Who needs the propaganda of Nate Cohn. He did not even consider some pertinent facts, like how far back Bernie Sanders was several months ago, the fact that there has been no test yet of how he will fare with minorities, and the fact that there were apparently irregularities in the process which casts a pall over the Clinton so-called "victory". The polls, so much cited by Nate Cohn, do not mean much when Bernie Sanders has hardly been introduced to the Hispanic voters, Blacks, and other minorities. Once they see what he stands for, you can throw out the polls.
14
Hey! Is it true that O'Malley is going to cede his 7.61 Iowa delegate count to Sanders to give him the win?
Not! Hey! Everybody take a chill pill!
Not! Hey! Everybody take a chill pill!
1
There are over 100M minorities in America who feel left out in Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, especially when it's stated in this piece how Bernie fares best among whites. Makes me think if Iowa and New Hampshire are the Oscars and minorities are not invited to the party. Kidding aside, where do minorities figure in the whole scheme of things? No one is talking about it but if I can hazard a guess, Hillary seems to be a more familiar face for minorities.
1
In almost every indignant pro-Sanders post on this thread, they extol the virtues of their man, and often claim that his rise is due ENTIRELY to those virtues, and has nothing whatever to do with the "anti-Hillary vote."
And then, almost inevitably, they trash Hillary Clinton
Get it together, or you will make us look worse than the Republicans.
(There's an achievement for you!)
And then, almost inevitably, they trash Hillary Clinton
Get it together, or you will make us look worse than the Republicans.
(There's an achievement for you!)
10
A virtual tie is not a real tie. yeah it's better for Clinton because she won for real
5
Interesting how you left out the six precincts with tie votes that were decided by coin tosses - which all coincidentally went in Hillary's favor, the problems with the Microsoft app, or the alleged fraud where a majority voted not to reconsider instead of just re-counting missed voters through some strange Roberts Rules of Order deflection. Come on, it's Iowa. And it was essentially a tie.
13
Oh, I see. So those coin tosses were some kind of Clinton conspiracy, is that what you're implying? Please. Leave nonsense like that to the Republicans, would you?
And anyway, none of what you said refutes Cohn's point. When you get down to it, Iowa was Sanders' territory and he should've been able to put it away by a fairly comfortable margin. It's not that his showing wasn't impressive, but the result still speaks of his weakness with the broader electorate, particularly when you get to the more diverse states.
Until you can make an argument as to how he wins those voters over (which he isn't right now), all this talk of Sanders' momentum is presumptive, to put it charitably.
And anyway, none of what you said refutes Cohn's point. When you get down to it, Iowa was Sanders' territory and he should've been able to put it away by a fairly comfortable margin. It's not that his showing wasn't impressive, but the result still speaks of his weakness with the broader electorate, particularly when you get to the more diverse states.
Until you can make an argument as to how he wins those voters over (which he isn't right now), all this talk of Sanders' momentum is presumptive, to put it charitably.
5
This close race is good for the Democratic Party. In the end I believe that Hillary will win and be a better candidate for having competed with Bernie Sanders.
Thank you Bernie Sanders.
Thank you Bernie Sanders.
5
Thank you. Wait til Hillary is indicted, and then you can thank Bernie by helping elect him our next president.
6
You can't be serious.
Given the backing of the money, media and the powerful Clinton machine, not to mention the name recognition, all Hillary could manage was a "virtual tie" and with the help of the coin toss resulting in her favour, she manages to unashamedly claim victory by a hair-thin margin.
How can this translate as a good thing for Hillary?
By any measure, this is a thrashing for Clinton. And with another big loss looming in New Hampshire, she is not going to get a second chance to build any momentum should there be considerable switch in the Black and Latino votes towards Bernie.
A win in South Carolina, however narrow it may be, in the heels of a predicted victory in NH could spell a premature doom for Hillary Clinton and a slap in the face of the mainstream media for adopting her as their favourite candidate.
Given the backing of the money, media and the powerful Clinton machine, not to mention the name recognition, all Hillary could manage was a "virtual tie" and with the help of the coin toss resulting in her favour, she manages to unashamedly claim victory by a hair-thin margin.
How can this translate as a good thing for Hillary?
By any measure, this is a thrashing for Clinton. And with another big loss looming in New Hampshire, she is not going to get a second chance to build any momentum should there be considerable switch in the Black and Latino votes towards Bernie.
A win in South Carolina, however narrow it may be, in the heels of a predicted victory in NH could spell a premature doom for Hillary Clinton and a slap in the face of the mainstream media for adopting her as their favourite candidate.
24
With all respect, John, you have no appreciation for just how little Sanders' message is resonating with African-Americans. Spend a few minutes around Twitter sometime to see what these communities think of Sanders and particularly his supporters. The comments are enlightening.
Whatever you think of them, Bill and Hillary Clinton have spent decades forging ties with the African-American community, and the proof of that is in how much of a fight they gave then Candidate Obama back in 2008. Yes, he won in the end, obviously, but it was by no means an easy victory.
If Bernie Sanders thinks he can forge the kind of relationships he would need to overcome Clinton in just a few short months, that's not only presumptive, it's downright insulting. The same could be said of you.
Whatever you think of them, Bill and Hillary Clinton have spent decades forging ties with the African-American community, and the proof of that is in how much of a fight they gave then Candidate Obama back in 2008. Yes, he won in the end, obviously, but it was by no means an easy victory.
If Bernie Sanders thinks he can forge the kind of relationships he would need to overcome Clinton in just a few short months, that's not only presumptive, it's downright insulting. The same could be said of you.
6
I thought Mr. Cohn was smarter than this. This is the sort of sycophantic spin one expects from a supporter of Mr. Trump. A loser is a loser; a winner is a winner. The person who spends the most money, who has the highest name recognition by a mile, and who is ahead in the polls, is supposed to win by a sizable margin. Even with the coin-tossing nonsense (what are the odds in the real world? 1/64, 1/128...) and those precincts that were not staffed by the DNC, Mrs. Clinton barely won by a couple of tenths of a point, if she actually won at all. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump are the two big losers in Iowa. Let's hope that this is an omen of the future to come. And I must say that I'm not a convinced supporter of Mr. Sanders: simply, like so many others, I cannot take the rapacious mendacity of the Clintons and the simple-minded racism & nativism to which Mr. Trump is cynically appealing for meretricious reasons.
32
Okay, first of all, the odds of a coin toss are always 50/50 no matter what. It's a common misconception that people think of consecutive coin tosses coming up the same way as being less and less likely, but that's the wrong way of looking at it.
That aside, Rufus, you're simply wrong in saying that Clinton came out a loser in Iowa. The only victory she needed was to deny Sanders claiming a win. Once she gets past New Hampshire, the primaries swing into states that are much more favorable to her. Her only concern was Sanders having two wins under his belt before then, and she's just denied him that.
That aside, Rufus, you're simply wrong in saying that Clinton came out a loser in Iowa. The only victory she needed was to deny Sanders claiming a win. Once she gets past New Hampshire, the primaries swing into states that are much more favorable to her. Her only concern was Sanders having two wins under his belt before then, and she's just denied him that.
3
I think what Rufus was referring to was reports that Hillary won all 6 precincts that were decided by coin flips (which is false, from what I hear). If there were only 6 coin flips, the odds that one person wins all of them are indeed worse than 50/50.
2
I am in total agreement with you. "A winner is a winner" spin may fool the most gullible of NYT readers, if any, but not those who care to call a spade a spade. The big question that begs asking here is: why was it that those precincts that were deemed too close to call were not adequately staffed? Was it a deliberate attempt on the part of the Iowa Democratic Party to give themselves the option to manipulate or rig the outcome in favour of their favoured candidate?
1
I think most people view this as a "win" for Sanders because of how far he came from behind to virtually tie with Clinton. Also there is significant doubt now whether Clinton really won. How pathetic and desperate that Clinton declared she won Iowa before she was even announced as a winner. I don't think Clinton can win the general election. She has so many enemies and people don't trust her. People say she is experienced and practical and will get things done? Sanders has more experience in elected office, more experience in working "across the aisle" and even helped draft the Affordable Care Act. Clinton is more "practical" simply because she has lower expectations. I am supposed to believe she will get her pathetically limited agenda across if she were ever elected? All the Clinton enemies will come to the fore. There is no problem with asking for what you really want, and that is exactly what Obama refused to do (to the great disappointment of progressives who elected him into office). Of course Sanders isn't going to repeal the ACA - he will simply ask to expand it and fight for Medicare for all. Clinton has made such poor judgments with the Iraq War, the email controversy and others. I don't get people saying she is the most qualified person to ever run for president! Sanders exceeds her "experience" and certainly has better judgment. Sanders once he is known has a much better chance of winning the general, and the polls so far are showing this.
28
Please, Donna, if you're going to make an argument against Clinton, at least make it coherent. You say she wouldn't have a chance of getting her "pathetically limited agenda" across, and somehow Sanders would have a chance of getting his pie in the sky agenda enacted? Let me know when the pigs start flying.
That aside, let's be clear about something. Up until now, Bernie Sanders has been the least vetted candidate in this race on either side. He won't have that luxury for much longer. Expect his numbers to wane noticeably when that happens.
Furthermore, even if by some miracle he were to get the Democratic nomination, Republicans would be all over him like milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm from the very instant they knew he was the one they'd be facing. Sanders would have never faced anything remotely like the onslaught the GOP would bring to bear against him, and it would be merciless and relentless.
You think the polls showing him doing so well right now will last? Don't kid yourself.
That aside, let's be clear about something. Up until now, Bernie Sanders has been the least vetted candidate in this race on either side. He won't have that luxury for much longer. Expect his numbers to wane noticeably when that happens.
Furthermore, even if by some miracle he were to get the Democratic nomination, Republicans would be all over him like milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm from the very instant they knew he was the one they'd be facing. Sanders would have never faced anything remotely like the onslaught the GOP would bring to bear against him, and it would be merciless and relentless.
You think the polls showing him doing so well right now will last? Don't kid yourself.
5
It's much better for Sanders. I can see where people who follow the race intensely think otherwise but most voters are not that engaged. What they know today is that there is another Democrat contender who is equal in the vote count. This was obvious in 2008 when Clinton polled just as high with minority voters as she does now. It wasn't until Iowa that Obama caught their attention. Sanders obviously isn't going to replicate that but a lot of people are just now beginning to pay attention to the race.
12
Let me see if I get this straight: Hillary Clinton was unable to win 50 percent plus 1 vote in Iowa, a state that a Clinton has been to every four years since 1991. Mrs. Clinton, or a member of her immediate family, must know practically every one in the state, and yet a "79,000-year-old Muppet" was able to keep her from winning more than half of Democratic voters. And that's good for her? Don't get me wrong, if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination, she'll get my vote. But digging out a tie in a state where a Clinton has been resident slightly more years than in the Pleistocene Era can't be a good thing.
24
If you've been following Nate (and you should, really) almost none of this would be a surprise. He predicted the favorable factors (young, white, liberal voter groups) that would help Bernie in Iowa, but hinder him nationally, because they aren't enough of the overall democratic demographic to give him the edge over Hillary.
And his position on Bernie not clinching Iowa is dead on, and it hasn't changed. I guess it's easier for me to accept this premise because I am glad it augers well for Mrs. Clinton. And yes, probably her ties to the state, and her organized staffers helped her out. She has the superior ground organization.
And his position on Bernie not clinching Iowa is dead on, and it hasn't changed. I guess it's easier for me to accept this premise because I am glad it augers well for Mrs. Clinton. And yes, probably her ties to the state, and her organized staffers helped her out. She has the superior ground organization.
8
I will vote and contribute for whoever the democratic nominee is. I am leaning Hillary and have many times come close to switching over and contributing to Sanders but I read comments from Sanders' supporters of "Hillary is the same as the Republicans", "Can't believe minorities/women can't figure out how good Bernie is for them" and that is the same kind of logic and rhetoric applied by the Tea party. Every Sanders supporter I know has a Foxconn iPhone that can't be pried from their cold dead hands but argues vehemently against the TPP (i.e. free trade is bad only when it benefits any of the other 7 billion people in the world who should be taking handouts from us). And if these Sanders supporters had shown the same enthusiasm in mid-term congressional elections or in state elections to avoid gerrymandering we very well could have had single payer healthcare by now. Big Sanders fan but turned off by Sanders supporters who should practice some of their preaching first.
25
I agree about practicing what you preach but that can be extended to virtually everyone. However, a good portion of Sanders voters aren't really mainstream Democrats. They aren't into party politics. They see most politicians as problems, not solutions. That's why a lot of them don't vote otherwise or go third party.
3
If you would like, I offer my impassioned reason as to why you should vote for Mr. Sanders over Ms. Clinton:
Sanders is more likely than Clinton to aggressively pursue the core issue of campaign finance and revolving-door employment.
These issues are necessary to make meaningful reform in other sectors as lawmakers remain beholden to masters who are footing their bills. Of course Repubs deny climate change - when they admit it's real, they lose their funding.
And that, too, is another reason to vote for Sanders over Clinton: we know she won't try to reform the campaign finance system because she plays it too; she'd lose her funding if she fought the system of paying to access the law.
Sanders is more likely than Clinton to aggressively pursue the core issue of campaign finance and revolving-door employment.
These issues are necessary to make meaningful reform in other sectors as lawmakers remain beholden to masters who are footing their bills. Of course Repubs deny climate change - when they admit it's real, they lose their funding.
And that, too, is another reason to vote for Sanders over Clinton: we know she won't try to reform the campaign finance system because she plays it too; she'd lose her funding if she fought the system of paying to access the law.
7
Sanders' supporters illustrate a key problem with Democrats. They take minority groups' support, like African-Americans, FAR too lightly. They assume it's a zero sum game where they'll always support a Democrat simply by virtue of the fact that the Republicans are worse. Granted, they may not come out and say as much, but their attitudes speak it well enough.
And for anyone who doesn't believe that, spend a few minutes on Twitter sometime and listen to what African-Americans think of Sanders and his supporters. For anyone who's interested in why Sanders' message doesn't resonate with them, it should prove very enlightening.
