDR and it is true for Bernie Sanders.

The last time we had a Democratic Socialist in the White House, Americans loved him so much they re-elected him three times. This might say something about why Clinton had to win six coin flips out of six in order to win the Iowa caususes.

At least you're smarter than Ted and John. As for 'old', there's this.

Gadfly said...

Well, I'd call LBJ the last democratic socialist, not FDR. That said, had he not gotten self-immolated in "that bitch of a war," he would have been re-elected in 1968.

Meanwhile, my take on the Dem half of the kerfuffle and first look ahead to the next 7 days. GOP half tomorrow:


PDiddie said...

Yes; perhaps the difference between a 'winning' Democratic socialist and a 'losing' one is defined by whether we win or lose the war(s) we're fighting at the time. Isn't that a depressing thought.

Gadfly said...

Sadly, yes, since we both agree that Sanders is still too much a warhawk.

That said, should he pull off the miracle ... I'd seriously consider holding my nose over that enough rather than voting Green, even though it doesn't make a diff here in Tejas. We'll see how this plays out.

I've got other local fun for the primary. Here in Deep East Texas, no Dems, none, not even uncontested ones, on county-level offices. One Dem at the regional level, to be Gohmert Pyle's opponent.

So, do I vote Dem so I can actually vote willingly for a Dem presidential candidate, or vote GOP so I can choose who wins locally in the general election?

Unknown said...

I'd love to just write Trump off, but the close 2nd place without traditional ground game & campaigning isn't reassuring me. A more dedicated 'Trumpism' seems far too likely

Gadfly said...

Benjamin, the flip side is that, assuming Rubio is clearly the "third," per the four ways link posted here a few posts back, this is a GOP dogfight that will go on for a while.

Picture if Theodore finishes not 2nd, but 3rd in NH to both Trump and Rubio. (That's the thesis of the blog post I'm working on for tomorrow.) And, those Granite State libertarians might give Squirrel Hair a bump.

Then, South Carolina comes, and Trump can no longer dodge the prochoice past, etc., in the Religious Right South. The elbows are only going to sharpen in the next month.

meme said...

Last time a Democrat carried Texas was in 1976, but that is not what is important here today. I vote Republican but close elections are good for the state and the country. Talk enough people in Harris County into thinking it won't matter in November and you make have all Republican elected officials come next January.

Actually all the presidents are socialist the only difference being where to money flows to.