And for anyone who doesn't believe that, spend a few minutes on Twitter sometime and listen to what African-Americans think of Sanders and his supporters. For anyone who's interested in why Sanders' message doesn't resonate with them, it should prove very enlightening.
4
A WIN is a Win! A bit of a skirmish is typically a Democrat thing. We Dems are inclusive and we share a LOVE for each other with respect for all.
Now we have to tally the votes, mend the hurt feelings and go on to the next stop.
We need to tone down the harsh rhetoric, it is so counter-productive. Politics is NOT a game for wimps, it is a dig down in the dirt because, come the next day, only the final tally matters. And, unlike the GOP, we will still work together tomorrow with the best good for all in mind.
Now we have to tally the votes, mend the hurt feelings and go on to the next stop.
We need to tone down the harsh rhetoric, it is so counter-productive. Politics is NOT a game for wimps, it is a dig down in the dirt because, come the next day, only the final tally matters. And, unlike the GOP, we will still work together tomorrow with the best good for all in mind.
8
Careful Nate... too much spin might make you dizzy. Best lie down and accept the facts: Bernie had only 7% in Iowa back in Feb-March, so this is big. Let's also not forget that the Iowa caucus doesn't actually reflect voter turnout... it's more like a frenzied party of late night political networking. New Hampshire is the real test... so yes, HRC has every right to be nervous. #feelthebern
7
Get real: Mr. Sanders "had only 7% in Iowa back in Feb-March," as you put it, because no one but the most assiduous political junkies had a clue yet who he was.
Then, after months of barnstorming the state and spending an estimated $7.5 million on campaign advertising, he got himself in front of all the Iowa voters. That's more than enough to put any candidate on the map.
It was a good try, but he still lost by a whisker.
Now about that "feel the bern" slogan:
Some of us are a great deal more cerebral and deliberate about something as important as a vote for the U.S. presidency. We don't "feel." We "think."
Then, after months of barnstorming the state and spending an estimated $7.5 million on campaign advertising, he got himself in front of all the Iowa voters. That's more than enough to put any candidate on the map.
It was a good try, but he still lost by a whisker.
Now about that "feel the bern" slogan:
Some of us are a great deal more cerebral and deliberate about something as important as a vote for the U.S. presidency. We don't "feel." We "think."
6
It was a huge turnout that was supposed to carry Bernie to victory, it was close though. It is a good sign for both because big turnout means a big win in 2016 for the vAlue Team....
To those pundits who view or pray Bernie Sander's appeal is only to the young- white idealists that won't necessarily vote; there is a description for that: Hogwash. Sander's appeals to millions who aren't young, but the older worker, the pensioner, the working STIFF, the Hopeful who isn't angry and full of vitriol but sees the possibility of real change: We aren't fooled into believing a fairy tale; we aren't lulled into a suspension of reality that a President Sanders won't be hamstrung like Obama. We are- however, willing to GAMBLE on the "better way out" than what we realize would be the status quo: Hillary's "I'll give you two if you give me two and one half" deals or "You pass this and I'll pretend your favorite lobbyist's bill isn't buried in the bill I am signing". At 60+ and a minority, I say, there are many of us. I just pray minority communities don't fall into the trap of crowning Hillary and forgetting her husband's legacy of decimating virtually all safety-net programs for the poor and the legacy that has incarcerated almost two generations of Men of color, in the Prison Industrial Complex that Bill Built.
15
Sanders' support right now is mostly educated and well read folks. That is often mistaken for white or elitist or whatever because there is some correlation there. However, the only reason for that is those are the people who have been paying attention to the race and to politics. Clinton appeals to others because of name recognition. That's her biggest strength because her record helps and hurts her fairly evenly. If Sanders begins to get his message out and becomes known, he should gain in those other polls.
7
I will try, if you will too, Donna. I know that all the sane people I know will probably vote democratic in November, no matter who the nominee is. I also know that whenever we get done with this primary season, we are going to have to face the fact that we are up against a potential President Cruz. Then I promise, no matter what my feelings are, about the whoever the nominee is, I will fervently pull the lever for democrat.
Just don't feel like laying out anybody's case just now. But the house is on fire, and we're going to have to do something about it ultimately.
Just don't feel like laying out anybody's case just now. But the house is on fire, and we're going to have to do something about it ultimately.
6
Republicans made Hillary a punching bag a long, long time ago, and it is totally impossible to tell what has been real and what has not. I have not believed even .1% of all the negatives I've heard about her, from a bunch of creepy, wife-dominating, macho, gray-faced 'men' whose negatives are a thousand times worse and much more deserved. Hatred is easy to create, and hard for the hated to dispel.
You can simply look at Obama, who is the Great Satan as far as Republican 'lawmakers' are concerned, and see that the haters have come up with nothing to sell us, just opposition to everything he says, does and proposes. The racism they have created and/or stirred up against him is astounding. The hatred with which they have smeared Hillary is just as suspect. I have never seen any Democrat sling so much dung, ever.
You can simply look at Obama, who is the Great Satan as far as Republican 'lawmakers' are concerned, and see that the haters have come up with nothing to sell us, just opposition to everything he says, does and proposes. The racism they have created and/or stirred up against him is astounding. The hatred with which they have smeared Hillary is just as suspect. I have never seen any Democrat sling so much dung, ever.
18
Sheer blather, but what isn't in this season of political circus?
Iowa was supposedly Clinton's but she barely hung on. But if she polls really close to Sanders in NH that might be the trend Nate is fishing for. But that's all this is - fishing for something to write about.
Iowa was supposedly Clinton's but she barely hung on. But if she polls really close to Sanders in NH that might be the trend Nate is fishing for. But that's all this is - fishing for something to write about.
9
I have genuine concerns about the benefit of Socialism vs Capitalism that is well regulated with oversight. In all of those countries that Sanders refers to, there seems to be no middle class, just an aristocratic class of landed gentry and the workers who live in inner cities in flats and modest duplex type homes or working the farms and fields of the landed gentry. How many young people take advantage of free college education, few, who then go outside their country to make money; and others who work in tourism or in government positions on wages. What are their wages? They have national healthcare, true; great retirement pensions; lots of paid time off, but what is home ownership and are they the kinds of homes our middle class can afford?
At least, a well regulated democracy based on well regulated capitalism, seems to afford more opportunity for all, more aspiration to reach higher goals, improve one's lifestyle. I don't know; it seems that way, to me.
I am not a Republican. I have always been a Democrat and it would be easy for me to embrace Socialism because, as an RN for 50 years, I have seen need that has been unmet, which takes a lot of scrambling to find resources to provide the basic necessities for home care that is healthy, when they leave our hospitals. But, I also respect the Promise of Opportunity and Aspiration, guaranteed with making Capitalism work better for everyone, ie taxes, wages, educational resources, affordable healthcare, Soc Sec
At least, a well regulated democracy based on well regulated capitalism, seems to afford more opportunity for all, more aspiration to reach higher goals, improve one's lifestyle. I don't know; it seems that way, to me.
I am not a Republican. I have always been a Democrat and it would be easy for me to embrace Socialism because, as an RN for 50 years, I have seen need that has been unmet, which takes a lot of scrambling to find resources to provide the basic necessities for home care that is healthy, when they leave our hospitals. But, I also respect the Promise of Opportunity and Aspiration, guaranteed with making Capitalism work better for everyone, ie taxes, wages, educational resources, affordable healthcare, Soc Sec
6
Have you ever been to Scandinavia? No middle class, just a ruling elite class? Come on, you can't be serious. That is the worst description I have ever heard of Scandinavia. Are you sure you aren't thinking of India or something? Scandinavia is like one huge middle class.
7
I lived in Stockholm in 1965. The size of the middle class was much larger than in the United States.
6
Not sure what you are talking about. Europe is almost entirely socialist and the middle class is large throughout.
5
Mr. Cohn, this 74-year-old white lady thanks you for your insightful analysis and gives me hope that Hillary will prevail.
Mr. Sander's voters think that vicious attacks on Hillary will win over her supporters. I don't understand that logic.
Mr. Sander's voters think that vicious attacks on Hillary will win over her supporters. I don't understand that logic.
19
Yes, you're right. I love Bernie Sanders but the behavior of some Bernie supporters leaves me cold. To be honest they sound more like right wingers than progressives.
In any case, we all need to rally round the eventual Democratic candidate, and not make the fatal error of indulging in a circular firing squad.
This election is much too important.
Finally, young voters have a bad habit of disappearing in local, state and off year Congressional elections, with the result that Republicans win.
In any case, we all need to rally round the eventual Democratic candidate, and not make the fatal error of indulging in a circular firing squad.
This election is much too important.
Finally, young voters have a bad habit of disappearing in local, state and off year Congressional elections, with the result that Republicans win.
4
Brava, Marilyn!
1
I am with you. I feel very sure that Hillary is the only Democrat who can get a coalition together that is needed to win.
I also know that Mr. Sanders will NEVER be able to appeal to blacks and whites all across the South. Many whites in the South have had Hillary so demonized that they will not support her but she will still win considerable ground even down there because of the changes in the demographics and those changes are advancing faster than the GOP could have expected.
Sadly, Mr. Sanders does NOT GET IT about needing more than rhetoric that ignite young, you have to have concrete plans that put everyone in the mix.
All that I can say to the Sanders supporters is get some facts, be good Democrats, do NOT make us sitting ducks for a billionaire blow hard. All of us old people who are supporting Hillary are not fools, with age comes a lot of wisdom.
I am firmly decided that I will support Ms Clinton AGAIN but I will also, AGAIN, support the Democratic candidate in November.
I also know that Mr. Sanders will NEVER be able to appeal to blacks and whites all across the South. Many whites in the South have had Hillary so demonized that they will not support her but she will still win considerable ground even down there because of the changes in the demographics and those changes are advancing faster than the GOP could have expected.
Sadly, Mr. Sanders does NOT GET IT about needing more than rhetoric that ignite young, you have to have concrete plans that put everyone in the mix.
All that I can say to the Sanders supporters is get some facts, be good Democrats, do NOT make us sitting ducks for a billionaire blow hard. All of us old people who are supporting Hillary are not fools, with age comes a lot of wisdom.
I am firmly decided that I will support Ms Clinton AGAIN but I will also, AGAIN, support the Democratic candidate in November.
4
Any respect I had left for her just flew out the window when she smugly declared how proud she was to have secured a "win" in Iowa in this video. Let's get this straight- She won because of 6 coin tosses, severe shortage of voter registration forms in college towns where floods of new caucus goers were turned away, understaffing by the DNC to properly report counts in 90 precincts, and possible voter fraud in Polk county. If half of those coin tosses went to Bernie they would've had a true tie in delegates with 22 vs 22. If Bernie won 4 of those coin tosses he would've been the "winner". However, if Bernie Sanders had won, do you know what that class act would've said? He would've been honest and said it was a tie and that both campaigns should be proud. He wouldn't have prematurely celebrated or smugly claimed "victory" all over the news. HRC celebrated well before the final vote was in, uncharacteristically shouting her speech at her supporters while Bill's jaw dropped lower and lower by the minute behind her. It was embarrassing for them, for all of her volunteers, staff and supporters.
Let's be real- She didn't win. Winning by 0.2% is not winning. A super PAC-funded campaign that wins by less than a percentage point over a completely grassroots-funded and people-powered campaign is not winning, it's called LOSING.
The only candidate that came out on top from last night was Bernie Sanders, no doubt about that. #NotMeUs
Let's be real- She didn't win. Winning by 0.2% is not winning. A super PAC-funded campaign that wins by less than a percentage point over a completely grassroots-funded and people-powered campaign is not winning, it's called LOSING.
The only candidate that came out on top from last night was Bernie Sanders, no doubt about that. #NotMeUs
10
OK, OK, have it your way.
Clinton didn't "win."
It was a three-person race and she came in "first."
Hope that makes you feel better.
:-)
Clinton didn't "win."
It was a three-person race and she came in "first."
Hope that makes you feel better.
:-)
2
A win by a nose is still a win! Sore loser.
5
She won, fair and square.
9
Tailor made for Sanders? Actually it was tailor made for Clinton by the way the population centers are disregarded in favor of giving more power to the smaller more conservative districts. If going on pure vote, Sanders won the popular vote by a comfortable margin. Even if you play by the ridiculous Iowa Caucus rules, Sanders won by two delegates. She won because of where ties should have been issued they were chosen by coin toss. She didn't win the election, 6 unofficially recognized coin tosses did, without she lost by two delegates.
This state was tailor made for Clinton and she questionably eeked out a win. Remove the 6 ties she was given by a coin toss as a win and count them as ties, and she actually lost.
This state was tailor made for Clinton and she questionably eeked out a win. Remove the 6 ties she was given by a coin toss as a win and count them as ties, and she actually lost.
6
The Democratic caucas in Iowa was managed as it always has been managed before. The supporters, pundits, and campaign staffers of Bernie need to let go of their hostility and tendency to blame some wrong doing for everything that does not go their way in the normal conduct of a political campaign. It is unseemly, turns some of us off because it makes us think it is an immature organization and therefore casts doubt over their candidates platform and their understanding of it, and it discredits his competence and credibility.
7
I've long thought we should have the international observers we always insist other countries have... whadda ya say?
1
John Edwards has long been persona non grata in the press. A forgotten man. Is that why we keep getting irrational comparisons between Iowa 2008 and 2016? They're apples and oranges. 2008 was a three-person race. Obama, more liberal than the others and from a neighboring state, was greatly advantaged in overcoming the presumptive favorite by Edwards' presence. That Clinton was even more 'presumptive' this time around makes Sanders' achievement more impressive than Obama's eight years ago.
Momentum doesn't matter? Maybe not as much to the favorite, but it sure makes a difference to the rest. Would Obama's eventual nomination have been conceivable without Iowa? It showed the country that he could win. Here indeed is a legitimate point of comparison between '08 and '16. Being seen as able to win is a necessary first step for anyone, but urgent for long shots. A win for Sanders in NH will likely change entirely a discourse that has started to shift. People really like Sanders. They will love him if they think he's got a chance.
Momentum doesn't matter? Maybe not as much to the favorite, but it sure makes a difference to the rest. Would Obama's eventual nomination have been conceivable without Iowa? It showed the country that he could win. Here indeed is a legitimate point of comparison between '08 and '16. Being seen as able to win is a necessary first step for anyone, but urgent for long shots. A win for Sanders in NH will likely change entirely a discourse that has started to shift. People really like Sanders. They will love him if they think he's got a chance.
6
Your argument is just an example of the attack the messenger strategy adopted by many Bernie supporters. Edwards actually took votes away from Obama and not Hillary. In 2008 and now in 2016 there was the Hillary and the anti-Hillary vote. In 2008 Edwards took a big chunk of the anti-Hillary vote in Iowa and Obama still won. In 2016 Bernie has was the sole beneficiary of the anti-Hillary vote but still couldn't win. Any chance Bernie had is being squandered away by his obnoxious supporters who remind moderate democrats and independents of tea party supporters with their scorched earth tactics.
5
Obama also had better name recognition to begin with. He had been a star at the 2004 convention.
2
"Any chance Bernie had is being squandered away by his obnoxious supporters."
I've been preaching it for weeks, and you just put it 12 words. Wow. Thank you!
Seriously, even if he wins the nomination, the patching up is not going to work as easily as it did in '08. They sound way too tea party.
I've been preaching it for weeks, and you just put it 12 words. Wow. Thank you!
Seriously, even if he wins the nomination, the patching up is not going to work as easily as it did in '08. They sound way too tea party.
5
@ Nate Cohn,
You say an ominous sign for Bernie. I say rubbish!
A great outcome for Bernie.
This was a tie vote between the establishment candidate and an interloper.
Vive the people!
You say an ominous sign for Bernie. I say rubbish!
A great outcome for Bernie.
This was a tie vote between the establishment candidate and an interloper.
Vive the people!
18
It was a great outcome for Democrat candidates. All of us should be pleased. It's going to be a long haul, with emotional highs and lows, and we should not take every political pundit's assessment or judgment as "do or die". We should hold on to our hats and work for our preferred candidates and not add to the hystrionics and the antagonism that we see within the Republicans.
Either way, we will be fine, but, we should not damage either of our candidates if we wish to secure a big win in the general election. There is too much at stake for us to lose that one.
Either way, we will be fine, but, we should not damage either of our candidates if we wish to secure a big win in the general election. There is too much at stake for us to lose that one.
1
No, it wasn't a great night for Democrats. I'm not a proponent of either of them. I only want a landslide in November and don't care which of them deliver it.
However, the results show great structural weakness in her appeal. Losing the youth vote 80-20 is an indication she'll be weak with independent young people. She had 8 years to plan how to change results of third place in 2008 and the best she could manage was a tie.
However, the results show great structural weakness in her appeal. Losing the youth vote 80-20 is an indication she'll be weak with independent young people. She had 8 years to plan how to change results of third place in 2008 and the best she could manage was a tie.
1
Iowa used to be liberal it's been tracking Conservative since Brandstad took back the state. Hence Joni Earnst and Steve King. I fail to see where the state is Liberal. Even the local races are going more conservative. So thats a major hole in this argument. Yes go ahead tell me how Joni is liberal
7
To all the folks, from media elites to regular voters, who keep repeating that states like Nevada, Illinois, California, etc., are not 'representative' of Bernie Sanders' demographics -- I'd like to differ on one GLARING point everyone seems to miss: Every state in this union is filled with working poor and a middle class slipping away rapidly. That's Bernie's most powerful 'demographic' and a common denominator among supporters that defies age, race, sexual orientation or party. The disenfranchised or those who feel they may very well soon BE disenfranchised are sick and tired of the quasi-fedual system in place in our country, and once they find out that Bernie offers a powerful alternative to that -- you bet they're going to vote, and vote big for Bernie.
18
Sanders is quite popular in California. I believe Clinton is up about 10 points in the polls but Sanders signs are everywhere and I've yet to see a Clinton one. My crowd tends to be off the mainstream but I live in SF and don't know a single Clinton supporter.
1
"But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths."
Who didn't see this headline coming? First, everything was/is about Iowa- the holy-grail of Presidential forecasts. Now that Bernie Sanders came out in a virtual tie with Clinton- the proverbial yardstick is moved. Now- all is about the Southern States and yada yada yada:
Media/Political prognosticators simply cannot admit that there is a hunger for a candidate like Bernie Sanders who is willing to break the "It's impossible" mantra that [ now] in the 21st Century- "we" are simply unwilling to continue to accept.
Who didn't see this headline coming? First, everything was/is about Iowa- the holy-grail of Presidential forecasts. Now that Bernie Sanders came out in a virtual tie with Clinton- the proverbial yardstick is moved. Now- all is about the Southern States and yada yada yada:
Media/Political prognosticators simply cannot admit that there is a hunger for a candidate like Bernie Sanders who is willing to break the "It's impossible" mantra that [ now] in the 21st Century- "we" are simply unwilling to continue to accept.
10
I am not sure why the Sanders partisans are so busy bashing Hilary Clinton -- if he is as great as you say, you will need us passionate Clinton fans to support their candidate. Having worked and observed Hillary on lgbt issues for twenty years, and having seen her support us when it was not popular and there was little to gain and lots to lose, I am mystified by these personal attacks on her integrity. (yes I have seen the ancient speech against gay marriage -- who cares now) If you are honest you would realize these are all Republican talking points that you have seeped into your subconscious. She is a tough, shrewd politician but a good, good person. Lighten up if you want us to join your bandwagon one day.
14
You may be right and if you are I have lost all hope in our system.
A man of unquestionable integrity and true vision will lose his quixotic charge at the very real windmills of American Corruption and profits.
If Bernie loses you can rest assured that the plight of the poor will not get better. The new trade deals will kill off our middle class and America will be in a state of perpetual war.
The people will have lost.
A man of unquestionable integrity and true vision will lose his quixotic charge at the very real windmills of American Corruption and profits.
If Bernie loses you can rest assured that the plight of the poor will not get better. The new trade deals will kill off our middle class and America will be in a state of perpetual war.
The people will have lost.
4
Thank you for the reality check. I'm a lifelong Democrat and these people are turning me and my many active voter friends & family members off. Way off.
Why all the bile? Boggles my mind.
Why all the bile? Boggles my mind.
3
The problem is much deeper which most Clinton supporters fail to see (the same vitriol by Democrats was hurled toward Nader voters). Clinton foreign policy and her Wall Street ties simply make her unacceptable to a large number of people. They opposed the Iraq War and also Libya, which is a disaster now. It is interesting that Sanders routed her in Iowa in every subcategory under age 45. That Baby Boomers are doing well and voting for her is no coincidence. The Reagan/Clinton policies have been good for them so simply don't care about how bad her and her husband's policies (and the GOP) have been.
Nate, you pretend to by analytical, but you're clearly clinging to and justifying your words a month ago that Bernie had no chance. He loses by losing 6/6 coin tosses, and you call the result ominous? Since you're so sure, do you promise to quit when Bernie gets the nomination?
6
Like everything in politics, this also is debatable. Yes, a huge victory, numbers-wise by Mr. Sanders would have helped him more. Yet, starting bit obscure, he came from far behind running against Hillary Clinton, as well-known a political figure in American politics as can be and ended in a tie. Fair enough, even a "tie" is debatable. Americans like come-from-behind stories. This was one. I disagree with Mr. Cohn. It's Sanders, not Clinton who comes out gaining strength.
9
Guys, it was a tie. Onto the next primary. Better yet, Super Tuesday.
4
I think you are all wrong, Sanders is speaking to a huge frustration amongst 99% of people, he is consistent with his arguments and has not wavered. The fact that Donald Trump was even fathomable is unbelievable and he speaks to this frustration (in his way) although the caucus didn't quite go for it! No one in the media has really grabbed on to it, all the norms are out the window...a revolution is coming, one way or the other, as long as the status quo remains!
8
Good one Nate, good one.
2
Pardon the college football analogy from S.E.C. land, but Bernie tying Hillary is like Vanderbilt coming from way behind to tie Alabama. Hardly think the Crimson Tide faithful would consider that a victory.
10
I don't care if you support Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders - Let's not tear the Democratic Party apart with negative grumbling over .003% or whatever - The media would love nothing more than for the Dems to start fighting like the Republicans and they are doing their best to egg that fight on - Don't fall for it - Support your candidate but respect the other one and the supporters of the other one. Either one - I don't care what any of you say - either one would be a great President. They both have their strengths and weaknesses - but with is better than Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or Marco Rubio - Let's not stoop to that level.
11
Brava, Shelley! What is wrong with bile-spewing Bernites?
2
It was a great night for Bernie. The virtual tie is truly a win. He'll win New Hampshire too. Your analysis is baffling. Frank Bruni's column is more accurate.
7
Bruni's column is Hillary bashing. Cohn's is analytical. You just don't like his conclusion.
3
Better for Clinton? Are you kidding NYTimes??
Thank God Iowans are smart enough to recognize an honest-to-God candidate like Bernie Sanders. They've put him on the map because he deserves a place at the table -- at the head of it!
Thank God Iowans are smart enough to recognize an honest-to-God candidate like Bernie Sanders. They've put him on the map because he deserves a place at the table -- at the head of it!
12
People voted for Bernie because he is not Hillary!
3
I thought we were being told that Bernie had no chance because his young supporters wouldn't turn out to vote? Because they did turn out, this looks to be a very good sign for Sanders.
6
As long as Sanders continues to talk straight and sensibly, with substance rather than rhetoric, then the contrast to Hillary will only be exacerbated. He appears to have lost by a very small margin, without the help of an armada of financial backers. That's a seriously impressive victory, especially when considering how much money Hillary has raised and spent at this point.
Actually, I'd rather see a Sanders/Clinton ticket instead of Clinton/Sanders. But either way, I don't see anyone else fulfilling the VP ticket.
Actually, I'd rather see a Sanders/Clinton ticket instead of Clinton/Sanders. But either way, I don't see anyone else fulfilling the VP ticket.
4
Clinton/O'Malley, simple
Sanders/ Obama (yes, Obama as VP)
Sanders/ Kerry (to plug up any concerns about foreign experience)
Sanders/ Kerry (to plug up any concerns about foreign experience)
I like the campaign both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders are running as it involves a more nuanced discussion of national priorities and, as importantly, the plan for implementing these priorities.
I would love to see a Clinton/Sanders ticket to combine Bernie's idealism with Clinton's pragmatism.
The biggest difference between them is not policy, but the ability to work with diverse constituents to get things done.
It is laudable for Senator Sanders to refuse super-pac money, but not wise.
You don't unilaterally disarm and hope for the best. You work within the system you have to be able to appoint the jurists who can get rid of Citizen's United.
Also, we need to build on ACA to drive down the cost of health care delivery and cover every American. Some Sanders supporters seem to think a single-payer system is the only way to drive down costs.
People criticized President Obama for not radically changing the country fast enough. They seem to forget he isn't a king.
Despite unrelenting obstructionism, President Obama has been one of the most transformative leaders in history.
He is a centrist, not an extremist.
That is where most of the country is.
That is why he was able to be elected twice by more than 51% of the people, the first time since Eisenhower.
We need to build on President Obama's success, not splinter like the Republican party.
I would love to see a Clinton/Sanders ticket to combine Bernie's idealism with Clinton's pragmatism.
The biggest difference between them is not policy, but the ability to work with diverse constituents to get things done.
It is laudable for Senator Sanders to refuse super-pac money, but not wise.
You don't unilaterally disarm and hope for the best. You work within the system you have to be able to appoint the jurists who can get rid of Citizen's United.
Also, we need to build on ACA to drive down the cost of health care delivery and cover every American. Some Sanders supporters seem to think a single-payer system is the only way to drive down costs.
People criticized President Obama for not radically changing the country fast enough. They seem to forget he isn't a king.
Despite unrelenting obstructionism, President Obama has been one of the most transformative leaders in history.
He is a centrist, not an extremist.
That is where most of the country is.
That is why he was able to be elected twice by more than 51% of the people, the first time since Eisenhower.
We need to build on President Obama's success, not splinter like the Republican party.
6
I'm as yet undecided for the primaries, but I'll be a straight-ticket Dem supporter in the general, regardless. I totally understand why Clinton is having trouble, even among Dems. I personally have less of a problem with her proverbial honesty than some obviously do. I'm not one to denigrate politicians for being politicians, and Hillary is a politician's politician! Real politics, however, is a tough, thankless job, because its the nature of the job that likely no one walks away happy (in our Age of convenience and high expectations). That said, its not in our nature as a republic to trade the Presidency between familial dynasties. And we're only considering it this time because we have to (silently pointing at the GOP clown posse) if Bernie can't sway enough voters to back his message. So, I get it. We'll find all the reasons possible to indicate that Hillary for President just sticks in our craw.
But in the end, if she makes through the primaries, and we look over at the other side...the choice will be blindingly obvious: Hillary's the one we need in the White House.
But in the end, if she makes through the primaries, and we look over at the other side...the choice will be blindingly obvious: Hillary's the one we need in the White House.
4
Personally, I want to see a Clinton/Sanders ticket. People are evenly divided on them and many of us are undecided. Clinton has experience, Sanders has progressive passion. The so called problems with the emails and Benghazi etc etc I have to overlook because it is really impossible to tell how much is a serious breach, and how much is created with the sole purpose of damaging her. Somehow, after four rounds of Benghazi hearings the investigation seems to have run out of reasons to keep going. The 22 emails looks like a partisan attack at this point....and completely plausible that the decision to make them confidential came well after the fact. So all that business aside...I want to see them work together. She has her head on straight and can maneuver the Congressional traps, and has foreign policy chops. Bernie will keep her honest and push her progressively plus bring the excitement to the campaign that she lacks. Best of both worlds.
11
No. Sanders/Elizabeth Warren.
2
Curious why Sanders' 4 terms as Mayor, 16 years in the House, and 10 years in the Senate, make Sanders lack "experience". Guess you vehemently opposed Obama and Kennedy too, given their being mere novices compared to Sanders . . . .
1
Sanders has been in govt longer than Cinton.Being married to a Governor and President is NOT experience. SHe did little for NY State when she nabbed the junior senator seat and her tenure as Secretary of State was underwhelming and not to mention controversial.
If by experience you mean good at clamping down on civil liberties (wire tapping/patriot act etc) then yeah she is great at that.
If by experience you mean good at clamping down on civil liberties (wire tapping/patriot act etc) then yeah she is great at that.
1
Seriously? Bernie was a no-name underdog who came from a double-digit deficit to pull even with Hillary in just a few months. Iowa is tailor made for Hillary - she's been there multiple times before and has an organization that is experienced and knows the system. Bernie is a newcomer - he had never caucused in Iowa and as a result had a confused organizational structure. Yet he did as well as Hillary. She clearly has the mainstream media pulling out the stops to push her toward coronation but the media hasn't deflated Bernie yet.
21
Bernie has the advantage because he came so close in Iowa a recount might be necessary. Meanwhile, New Hampshire is next and he's probably going to win big there.
9
No recount is possible in Iowa. They count the votes by actually counting people standing in a room. Its a situation that can not be recreated for a recount. Sounds like a odd and primitive system for 2016.
7
really? A recount? What's the point? So he gets one more delegate in Iowa? You think that's worth the money to do? How about sending some money to Flint instead. Beyond that, how many delegates can Bernie get total in February compared to Ms. Clinton with Nevada and South Carolina coming up next?
3
Too bad they did not have this primitive system in Florida in 2000.
3
Hillary would make an excellent candidate for the Republican wing of "The Party" but the nominal conservatives of the world do not seem to like her and who am I to argue?
12
Welcome to Establishment Land, where democracy is managed by paid consultants, pundits, and Ivy Leaguers, and the citizenry are mere dross. What Cohn fails to grasp--because he is a supposed genius at numbers, but not understanding anything about democracy or social movements--is that Sanders is *reshaping* the electorate every time he speaks or holds a rally. It is astonishing that Horn and others have trivialized Sanders' victory in Iowa (for that is what it was, by any reasonable standard of the obstacles he had to overcome to win over 49% of caucus vote). They seem not to understand that we, the people, are supposed to elect our leaders, not the Times Editorial Board. Horn has statistics on his side. But so what? The same statisticians and pundits were telling us a year ago that Sanders didn't stand a chance. And now he has caught up with Clinton and is poised to bury her in New Hampshire. Sanders clearly has a long way to go, but the augeries are proving better and better. Meanwhile, Cohn is little more than a shill for the DNC and other powerful, powerful interests in our society who are trying to do everything they can to preserve the status quo.
44
Bernie is too 'out there'. He has to win the moderates. He has to win the women. He has to win minorities. He has never won an election getting more than 210,000 votes. Seriously, folks, this is an election about the Ginsburg and Breyer and maybe even Kennedy seats on the SCOTUS, and not having a united front--any Dem, any time--means more Scalias.
3
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz notwithstanding, you STILL seem to put the DNC and the GOP into the same bandwagon after 8 years of GOP obstructionism, needing, wanting, desiring to see no difference between the two. Oh, sad little puppy! When will the blinders come off? Sure, Bernie would be great, like imagining Willie Wonka's factory really existed. But settling for Clinton would be no great loss.
2
...Randall Terry, former leader and founder(?) of Operation Rescue
I view it as Bernie's victory. With all the publicity covering Iowa caucus, people see a concrete prove that Bernie can go all the way and stand shoulder to shoulder with the "establishment" that spent so much of her campaign resources in this place. I expect donation to Bernie's campaign to rise. People love winners, but they also love underdogs. What they love most is an underdog that proved he can win.
21
The media anointed Bill Clinton as America's first black president; but he wasn't black.
The media has anointed Hillary Clinton as America's progressive candidate; but she isn't progressive.
This election is not about race. It's about restoring economic for America's working and middle class after a generation long slide that started with Reagan spinning fairy tales included two terms of Bill Clinton playing his saxophone on TV while working Americans were sinking in quick sand.
The media has anointed Hillary Clinton as America's progressive candidate; but she isn't progressive.
This election is not about race. It's about restoring economic for America's working and middle class after a generation long slide that started with Reagan spinning fairy tales included two terms of Bill Clinton playing his saxophone on TV while working Americans were sinking in quick sand.
20
I'm not sure how Iowa qualifies as a "relatively liberal" state when it has two Republican Senators and 57 Republican Representatives (to 43 Democratic ones). Just because they voted in Obama does not make it a liberal state. In my mind that Sanders did so well is even more testament to how he will do in other more liberal states.
21
it might not be a liberal state, but Democratic caucus-ers are. In fact, one poll said 43% of democratic caucus goers called themselves socialist. (Just as Iowa Republican caucus goers skew very conservative...)
4
That may be true for the general election, but for the caucus we're only assessing the Democrats that are caucusing for either Hillary or Bernie; although these Democrats are in the minority for statewide and local elections compared with their Republican counterparts, the Democrats taken as a separate group are relatively liberal.
4
No, Sanders will not be the nominee. But more dirt turning up on Billary (there seems to be a new scandal every month, and the email scandal is festering) may make the Democrats realize she would be a weak candidate in November. They may persuade her to withdraw for the good of the party.
3
There seems to be, but there isn't.
2
E-mail "scandal"? What "scandal"? There isn't one. Just like there wasn't one from Whitewater and Vince Foster to Benghazi...unless, of course, you count the right-wing smear machine to be a scandal.
5
Will never happen. For better or worse, we're stuck with Hillary as the centrist nominee for EITHER party. (Personally, I don't think she'll be a bad president no matter the 'baggage' she'll be carrying. In fact, following Obama (and her philandering husband), I think she'll have something to prove)
3
It wasn't a "virtual tie." She won. She won by a small margin, but she won. She got more delegates. She got more "caucusers" willing to stand in her corner.
Why people are trying to deny her the victory, or downgrade it, is curious to me. It sounds a bit sexist, to be honest about it.
Why people are trying to deny her the victory, or downgrade it, is curious to me. It sounds a bit sexist, to be honest about it.
13
Care to elaborate or why it's sexist or do you just like to throw accusations out haphazardly?
1
I don't think anyone is denying her "victory"--the numbers are what the numbers are, and the Bernie Sanders team is not contesting them.
BUT--given that Hillary won simply by the good fortune of a couple of coin tosses should alarm her. That she is claiming victory, and the fact that major media outlets are letting her do so without highlighting that niggling little fact shows how much in denial the Democratic establishment (including the media) still is.
BUT--given that Hillary won simply by the good fortune of a couple of coin tosses should alarm her. That she is claiming victory, and the fact that major media outlets are letting her do so without highlighting that niggling little fact shows how much in denial the Democratic establishment (including the media) still is.
"Sexist, to be honest..." That's a joke. 0.3% is a virtual tie. Or a very, very close victory. Whatever makes you feel better but it's the same thing. To be honest, maybe you should consider that several Dem caucus sites decided the victor by flipping a coin. I would say that lends itself to a "virtual" tie/victory but maybe coins are sexist?
This is a bit disappointing.
I see little evidence of Nate Cohn's well-deserved reputation for intensive statistical analysis. Broad trends - past and present - are inferred but the back story is left unspoken.
It certainly is true that Iowa is not representative of the "average" American but the real story is HOW Sanders closed in on the Clinton dynasty.
He did not suck up to religous loonies.
He did not promise to mortgage the rest of the country to prop up Iowa's welfare queens - the corn farmers.
He did not kneel down to science deniers.
He did not lie about his opponent or her policies, or engage in gutter politics, unlike his opponent.
He did express the very reasonable anger that many Americans feel at being extorted by fabulously rich bankers to protect their privileged positions and wealth with the full connivance of many legislators who are well-paid fron tax dollars.
He did promise to work for universal health care and to advocate for taxes on the very wealthy to rise slighty to pay for programs the "promote the general welfare".
Frankly, it would be helpful to voters if all candidates had to submit specific financial plans along with their fantasy platforms.
I see little evidence of Nate Cohn's well-deserved reputation for intensive statistical analysis. Broad trends - past and present - are inferred but the back story is left unspoken.
It certainly is true that Iowa is not representative of the "average" American but the real story is HOW Sanders closed in on the Clinton dynasty.
He did not suck up to religous loonies.
He did not promise to mortgage the rest of the country to prop up Iowa's welfare queens - the corn farmers.
He did not kneel down to science deniers.
He did not lie about his opponent or her policies, or engage in gutter politics, unlike his opponent.
He did express the very reasonable anger that many Americans feel at being extorted by fabulously rich bankers to protect their privileged positions and wealth with the full connivance of many legislators who are well-paid fron tax dollars.
He did promise to work for universal health care and to advocate for taxes on the very wealthy to rise slighty to pay for programs the "promote the general welfare".
Frankly, it would be helpful to voters if all candidates had to submit specific financial plans along with their fantasy platforms.
37
Sorry, this isn't what I'm seeing among volunteers: depending on which part of town I go to and volunteer for a Bernie phonebank, I meet college students attending an expensive private university, or graduate students / undergrad mix at an elite public university, or people living in an affluent neighborhood, and people with a decades long commitment to political issues, yet hanging on by a thread financially and having to split the cost of gas to attend a distant meeting. Surprising to me is the coming together of old and young, and the involvement of people who are foreign born while quite assimilated into the national culture. Kids who entered politics thru NORML, theology students, military vets.
I love every event just for the joy of meeting these people.
This is not an SDS revival, these are not bonus marchers, nor is it a children's crusade. Not in tone, not in demographics, not in rhetoric. Nothing strident in our conversations.
I don't see a "Bernie demographic" -- instead I'm seeing a shared point of view: America is full of wonderful people, and we want a government that shares our appreciation of, and commitment, to one another.
Write more about the super delegates, please, Mr. Cohn. Explain how they risk disenfranchising us and what we can do about it.
I love every event just for the joy of meeting these people.
This is not an SDS revival, these are not bonus marchers, nor is it a children's crusade. Not in tone, not in demographics, not in rhetoric. Nothing strident in our conversations.
I don't see a "Bernie demographic" -- instead I'm seeing a shared point of view: America is full of wonderful people, and we want a government that shares our appreciation of, and commitment, to one another.
Write more about the super delegates, please, Mr. Cohn. Explain how they risk disenfranchising us and what we can do about it.
40
I don't see a Bernie demographic either. Me and my sister are in our late forties - and we're backing Bernie. I'm a child care worker and sis is a secretary. Our older sister who is a 60 y.o. and works as a hospital chaplain in Boston is backing him too. If my Greatest Generation mother - conservative Republican Catholic and very "pro-life" were alive today I'd be convincing her to vote for Bernie too. I think she would be able to see how Bernie's policies (universal health care, living wage, paid family leave, cautious about going to war, addressing Climate Change) would be more in tune with her "pro life" values than any of the current Republicans. Vive la Revolution.
4
In baseball, so the saying goes, the tie goes to the runner. Saunders made it to first base by a tie. Good for him. I agree with Mr. Cohn, though: To have a shot at eventually reaching home plate, Saunders needed to have demonstrated some speed and strength by rounding first and threatening hard to take second. The state-by-state Demo-politics are simply such that if he can't apply enough pressure early to force some major errors, then I think the BernieBall game will be decided by the middle innings.
To others commenters who are upset by this assessment, I don't think there's any bias in stating what the numbers are telling you. Let's face it, like it or not, there's a distinct advantage for moneyball in this league, and lots of games are won by the team that is hardly anyone's favorite.
(Submitted with no apologies to George Will.)
To others commenters who are upset by this assessment, I don't think there's any bias in stating what the numbers are telling you. Let's face it, like it or not, there's a distinct advantage for moneyball in this league, and lots of games are won by the team that is hardly anyone's favorite.
(Submitted with no apologies to George Will.)
6
Forcing "major errors"? It seems Hillary is quite capable of committing these on her own. Safe to say an ongoing FBI investigation that is only heating up is a "major error".
Hey, no doubt, E. We are in the early innings, though. The A's and Twins have won pennants when the Yankees had 10X as much money.
Ominous? Are you kidding me? If not for SIX lucky coin tosses, he would have been the victor. Sanders tying Clinton is like an "old nag" tying your thoroughbred in a race. It is Clinton who has significant likability and electability issues. If Democrats hope to win congressional seats this year, ditch her and get behind a true progressive.
40
The coin toss myth is not true. Coin tosses did not assign delegates.
5
Coin tosses were county caucus deciders, not for the state. “These ties are not for statewide delegate equivalents. They are for county delegates. Those are different, and not nearly as big a deal,” noted Harry Enten on the FiveThirtyEight blog.
5
Careful, Nate. In your haste to carry water for Hillary, along with the rest of the Times staff, you forgot about the nearly 40-point deficit Sanders had just a few months ago. Demolishing that deficit against a very formidable opponent is a major achievement that bodes ill for Clinton. Keep it up and you'll be remembered as the Democrat equivalent of Karl Rove, in disbelief when Sanders is the nominee.
41
I'm a world away from Iowa. I viewed Sanders as a long shot, and never saw myself voting for someone I didn't think had a chance to defeat the republican nominee. Now I'm giving the guy money. And I'm not the only one. Hilary lost in my opinion. But what do I know? I don't write for a newspaper. I'm just someone who changed his mind because of Iowa.
40
"He fares best among white voters." I wonder how many of the Bernie supporters here belong to that group.
7
100%? Just a guess, of course.
2
All of them, surely. And the ones snarking and spitting are the "Bernie Bros" that they deny exist. They'd as soon vote for Rand Paul or Donald Trump as Sanders.
3
I got referred here by one of my black friends.
3
NYT bias getting very boring.
44
not a great outcome considering the clinton campaign had been laying groundwork in iowa for years before now and sanders didn't start tv ads until last november.
16
I just do not get all the reading of Iowa's political tea leaves. Clinton and Sanders split the vote in a state that is decidedly non-representative of the American populace and has an embarrassingly low voting rate. They received 23 and 21 delegates respectively. Big deal. On to the next state. There is still a long way to go to accrue the 2382 delegates needed by June 14 for the nomination . Why are these results any more important than those from Pennsylvania, Arizona, Washington, or any other state? If Iowa has some outsized influence on who eventually wins the nomination, it is because the media create the false impression that something of great significance happened in Iowa.
21
I'm a little more guarded in lowering the ceiling on the Sanders campaign. Unlike Obama, he did not draw nearly the media attention in Iowa that he might, now, going forward. Most immensely materially, he is standing alone against his distinguished rival, who nevertheless will draw in 2016 something much less forgiving than she faced in 2008 -- the combined curiosity of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and a very attentively focused discussion of conflicts of interest in the operation of her private State Department at the family Foundation, and her use of the nation's State Department, to enhance her family's speaking fees. Nor will so much as one leader of this Party step in to defend it for the sake of the nation, if she is set back upon the unknown knowns of the risks she exposes Democrats to in 2016.
8
Here, here!! Finally a rational mind has yanked the wanderers back in line!!
it's disappointing to see all the ideological and idealistic commentary in bullish optimism about the sanders candidacy, because it suggests ignorance of the importance of campaign organization, war chest, ground game, data analysis, superdelegate pledges, media connections, and all the rest of the ingredients that go into the secret sauce of winning politics.
politics is today a form of industrial manufacture for mass market consumption, just like everything else in our society, and it's sad to see young people espousing the belief that politics is just a horse race, the president can tell congress what to do, an ineffectual state and federal representative can be a transformative president, and all the rest of it.
worst of all to see the delusions wrapped up as the accusation of media bias.
the predictive markets are usually the most prescient information source: they have clinton vs. rubio in the national, with 2:1 odds that the democrats will carry the election.
politics is today a form of industrial manufacture for mass market consumption, just like everything else in our society, and it's sad to see young people espousing the belief that politics is just a horse race, the president can tell congress what to do, an ineffectual state and federal representative can be a transformative president, and all the rest of it.
worst of all to see the delusions wrapped up as the accusation of media bias.
the predictive markets are usually the most prescient information source: they have clinton vs. rubio in the national, with 2:1 odds that the democrats will carry the election.
14
Exactly. There is also a rather noticeable tone of snark, some sexism and more than some naïveté. I do hope his Campaign people are not encouraging this tone -- of perhaps even writing these comments in a mass ema distribution sent out this morning.
He should concede. The longer he doesn't, the more he looks like "sore loser."
He should concede. The longer he doesn't, the more he looks like "sore loser."
4
How about interpreting many of these comments as illustrative of the frustration that exists at what our political system has become--the crux of Bernie Sanders's message??
Why do we have to settle for political machinations as the only way for our democracy to operate, especially when there is a refreshing voice in the race leading a new conversation?
Why do we have to settle for political machinations as the only way for our democracy to operate, especially when there is a refreshing voice in the race leading a new conversation?
1
Yeah, but all the "ingredients" you state are but dressing on the content -- policies and programs that affect real people in their everyday lives. Your average American doesn't have time to examine the war chest, listen to the pundits, and look at the polls but they go to the supermarket and realize that food prices are going up, up, up while their wages stay stagnant. I'm a late-comer when it comes to supporting Sanders but reading his policies, I decided to support him instead of Clinton.
1
Sanders needs to use some of his $20 million in January contributions to PUBLICIZE his impeccable civil rights credentials dating back to the early 1960s. African Americans noticed Sanders' even race with Clinton in Iowa, and are starting to look at him as a serious contender worth investigation. They already view him as honest--they just haven't heard that much about his history yet.
26
It is nice to see liberal passion and support for Mr. Sanders. This article is just articulating the tactical realities of the election and the demographic makeup of the democratic party. Mr Sanders cast himself as a fairly leftist candidate, which is a fine place to be ideologically for a portion of the Democratic party. But the reality is, the Democratic party is very diverse, with older voters, minority voters, blue color voters, catholic voters, young voters, feminist voters, etc. When looking at larger diversified states, Mr. Sander's position does not appeal broadly enough to really contest Ms. Clinton. Iowa and NH are not representative of California, NY, Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Texas, and most of the South, big states with lots of people and a diverse electorate. Bernie is not Barack Obama, and he will not win the primary election. He makes some great points and represents an important perspective, but Ms Clinton holds many of the same positions, perhaps more moderated, but certainly directional similar. The Times is not advancing propaganda for Ms. Clinton, just trying to convey electoral reality.
12
We will see, but Sanders did "win" the young (under 40) voters, under $50K incomes, first time voters, and most heavily populated precincts. Hilary "won" the others (more categories). But for these categories, Sanders was favoured by larger margins. Overall, they were both very similar. If Clinton wins the nomination by the same margin (0.3%), more power to her but it will suggest weakness in the general IMO. I think whoever wins the nomination has to do it by a comfortable margin to ensure there's not an R president.
"This raises a straightforward challenge for Mr. Sanders. He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008."
If you recall, early on in 2008 blacks were lined up behind HRC. Once Obama proved he could win in white states, blacks were more than happy to support him. Blacks' decision to vote for Obama in the primaries was as much a rational one as much a favorite-son choice, if not more.
If Hillary cannot defeat Sanders in white state primaries, why should blacks support her? In 2008 blacks were voting in their best interests when they went for Obama, not only out of loyalty. He proved he could win white votes in state primaries and if Bernie continues to do the same, he will garner blacks votes in the Southern primaries as well.
Voting blocs of all leanings, stripes and colors want to back a winner. HRC's Iowa showing wasn't a win and Bernie's virtual tie was not a failure, as Mr. Cohn concludes.
One sure way for HRC to to lose the black vote is for her and her supporters to assume she has it.
If you recall, early on in 2008 blacks were lined up behind HRC. Once Obama proved he could win in white states, blacks were more than happy to support him. Blacks' decision to vote for Obama in the primaries was as much a rational one as much a favorite-son choice, if not more.
If Hillary cannot defeat Sanders in white state primaries, why should blacks support her? In 2008 blacks were voting in their best interests when they went for Obama, not only out of loyalty. He proved he could win white votes in state primaries and if Bernie continues to do the same, he will garner blacks votes in the Southern primaries as well.
Voting blocs of all leanings, stripes and colors want to back a winner. HRC's Iowa showing wasn't a win and Bernie's virtual tie was not a failure, as Mr. Cohn concludes.
One sure way for HRC to to lose the black vote is for her and her supporters to assume she has it.
15
I also read a lot of comments where people write how they love Bernie's ideas but are worried he won't be elected. As he gathers more momentum, they may decide to support him.
2
These demographics that she won, according to the Times own infographic, were extremely close. She never had a monster lead over Bernie except for the electability poll where Bernie only got like 10%, largely due to the media, especially the New York Times, telling everyone how small his chance is of getting even the nomination.
This is terrible news for HRC. A democratic socialist Independent gave her a run for her money and she's supposed to so fully represent the Democratic Party. She thought she had it in the bag, that she could declare her win early, that she didn't really have to deal with Bernie anymore. She should have blown him out of the water, based on the coverage and message put forth by most media outlets, they should have been able to call it early on. This did not happen, they were within .2% of each other at the end.
HRC has been in the public eye for quite some time. Bernie, while he's been in public office for over 2 decades, was a basically unknown to millions. That he got that close to her should be looked at as a negative for her. But I will look at it as a positive, that people are finally starting to see where these politicians stand and how much they actually care about the people and the issues they talk about so often and it seems like people are starting to want something different.
This is terrible news for HRC. A democratic socialist Independent gave her a run for her money and she's supposed to so fully represent the Democratic Party. She thought she had it in the bag, that she could declare her win early, that she didn't really have to deal with Bernie anymore. She should have blown him out of the water, based on the coverage and message put forth by most media outlets, they should have been able to call it early on. This did not happen, they were within .2% of each other at the end.
HRC has been in the public eye for quite some time. Bernie, while he's been in public office for over 2 decades, was a basically unknown to millions. That he got that close to her should be looked at as a negative for her. But I will look at it as a positive, that people are finally starting to see where these politicians stand and how much they actually care about the people and the issues they talk about so often and it seems like people are starting to want something different.
29
Front page establishment denial. Fascinating development.
20
This was not on the Front Page.
2
on my app it was- for awhile.
For someone so smart you really can't see the forest for the trees
The very fact that Hillary, who is endorsed by almost everyone, who almost all the Super Delegates have committed to, with boatloads of money, only "tied" with Sanders clearly shows that Hillary is not electable. Hillary cannot win the election if even within her own party Hillary cannot win a majority.
If Half the Democrats view Hillary as flawed, taken too much money from all of the Special Interests & more comfortable with the Super Rich than the 99%, just how is that going to play with Independents & Moderate Republicans. Is everyone suposed to "hold their nose" so they can vote for Hillary? While the Establishment "claims" Hillary "can get the job done" too many believe that after all the Millions Hillary received for reciting what it was like to stand near Obama or meet with World Leaders that that is the be all and end all for any one of the Clintons; getting paid oodles to give a little speech to a small gathering of the Hoi Poloi
With Hillary, as with Bill, it is not "Ask not what you can do for your country" but where can I go to get paid another $250,000 for an hour speech
No one I know believes that Hillary will do even 1 thing to make life fairer or better for the 99% if it in anyway harms the 1% in the slightest way; Hillary will do no act that upsets her "gravy train."
Iowa proves that half the party that is motivated enough to vote feels the same way; this was a loss for Hillary
The very fact that Hillary, who is endorsed by almost everyone, who almost all the Super Delegates have committed to, with boatloads of money, only "tied" with Sanders clearly shows that Hillary is not electable. Hillary cannot win the election if even within her own party Hillary cannot win a majority.
If Half the Democrats view Hillary as flawed, taken too much money from all of the Special Interests & more comfortable with the Super Rich than the 99%, just how is that going to play with Independents & Moderate Republicans. Is everyone suposed to "hold their nose" so they can vote for Hillary? While the Establishment "claims" Hillary "can get the job done" too many believe that after all the Millions Hillary received for reciting what it was like to stand near Obama or meet with World Leaders that that is the be all and end all for any one of the Clintons; getting paid oodles to give a little speech to a small gathering of the Hoi Poloi
With Hillary, as with Bill, it is not "Ask not what you can do for your country" but where can I go to get paid another $250,000 for an hour speech
No one I know believes that Hillary will do even 1 thing to make life fairer or better for the 99% if it in anyway harms the 1% in the slightest way; Hillary will do no act that upsets her "gravy train."
Iowa proves that half the party that is motivated enough to vote feels the same way; this was a loss for Hillary
40
Setting aside all my own personal views about various candidates, the relentless ridiculing of Trump and marginalizing of Bernie Sanders in the coverage by the Times is so obvious it is painful - painful to see that the writers AND editors are so inside the bubble that they cannot cannot get any perspective. I wonder what it would have taken for this piece to have actually said that someone who started a few months ago 40 points behind Hillary and ended up in a tie did a good job?
34
Nate, dont let a single primary election ruin your credibility as an aspiring writer. Even the title and premise is ridiculous to anyone being somewhat objective. Hillary desperately needed a win in Iowa and what she got was a victory in name only with most of the nation not staying up til 2-3 in the morning to see who "officially" won when the delegates were split just about evenly. Hillary is almost sure to lose New Hampshire and she needs to start focusing on the next caucus state where all the little quirkly rules can be bent in her favor (we honestly need to move to populous elections instead of caucuses in the 21st century- its embarassing for everyone of all camps and parties). Her national polls are slipping, not improving, and I highly doubt 3,4 extra delegates from Iowa is going to help resolve that.
14
Ridiculous analysis by Nate Cohn; event the pundits on CNN were touting this tie as big win for Bernie and a serious blow to the Clinton camp. He came up from behind in a huge way in Iowa and will continue to do so after he wins big in NH next week. He will break the so-called "firewall" in the south and win over the Black and Latino voters, which he has already begun to do.
34
It's interesting how the NY Times controls the story. I would hardly believe it myself except I saw it last night. In the middle of the night, the original title of this article was how a virtual tie for clinton was a victory for her. There were 11 comments allowed and then this column was closed for commenting. Which I thought was weird considering how different my (and other's) views of this primary on the D side had gone -- i.e. a "win" for Sanders and concern for Clinton. Now the title is changed and comments are allowed. What's up?
29
@ms,
You're comment grabbed me. I don't understand either. Is this a technical thing or something else entirely?
2-2-16@10:01 pm et
You're comment grabbed me. I don't understand either. Is this a technical thing or something else entirely?
2-2-16@10:01 pm et
1
I'm beginning to feel NYT is applying reverse psychology here.
Maybe the NYT actually supports Bernie, but wants to demonstrate bias and unfairness pushing readers to go with Bernie, which NYT wanted all along.
By the comments, if the NYT really supported Hillary, they wouldn't support her in such a way that it becomes nonsense, complete bias, and a liability for her.
Politics is everywhere, in special interests, media, workplaces, and government. NYT is just doing what it wants to do. It certainly isn't the perfect voice for the people but I think most readers have now woken up and can decide what is accurate and what isn't.
Maybe the NYT actually supports Bernie, but wants to demonstrate bias and unfairness pushing readers to go with Bernie, which NYT wanted all along.
By the comments, if the NYT really supported Hillary, they wouldn't support her in such a way that it becomes nonsense, complete bias, and a liability for her.
Politics is everywhere, in special interests, media, workplaces, and government. NYT is just doing what it wants to do. It certainly isn't the perfect voice for the people but I think most readers have now woken up and can decide what is accurate and what isn't.
9
It would seem that Mrs. Clinton is now the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy.
12
Sanders has spent his entire career governing one of the whitest states in the nation (95%), with a population the size of Detroit (but without the problems). His state has a troubled economy, 15% of the people rely on food stamps, child poverty is growing, and the Vermont economy is propped up by the Liberal 1% and their vacation homes.
Sanders has had 26 years to convince his colleagues to get the revolution started, but has not had much success.
If he could not advocate successfully for his own small state all those years, how could face the challenges of governing an incredibly large and diverse nation, either at home or on the international stage?
So how again would he be more effective from the Oval Office than he has been from the House and Senate?
Sanders has had 26 years to convince his colleagues to get the revolution started, but has not had much success.
If he could not advocate successfully for his own small state all those years, how could face the challenges of governing an incredibly large and diverse nation, either at home or on the international stage?
So how again would he be more effective from the Oval Office than he has been from the House and Senate?
8
Uh... no. Sanders has not been governing for his entire career. He's a Senator, and a Representative before that. You might want to direct your claims to the Governor of Vermont.
14
Saying Vermont doesn't have the problems compared to Detroit proves you know nothing about Vermont. The state has serious problems. It has a terrible economy and an extremely high cost of living with incredible poverty and a huge wealth gap. It ranks #1 in the country for drug addiction. Sharing a border with Canada, drug and weapon smuggling is big business. What goes bump in the middle of a Vermont night is scarier than any gang in Detroit.
1
He did an awesome job as Mayor of Burlington, transforming the undeveloped waterfront into a beautiful public park; Burlington blossomed, he was good for businesses and the economy there. As a congressman and senator, he has advocated for farmers and workers across the state. He is well-liked and loved by Vermonters, as well as typically more moderate New Hampshirites next door.
Disappointing to see the NYT spinning the news to promote its own political agenda. According to the Times' news article this morning, the Clinton camp had been expecting a decisive victory, it was shocked by the closeness of the result, the Clintons are thinking about shaking up their campaign team, Sen. Sanders is well ahead in New Hampshire, and he came from 40 points back to create a virtual tie. Calling this is good news for Clinton and bad news for Sanders gives new meaning to the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig."
30
'...he won an astonishing 84 percent of those 17 to 29...'
Yes, yes, we all know that young people, who have never really had to support themselves, think that if we just 'share' equally and do what we 'love', somehow it will all work out.
Sanders has good ideas, but no way to pay for them, outside of the Senate is miraculously no longer controlled by the GOP.
Yes, yes, we all know that young people, who have never really had to support themselves, think that if we just 'share' equally and do what we 'love', somehow it will all work out.
Sanders has good ideas, but no way to pay for them, outside of the Senate is miraculously no longer controlled by the GOP.
6
Bernie Sanders is winning, in every way. Not the least of them being that he is forcing Hillary Clinton to the left, while he has not had to move at all. He is redefining the political map. And to the extent that the battle in coming weeks will be for African American and Latino votes, that reality is not going to change, quite the contrary.
Mr. Cohn, I'm surprised you can't see that, or maybe just don't want to.
Mr. Cohn, I'm surprised you can't see that, or maybe just don't want to.
15
If Ms Clinton had crushed Mr Sanders in Iowa, there would be no more television coverage of the Democratic primary. Now at least her inevitable win of the party's nomination will appear newsworthy.
In the meantime, Mr Sanders can enjoy the limelight and hope to influence a few party planks.
In the meantime, Mr Sanders can enjoy the limelight and hope to influence a few party planks.
6
The New York Times credibility has been stained with this election cycle. Their constant support for Hillary Clinton without nearly ever giving Bernie Sanders a shot is flat out disrespectful and truly shows why journalism is in trouble. As a journalism student at Northwestern, I am passionate about my field, but not when reporters like these are representing primarily older views and not those of the youth. Why do you think people below 25 aren't picking up their smartphones and opening a news application. It's because of clear bias like this.
42
And so if "people below 25 aren't picking up their smartphones and opening a news application," then how do they learn what's going on in the world? From rock lyrics? From twitter sound-bites? Or don't they care?
If you think probing media coverage, and media electoral endorsements, are "flat out disrespectful," may I suggest you find another major before wasting any more tuition dollars.
If you think probing media coverage, and media electoral endorsements, are "flat out disrespectful," may I suggest you find another major before wasting any more tuition dollars.
6
Ashwin, you are dead on. I spent more than 25 years in the news industry and your analysis is rock solid. When news organizations become tone deaf and the people in the newsroom live in their own bubbles they eventually will find themselves irrelevant. The news industry will need people like you who think for themselves. I suggest you ignore the naysayers.
2
This is only your opinion, Mr. Cohn. This was a huge victory for Sanders - remember, all of the 'experts' predicted he would be steamrollered. Being inched out by the slimmest of margins was stunning.
20
The analysis in this piece is so flawed that if I had the ability to delete it, I would. Not only do I smell bias, but I see it in black and white. C'mon NYT, don't fail me now.
21
Mind the (liberal punditry) gap.
When referring to democratic voters they are called "less affluent". When referring to republicans they are disrespectfully called "low information, low educated" voters. When referring to democrats older white voters, they are called "senior voters", when referring to republicans of the same demographic groups they are called "angry white voters".
Keep it up liberal media.
When referring to democratic voters they are called "less affluent". When referring to republicans they are disrespectfully called "low information, low educated" voters. When referring to democrats older white voters, they are called "senior voters", when referring to republicans of the same demographic groups they are called "angry white voters".
Keep it up liberal media.
6
Sorry Guys, Nate says Bernie can't win, he doesn't have the black votes, he doesn't have enough of the correct white votes. Rough times ahead, etc.
I'm sure glad that elections aren't decided by the pundits. Bernie would have lost in early 2015 and Jeb would be the Republican front-runner.
I'm sure glad that elections aren't decided by the pundits. Bernie would have lost in early 2015 and Jeb would be the Republican front-runner.
18
I always love seeing the word "auger" in print. Thanks for that.
4
I meant "augur," of course.
1
I'm sick and tired of NY Times articles that promote Hillary over Bernie. You've been wrong about Senator Sanders since he declared himself a candidate.
Just stop it, please.
Just stop it, please.
39
Every time the Times publishes a blatantly pro-Clinton article like this, I go donate to Bernie Sanders.
74
Someone should make this into a "donating" game rather than a "drinking" game. Every time the Times publishes a pro-Clinton article, you donate $10 to the campaign.
12
I like this idea. However, if I did that, I would go broke!!
2
What do you do when Maureen Dowd or Frank Bruni writes one?
3
I'd call the Hillary/Bernie competition an official draw. At my precinct (800 voters) they never could get agreement on the actual totals. The Sanders people were quite upset, and the process for counting supporters was inaccurate at best, and potentially fraudulent at worst.
16
The Democrats in Iowa have a very peculiar way of reporting and tallying 'votes' in a caucus. If you were there and saw it, but hadn't read a good description of how it works, you probably totally misunderstood. What gets reported as votes is really the number of delegates that this particular precinct can appoint for a particular candidate to go to the Iowa state dem. convention. Why it is that way is something to do with the history of the caucus process in times past.
3
Bernie Sanders had a very strong showing against Hillary Clinton. What kind of biased commentary would suggest that a TIE is playing to Mrs. Clinton's strengths?
Hillary is bought and paid for by the very corporations and banks that she is suddenly so 'fired up' about cleaning up. Did she really say it 'burns her up' when referring to tax loopholes and the like? She is flip flopping from not wanting to make any change because REAL CHANGE would require a 'magic wand' as she put it...now she is trying to mimic Sanders out of desperation to capture the attention of voters who haven't settled on a candidate. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but she made the mistake of showing her true colors early on. Hopefully some of her potential supporters have the wherewhital to see through it.
Hillary is a transparent politician trying to say whatever suits her campaign best and changing the focus and tone of her campaign almost monthly. How much of a stake do Mrs. Clinton's corporate sponsors have in the New York Times? There was a time when people looked to the Times as principled news source...the Times they are a changin'.
Hillary is bought and paid for by the very corporations and banks that she is suddenly so 'fired up' about cleaning up. Did she really say it 'burns her up' when referring to tax loopholes and the like? She is flip flopping from not wanting to make any change because REAL CHANGE would require a 'magic wand' as she put it...now she is trying to mimic Sanders out of desperation to capture the attention of voters who haven't settled on a candidate. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but she made the mistake of showing her true colors early on. Hopefully some of her potential supporters have the wherewhital to see through it.
Hillary is a transparent politician trying to say whatever suits her campaign best and changing the focus and tone of her campaign almost monthly. How much of a stake do Mrs. Clinton's corporate sponsors have in the New York Times? There was a time when people looked to the Times as principled news source...the Times they are a changin'.
12
When Hilary entered the race, the NYTImes covered her announcement on page 1. When Bernie entered, the announcement was buried (p.21?)
The NYTimes and other media have ignored Bernie while offering up endless Trump coverage. The DNC scheduled debates for the 2 Saturday evenings before Christmas, and for the Sunday evening of NFL playoffs and Downton Abbey's return.
It would seem there is a vast right-wing conspiracy (within the Democratic party and the press) to stifle Bernie's message. And yet he tied in Iowa.
Tell me again why this proves Hilary is inevitable.
The NYTimes and other media have ignored Bernie while offering up endless Trump coverage. The DNC scheduled debates for the 2 Saturday evenings before Christmas, and for the Sunday evening of NFL playoffs and Downton Abbey's return.
It would seem there is a vast right-wing conspiracy (within the Democratic party and the press) to stifle Bernie's message. And yet he tied in Iowa.
Tell me again why this proves Hilary is inevitable.
44
I have noticed that the DMC is very much in favor of Hillary and Bill. I had a phone call from "the Hillary Fund" only to find that it was in reality the DNC.No more donations to the DNC as a result of that conversation. I am also disappointed that the NY Times has been purchased by Wall Street and Hillary and Bill. It almost makes me want to discontinue my daily copy delivered to my door.
Regretfully,
Dorrine Steele
Regretfully,
Dorrine Steele
17
3/10 of 1 %...That is what the vaunted Hillary Clinton is claiming as a 'win'.
A little modesty would have been more appropriate in light of her near loss,
which is really what it was with her vaporized enormous lead. Her claim of a 'win' may be hard for Sanders' supporters to put aside when the time comes for the Democratic Party to unite.
She is not an invincible candidate and I hope that Bernie can carry the load...
A little modesty would have been more appropriate in light of her near loss,
which is really what it was with her vaporized enormous lead. Her claim of a 'win' may be hard for Sanders' supporters to put aside when the time comes for the Democratic Party to unite.
She is not an invincible candidate and I hope that Bernie can carry the load...
16
The illogic of this article is stunning. Politicians want to win by wide margins; what campaign manager angles for a tie, especially to a candidate they were trouncing not long ago.
The NYT's pro Clinton bias is abundantly transparent and proven by your front page today. Read carefully for If it were not for that three letter word, "tie", you'd think Hilary came out the winner. Im an NYT reader; this is disappointing. This is why Bernie is gaining steam.
The NYT's pro Clinton bias is abundantly transparent and proven by your front page today. Read carefully for If it were not for that three letter word, "tie", you'd think Hilary came out the winner. Im an NYT reader; this is disappointing. This is why Bernie is gaining steam.
24
Hillary tried to play the race card in 2008, more precisely in PA and West VA with an explicit appeal to "white workers."
Bernie is too classy and too clean to bring that out.
If only he had a Super PAC!
Bernie is too classy and too clean to bring that out.
If only he had a Super PAC!
7
He has a Super Pac: We, the People of the true Democratic Party.
2
He has a super pac, and he lies when he says otherwise: Nurses United for Patient Protection IS a superpac, anyone can donate to it and they do, and they've spent a million bucks on him so far, more to come.
He's a liar. He plays the Pure and Poor game, but he's a grifter. Make no mistake.
He's a liar. He plays the Pure and Poor game, but he's a grifter. Make no mistake.
2
@Alan,
Could you please clarify? I read that he's got a nurses's super pac backing him, which he didn't seek. This super pac is named National Nurse United. Are they possibly the same people?
2-2-16@10:18 pm et
Could you please clarify? I read that he's got a nurses's super pac backing him, which he didn't seek. This super pac is named National Nurse United. Are they possibly the same people?
2-2-16@10:18 pm et
1
slant that coverage. keep hammering away at his "ominous" "weaknesses among minority voters" , keep dissing/dismissing his "young" followers. Bernie Sanders is a gift.
24
Sanders' civil rights credentials are impeccable. His tie in Iowa will cause minority voters, who already view him as honest, to look deeper into his record, and they will like what they see.
6
Nate, this is primary season and we're looking at primary math. Mrs. Clinton squeaked out the narrowest of victories in Iowa. So she has 2 more delegates than Mr. Sanders.
Assume that Mr. Sanders squeaks out the narrowest of victories in New Hampshire and he narrowly wins or narrowly loses in the other Blue states so that in the end Hillary has a narrow advantage.
Your thoughts seems to include the notion that Mrs. Clinton will crush Mr. Sanders in South Carolina and the other Red States. You conclude that Mrs. Clinton will win the primary decisively. And, accepting your assumptions, I cannot dispute your conclusions. I do however have two concerns.
First, you have effectively assumed your conclusion.
Second, what does that mean for Mrs. Clinton in the general election?
My thought is that carrying Blue state primaries by a small margin may mean that Mrs. Clinton might lose a Blue state or two in the general. Winning Democratic Primaries in Red states is meaningless. Mrs. Clinton is not likely to win even one electoral vote out of those Red states in the general election.
So, what do you think. Will Mrs. Clinton be the Al Gore of 2016?
Assume that Mr. Sanders squeaks out the narrowest of victories in New Hampshire and he narrowly wins or narrowly loses in the other Blue states so that in the end Hillary has a narrow advantage.
Your thoughts seems to include the notion that Mrs. Clinton will crush Mr. Sanders in South Carolina and the other Red States. You conclude that Mrs. Clinton will win the primary decisively. And, accepting your assumptions, I cannot dispute your conclusions. I do however have two concerns.
First, you have effectively assumed your conclusion.
Second, what does that mean for Mrs. Clinton in the general election?
My thought is that carrying Blue state primaries by a small margin may mean that Mrs. Clinton might lose a Blue state or two in the general. Winning Democratic Primaries in Red states is meaningless. Mrs. Clinton is not likely to win even one electoral vote out of those Red states in the general election.
So, what do you think. Will Mrs. Clinton be the Al Gore of 2016?
5
I'm looking forward to the NYT article that declares that Mrs. Clinton's decisive loss in New Hampshire is better for her than Mr. Sanders. Has the NYT been taken over by the Onion?
41
The comments by Bernie supporters are all the same. If an article or column favors Hillary, then it's a conspiracy by the mainstream media to take down Bernie. I hate to break the bad news to you people but Bernie is not a general election candidate. If he were to win the Dem primary, the Republicans would screams "socialism" just like they did when Obama ran for president. The only difference is that this time it would be true. I like Bernie and his policies but it is unrealistic to think that he could win the general election. A primary win by Bernie would mean a Donald Trump presidency, something that would be catastrophic for this nation and the world.
17
Or a Cruz presidency, even more terrifying. for I'm actually afraid of Ted Cruz.
However, I agree with you, as both these men lack boundaries, and that excites some people and terrifies others.
However, I agree with you, as both these men lack boundaries, and that excites some people and terrifies others.
1
Brava! But Bernie's kids are very young; many of them have known only Barack Obama as our President, since achieving the age of 16 or 18. They will learn over time, we hope.
And wd also better hope they turn out for
Madam Secretary in November.
The thought of a President Trump or Cruz is beyond frightening.
And wd also better hope they turn out for
Madam Secretary in November.
The thought of a President Trump or Cruz is beyond frightening.
4
It is interesting how so many Americans (perhaps Jackie is one) who supposedly believe everything is possible in America don't believe it when it comes to a democratic socialist being able to win a general election. Such Americans really have a small and narrow idea of American and of democracy.
6
Nate -
So coming to a 50-50 tie against one of the most formidable of campaign machines in the country - the Clinton & Allies machine - isn't a strategic and psychological win for Bernie? After starting 40 points down with far less money and experience in a national campaign?
Time to get off the data processing screens for a bit, and feel what's happening out in the rest of the world. Bernie is offering a return of the Democratic Party - and this nation - to progressive roots, embedded in FDRs legacy (and without my grandfather's racism).
I hope that the waves of pro-Clinton reporting and coverage in the NYT isn't putting serious blinders on your perceptions.
So coming to a 50-50 tie against one of the most formidable of campaign machines in the country - the Clinton & Allies machine - isn't a strategic and psychological win for Bernie? After starting 40 points down with far less money and experience in a national campaign?
Time to get off the data processing screens for a bit, and feel what's happening out in the rest of the world. Bernie is offering a return of the Democratic Party - and this nation - to progressive roots, embedded in FDRs legacy (and without my grandfather's racism).
I hope that the waves of pro-Clinton reporting and coverage in the NYT isn't putting serious blinders on your perceptions.
56
I can not remember in the more than 30 years as a NYT subscriber such biased democratic election coverage as this time around. Every ugly word Trump and Cruz have thrown out there gets front page coverage and urgent follow-up analysis. Clinton is the heir apparent and then there is the "socialist" Senator from Vermont who has the nerve to challenge her.
And when Bernie puts in a performance in Iowa that even Hillary takes serious, we hear more reasons from the NYT as to why Bernie will not be the next president. Isn't that an insult to Sanders supporters?
And when Bernie puts in a performance in Iowa that even Hillary takes serious, we hear more reasons from the NYT as to why Bernie will not be the next president. Isn't that an insult to Sanders supporters?
68
No kidding. Very wise words. Neither do I. Actually I do. I must be older than you. No matter. You hit it.
Nate Cohn, you are an obnoxious, phony front-man for Clinton and for the media wing (NYT) of the Liberal Establishment. You're young and objectively, historically inexperienced. You're a kid good with statistics. Remember what Disraeli said in Parliament at the height of his frustration: "...there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics!" And he was a conservative member of the Queen's establishment. Kind of like you, eh?
Why on earth don't you and your employer give Bernie a shot? A shot meaning that the editorial board and the editor's desk ought to consider seriously Sanders' positions. Instead of publishing all of the liberal, biased columns about his ideas and proposals not worth the trouble, quite apart from falsely criticizing his own grasp of European socialized medicine, why doesn't the paper produce some in-depth reporting and analysis of foreign medical systems. Why doesn't the paper report critically on Clinton's support, mutual support at that, from and for Wall Street. How on earth do we bring change to a crooked, bleeding ruling system unless a big player like the NYT takes the first step. But the NYT is entrenched, in spite of itself, in the old line, blue-blood, blue-book Liberal Establishment that runs this country. Ain't that the truth?
Nate Cohn, you are an obnoxious, phony front-man for Clinton and for the media wing (NYT) of the Liberal Establishment. You're young and objectively, historically inexperienced. You're a kid good with statistics. Remember what Disraeli said in Parliament at the height of his frustration: "...there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics!" And he was a conservative member of the Queen's establishment. Kind of like you, eh?
Why on earth don't you and your employer give Bernie a shot? A shot meaning that the editorial board and the editor's desk ought to consider seriously Sanders' positions. Instead of publishing all of the liberal, biased columns about his ideas and proposals not worth the trouble, quite apart from falsely criticizing his own grasp of European socialized medicine, why doesn't the paper produce some in-depth reporting and analysis of foreign medical systems. Why doesn't the paper report critically on Clinton's support, mutual support at that, from and for Wall Street. How on earth do we bring change to a crooked, bleeding ruling system unless a big player like the NYT takes the first step. But the NYT is entrenched, in spite of itself, in the old line, blue-blood, blue-book Liberal Establishment that runs this country. Ain't that the truth?
7
@Hardy Baumler and @McKim,
I'll so glad I found your comments. Thank you doesn't seem enough. More than 30 years between the two of you is not to be dismissed when it comes to your experiences with this publication. It's not only an insult to Sanders supporters, but to anyone who values journalistic integrity.
I apologized earlier for having misspoken. I confused Nate Cohn with a fellow reader, thinking he'd mentioned age. But, after reading your words, I don't feel quite so embarrassed. Mine was an honest mistake, what Nate and the NYT are doing isn't. My mom's a senior. She's excited about Bernie and so am I. I think what's happening here is a disgrace and a horrendous shirking of journalistic responsibility.
McKim, you shouldn't have had to recommend the analysis of foreign healthcare or Wall St. ties. And, I love the Disraeli quote. It's perfect.
2-2-16@11:19 pm et
I'll so glad I found your comments. Thank you doesn't seem enough. More than 30 years between the two of you is not to be dismissed when it comes to your experiences with this publication. It's not only an insult to Sanders supporters, but to anyone who values journalistic integrity.
I apologized earlier for having misspoken. I confused Nate Cohn with a fellow reader, thinking he'd mentioned age. But, after reading your words, I don't feel quite so embarrassed. Mine was an honest mistake, what Nate and the NYT are doing isn't. My mom's a senior. She's excited about Bernie and so am I. I think what's happening here is a disgrace and a horrendous shirking of journalistic responsibility.
McKim, you shouldn't have had to recommend the analysis of foreign healthcare or Wall St. ties. And, I love the Disraeli quote. It's perfect.
2-2-16@11:19 pm et
No. This is analysis. And if you read the editorials this year, you wouldn't claim the NYT had a "pro-Hillary" bias.
And just because they endorsed her, having considered the alternatives, doesn't mean every writer at the paper does.
And just because they endorsed her, having considered the alternatives, doesn't mean every writer at the paper does.
2
I would think that Hillary having to win Iowa by the sheer luck of literal coin flips (!!!) would be an ominous sign indeed.
Not that an inevitable indictment isn't ominous enough. Sorry Mrs. Clinton, classified information doesn't become classified over time - it begins that way. You've spent too many years with aged cheese and wine to somehow believe the same principles apply here.
Not that an inevitable indictment isn't ominous enough. Sorry Mrs. Clinton, classified information doesn't become classified over time - it begins that way. You've spent too many years with aged cheese and wine to somehow believe the same principles apply here.
11
Interesting. Tucker Wilson just tried to claim on FOX that information "is never retroactively classified." In order to smear Hillary Clinton. As you've just done.
And you are incorrect, just as he was. Be glad to know this, if you didn't.
If you did, stop using it as a meme.
And you are incorrect, just as he was. Be glad to know this, if you didn't.
If you did, stop using it as a meme.
2
This is the dumbing down of our country at work again - similar to the weak players on children's sports teams all getting a trophy for excellence. Clinton prevailed with her nails on the chalkboard by a mere .2% - but LOST nearly half of the vote. That speaks volumes.
25
More to the point: what should Clinton take away from Iowa? I believe she should think hard about what attracts voters to Bernie Sanders, and figure out a way to provide it herself. Authenticity and clarity is one huge issue: she should speak in simple language, make strong points about helping americans over the 1%, being honest, acknowledging her supporters and finding joy. Personally, when I watch Clinton on TV, I find her language and her mannerisms make her unappealing (and I'm a clinton supporter!). She clearly is not comfortable campaigning, and she needs to figure out an approach where she can touch people's hearts better than she does now. This is more important than bengazi or email, in my opinion.
Perhaps the NYT should write an article offering some advice to Clinton on how to be a more attractive candidate, along these lines.
Perhaps the NYT should write an article offering some advice to Clinton on how to be a more attractive candidate, along these lines.
7
I would hope, if she starts to "figure it out," as a tactic, the electorate still wouldn't be fooled. Enough, already, with the celebrity actor politicians.
2
"Perhaps the NYT should write an article offering some advice to Clinton on how to be a more attractive candidate."
She already campaigned once in 2008. If she hasn't figured it out by now, how is advice from the NYT going to help?
She already campaigned once in 2008. If she hasn't figured it out by now, how is advice from the NYT going to help?
4
I'm not anti-Sanders at all and would vote for him without hesitation if he's the nominee. He certainly did well in Iowa and should be congratulated for that. But my money is on HRC carrying this through in the long game and securing the nomination. I'm kind of surprised at the vehemence by Sanders supporters who border on the irrational in attacking opinion/analysis articles like this one. I expect that kind of magical thinking from Republicans but not fellow Dems.
15
This article shows that the NYT continues to view current events through a lens of pessimism for Senator Sanders and a lens of praise and optimism for Secretary Clinton.
Sanders campaigned in Iowa with a major disadvantage in fundraising and a massive delay in ground game organization. Clinton has a national dream team of campaign staff, virtually unlimited funding, and ground preparations in Iowa that started in earnest at least six to eight months before Sanders's did.
The fact that Clinton could only eek out a "virtual tie," on the basis of six extraordinarily lucky coin flip tiebreakers in six counties, demonstrates that Sanders has the organizational capacity to take her on. He tied her as the logistical underdog (for now). Sanders is a real contender, and this nominating contest is no longer a coronation. Her candidacy is no longer inevitable.
Tellingly, Sanders did better than expected with African American voters in Iowa, which bodes well for the idea that they do not vote as a block of lemmings, and that their vote must be "earned" like that of all other ethnic groups, in the words of Nina Turner. This bodes increasingly well for Sanders's chances in South Carolina, as voters become more informed about their options and the two candidates.
He may or may not win, but this is anybody's race from here.
Sanders campaigned in Iowa with a major disadvantage in fundraising and a massive delay in ground game organization. Clinton has a national dream team of campaign staff, virtually unlimited funding, and ground preparations in Iowa that started in earnest at least six to eight months before Sanders's did.
The fact that Clinton could only eek out a "virtual tie," on the basis of six extraordinarily lucky coin flip tiebreakers in six counties, demonstrates that Sanders has the organizational capacity to take her on. He tied her as the logistical underdog (for now). Sanders is a real contender, and this nominating contest is no longer a coronation. Her candidacy is no longer inevitable.
Tellingly, Sanders did better than expected with African American voters in Iowa, which bodes well for the idea that they do not vote as a block of lemmings, and that their vote must be "earned" like that of all other ethnic groups, in the words of Nina Turner. This bodes increasingly well for Sanders's chances in South Carolina, as voters become more informed about their options and the two candidates.
He may or may not win, but this is anybody's race from here.
13
CAN NYT please stop promoting Mrs Clinton. NYT readers are intelligent enough o make their choices without having to be influenced or cajoled by the newspaper of their choice. Fact is Bernie Sanders is offering a stiff challenge to Mrs. Clinton and his policies are not at all favored by the rich and the corporations. I am proud to say that in spite of being in the top 2% of the economic strata in the country I am voting for Bernie. Because he has the courage to say that we have had enough. Enough of policies tailored to favor the rich. Enough of bribing the politicians through the PACS. What we need is a leader who will work for the majority - and that is the middle class
29
To father of two: I too am in a good financial position, but that has not been true for much of my life, and I am sick and tired of the way in which the Clintons themselves ascended from the middle class to the top one percent via toadying to the wealthiest and demanding enormous figures for every speech they give.
I only have to remember Hillary Clinton's ridiculous tome on health care reform during the early days of her husband's administration (written with the "help" of Ira Magaziner) to know which candidate will get my vote. Viva Bernie!
I only have to remember Hillary Clinton's ridiculous tome on health care reform during the early days of her husband's administration (written with the "help" of Ira Magaziner) to know which candidate will get my vote. Viva Bernie!
4
To father of two
Except for the fact that I am a mother of two, our circumstances are similar> I belong to the 2%, I am middle age, I am voting for Sanders because I am sick and tired of the utter disregard that the " political establishment" has for the majority of American people
Sanders will not win, but he is stirring up the pot and he is not going away.
And I am not scared of "my taxes being increased" if it is for the common good
Except for the fact that I am a mother of two, our circumstances are similar> I belong to the 2%, I am middle age, I am voting for Sanders because I am sick and tired of the utter disregard that the " political establishment" has for the majority of American people
Sanders will not win, but he is stirring up the pot and he is not going away.
And I am not scared of "my taxes being increased" if it is for the common good
1
Thank you Nate for your analysis. Of course, a few days ago you boldly predicted an 85% chance of Clinton winning Iowa. Too bad we won't know who actually won Iowa for a few more weeks.
So your crystal ball says the road to Clinton's victory is through minority voters in southern states that Clinton has 0% chance of winning those states in the General Election. That should make all the 75% of white-non Hispanic General Election voters confident of the Democratic Party Convention running a winning presidential candidate. After all, minorities have a long history of coming out and voting for 68 year old white women in General Elections.
So your crystal ball says the road to Clinton's victory is through minority voters in southern states that Clinton has 0% chance of winning those states in the General Election. That should make all the 75% of white-non Hispanic General Election voters confident of the Democratic Party Convention running a winning presidential candidate. After all, minorities have a long history of coming out and voting for 68 year old white women in General Elections.
8
Hey Bill,
Ageist? Sexist? Or both?
Bernie Sanders is six years OLDER than Madam Secretary; what fodder that could be for the young & vigorous, well-funded Cruz or Rubio.
Sorry to the supporters of Sen. Sanders but you all are coming off today as Sore Losers. And
Sore Losers don't win General Elections.
Once the Senator has won New Hampshire, then lost the rest of the primaries, we real Dems heartily hope you will join us in electing the ...
First Female President of the United States!
And she's going to be a great one.
Ageist? Sexist? Or both?
Bernie Sanders is six years OLDER than Madam Secretary; what fodder that could be for the young & vigorous, well-funded Cruz or Rubio.
Sorry to the supporters of Sen. Sanders but you all are coming off today as Sore Losers. And
Sore Losers don't win General Elections.
Once the Senator has won New Hampshire, then lost the rest of the primaries, we real Dems heartily hope you will join us in electing the ...
First Female President of the United States!
And she's going to be a great one.
7
This article is extremely funny--especially if you lump it with all the articles written about Sanders. I love the comment above about Sanders coming from 'east jesus' with no corporate money and then tying it with Clinton in Iowa where he was predicted to lose big. Apparently voters simply haven't gotten the message repeated again and again from mainstream news outlets that Sanders is finished. Never give up New York Times even if it makes you look ridiculous at this point. We need to know one more time--Sanders can't win! Except in New Hampshire! But that doesn't count! No backsies!
13
I just can't stand it anymore. I used to respect the new york times. But now your blatant favoritism has ended all respect I had for your journalistic integrity.
9
Why a ‘Virtual Tie’ in Iowa Is Better for Clinton Than Sanders?
Because the New York Times and the rest of the media has a vested interest in pusing that belief............................
Because the New York Times and the rest of the media has a vested interest in pusing that belief............................
34
Not too mention it's what is best for a democratic win in November.
2
I'm not getting the commenters here who, while not bothering to refute Cohn's arguments, declare he's prejudiced against Sanders. They themselves are spinning with their pronouncements on how well Clinton was "supposed" to do.
Sanders is not connecting with minorities, and he's going to connect with fewer voters from all backgrounds as the general election gets closer, and his "solutions" are recognized for what they are: untenable pie in the sky. He has done a service by bringing attention to the huge issue of economic inequality, but in the end, he's likely only to weaken Clinton in facing the Republicans. (On the other hand, Clinton has Cruz and Trump going for her.)
Sanders is not connecting with minorities, and he's going to connect with fewer voters from all backgrounds as the general election gets closer, and his "solutions" are recognized for what they are: untenable pie in the sky. He has done a service by bringing attention to the huge issue of economic inequality, but in the end, he's likely only to weaken Clinton in facing the Republicans. (On the other hand, Clinton has Cruz and Trump going for her.)
13
Sanders entire agenda is based on the Democrats taking back the Senate.
Okay, great...what if that doesn't happen?
Okay, great...what if that doesn't happen?
3
Yes, he is calling for a political revolution to flip Congress from R to D but he has done absolutely nothing to elect Democrats! The facts are there, look them up, Bernie's contribution is $0 while Hillary raised millions for down ballot candidates in Q4 2015 alone. The leader of the revolution should do more heavy lifting.
5
I disagree with those who claim a Times bias towards Hillary as I was really tempted to drop my subscription because of perceived excessive negative coverage. The Times in my opinion has been overwhelmingly critical and put a microscope and exaggeration to anything anti Hillary. No matter what I will always remember and wonder suspiciously at what I hope was an aberration.
15
Exactly. I've been thinking this for weeks as I read the comments, both here and elsewhere, on-line. The Times has been exceedingly critical of both Clintons in recent years and is, frankly, bending over backwards in their attempt to be fair.
Since so many of these pro-Sanders Comments read almost identically, can we assume that a series of Talking Points Memors has gone out ftom his Campaogn HQ?
Since so many of these pro-Sanders Comments read almost identically, can we assume that a series of Talking Points Memors has gone out ftom his Campaogn HQ?
6
No, you can't. Not in my case, at least. And as to the "critical" bias of the NYT, when they ARE critical it is because there are undisputable facts indicating wrongdoing and/or lack of judgment from HRC. Constructive criticism is not an attack. Printing facts is not attacking.
2
Nothing in Maureen Dowd's hit pieces is "constructive criticism."
Nor is it merely "printing facts."
A hit piece is, by definition, "attacking."
Nor is it merely "printing facts."
A hit piece is, by definition, "attacking."
2
Agree with the Bernie supporters who find Bernie's feat in snatching a tie out of the jaws of a huge polling deficit to Hillary is hardly a sign of weakness. Agree with Mr. Cohn that the demographics past NH favor Hillary... but disagree with other Times articles today that Hillary is and should be jolted by the closeness of the win.
The recent polls have told us this is going to be a long and vigorous fight about whether this a watershed election, or an election about smaller gains - an election about making grand progress in realizing a Great Society, or about preserving Obama administration gains in the quality of middle class American lives.
Do we make incremental improvements to Obama's legacy in this political climate, or swing for the fences with a revolution in Americans' income, education, health care, and control of financial markets?
Democrats, look at the toxic conservatism that dominates half the political discourse in this country; review what's happened over the last 8 years to Obama's great schemes when Dems had control of both houses of Congress, and ask yourself, what can you reasonably expect in this cycle? Be realistic. Support Bernie, but for God's sake support Hillary just as strongly if she wins. Preserve the gains from this President, and be patient in waiting for the tide to turn. Work towards the next mid-terms, where most of the damage is being done these days - make this a continuing revolution, not a one shot deal.
The recent polls have told us this is going to be a long and vigorous fight about whether this a watershed election, or an election about smaller gains - an election about making grand progress in realizing a Great Society, or about preserving Obama administration gains in the quality of middle class American lives.
Do we make incremental improvements to Obama's legacy in this political climate, or swing for the fences with a revolution in Americans' income, education, health care, and control of financial markets?
Democrats, look at the toxic conservatism that dominates half the political discourse in this country; review what's happened over the last 8 years to Obama's great schemes when Dems had control of both houses of Congress, and ask yourself, what can you reasonably expect in this cycle? Be realistic. Support Bernie, but for God's sake support Hillary just as strongly if she wins. Preserve the gains from this President, and be patient in waiting for the tide to turn. Work towards the next mid-terms, where most of the damage is being done these days - make this a continuing revolution, not a one shot deal.
23
"Preserve the gains from this President," indeed. And Secretary Clinton is the only Dem. who can do that. Sen. Sanders, interesting fellow that he is, has no chance in the General; none. Can you imagine him going up against the young, vigorous and scary Ted Cruz?
Or the charming, young, bright Marco Rubio?
This is **not** the time for a Revolution, Bernie. Sorry, but.
We Dems need steady, intelligent, well-organized, experienced, proven leadership now. And that means Hillary Rodham Clinton. NOW.
Or the charming, young, bright Marco Rubio?
This is **not** the time for a Revolution, Bernie. Sorry, but.
We Dems need steady, intelligent, well-organized, experienced, proven leadership now. And that means Hillary Rodham Clinton. NOW.
Right on, Tomasi!
1
I am hopeful that with the experience of volunteering for Sen. Sanders, lots of young people will realize "Yes, I can" and lay the groundwork to run in the mid-terms for local and state office.
5
What the Iowa results means is simply what they've always meant - Not much! Jimmy Carter used it to propel himself to the Presidency since then its doubtful that other than overblown media coverage has the Iowa caucuses produce much of anything tangible.
Bernie's problem is that he is the Candidate of the left wing fringe of the Democratic party also known as the party that elected George McGovern President... Most Democrats whether they're strong supporters of Sec Clinton or not know that Bernie has almost zero chance of being elected in November.
But! - Never underestimate the Democrats ability to snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory!
Mrs. Clinton is not a perfect candidate but then no one ever is, but she is the one Democrat running who has a legitimate shot at winning in November. If she is the Democratic standard bearer the campaign for the White House will be one of the most negative and costly ever waged by the Republicans and their friends the Koch Brothers et al, but she can win!
If Bernie is the nominee say Hello to President Trump or President Rubio!
Bernie's problem is that he is the Candidate of the left wing fringe of the Democratic party also known as the party that elected George McGovern President... Most Democrats whether they're strong supporters of Sec Clinton or not know that Bernie has almost zero chance of being elected in November.
But! - Never underestimate the Democrats ability to snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory!
Mrs. Clinton is not a perfect candidate but then no one ever is, but she is the one Democrat running who has a legitimate shot at winning in November. If she is the Democratic standard bearer the campaign for the White House will be one of the most negative and costly ever waged by the Republicans and their friends the Koch Brothers et al, but she can win!
If Bernie is the nominee say Hello to President Trump or President Rubio!
17
I think it is the other way, if you analyse the voting trends from the Iowa elections. Young people, newer voters, and people making < $50K supported Sanders. Turnout was even higher for the Republicans. So these trends aren't a good sign for Clinton.
2
Hilary Clinton was the "favourite" entering the caucus and to come out of it with a tie shows the strength of Sander's supporters and the doubt that Clinton supporters had thinking months earlier it would be a easy walk against Sanders.
Also, knowing that the New York Times endorse Clinton how can we trust anything that New York Times write about Clinton knowing that it is bias towards Clinton?
One last thing, it should also be noted that Hillary won majority of the senior demographic vote, which explains your point on how could it only have been a tie for Sanders.
That being said, this should give him and his supporters confidence knowing that they can challenge Clinton and have a chance winning the general election.
Also, knowing that the New York Times endorse Clinton how can we trust anything that New York Times write about Clinton knowing that it is bias towards Clinton?
One last thing, it should also be noted that Hillary won majority of the senior demographic vote, which explains your point on how could it only have been a tie for Sanders.
That being said, this should give him and his supporters confidence knowing that they can challenge Clinton and have a chance winning the general election.
296
I know...I found this so amusing. It is written as if Sanders was the front runner and Hillary came from behind. In fact, it's a very ominous sign for Clinton if one considers that she was assumed to have the nomination in the bag only a short while ago--and Sanders was supposed to get creamed in Iowa.
9
Learn a little about newspapers. The editorial board that endorsed Clinton does not, in fact, control content in the Upshot. I've found a lot of what the Times prints about Clinton to be very negative. Read Gail Sheehy's ridiculous piece last Sunday about baby boomer women who aren't Hillary fans. Or the front-page story last week about Bill Clinton losing his magic.
6
New York Times, your bias is showing badly. First and article that says that Cruz wins and Hillary is "slowed" without acknowledging that it is a tie on the Democrat side, NOW this tripe about a tie being "better" for her. Really? Give it a rest. She was supposed to win Iowa going way and is now just going away with a 50/50 delegate split. She loses next week in NH and Nevada is almost a dead heat. I know it causes you pain, but the Sanders insurgency is real--and it isn't going away any time soon. Get used to it.
473
I'm sorry Nate you just don't get it. The mainstream media has been ignoring Bernie since he declared and has only been covering him seriously since late December early January. Meanwhile, Bernie has amassed close to 3 million likes on his Facebook page and 3 million individual contributions averaging about $30.
While the mainstream media wasn't looking, Bernie Sanders has been amassing a huge following. It's a new world Nate. You don't want to know about it. You clearly haven't been following the social media conversation or even reading reader comments in this paper.
You can only be in denial with your eyes and ears closed for so long.
While the mainstream media wasn't looking, Bernie Sanders has been amassing a huge following. It's a new world Nate. You don't want to know about it. You clearly haven't been following the social media conversation or even reading reader comments in this paper.
You can only be in denial with your eyes and ears closed for so long.
334
People who Pay (donate) have a great incentive to actually vote.
1
First of all, three million "likes" do not win an election. Secondly, Nate is not biased. He is strictly a numbers guy. Why not refute his points rather than dismissing them?
5
Oh gosh, all the Bernie clones are out, giving each other High Fives and "Recommends."
Sorry kids but we Dems have to pull for the Realistic Candidate and Madam Secretary is that person.
Martin O'Malley should make a fine V.P. choice and once again, America's Democratic voters will make history.
Sorry, Bernie but the Children's Crusade is not going to put you into driver's seat.
Sorry kids but we Dems have to pull for the Realistic Candidate and Madam Secretary is that person.
Martin O'Malley should make a fine V.P. choice and once again, America's Democratic voters will make history.
Sorry, Bernie but the Children's Crusade is not going to put you into driver's seat.
5
The jaded, entrenched baby boomers should remember their youth: idealistic, joyful, and compassionate. If a few more can return to that mindset, they will join the future generation of America and put their candidate (Bernie Sanders) over the top.
Clinton's voting block is obsolete in 2016.
Clinton's voting block is obsolete in 2016.
234
Bien dit!
Yes, John Porter, I remember my boomer youth. I remember cheering at a Eugene McCarthy rally and voting for McGovern in the only state he won.
4
Boomers remember the election of 2000, when 97,488 Liberal voters in Florida cast their votes for Ralph Nader.
Those votes would have gone to Gore and we would have had eight years of a Democratic presidency.
GW Bush 'won' the election by a margin of only 537 votes.
There would have been no recount, there would have been no Iraq War, none of this would have happened if not for those Nader votes, so people need to understand that when they vote their 'conscience', there are consequences.
The terrible world we all live in now was directly caused by the votes of those 'idealistic, joyful, and compassionate' voters, not one of whom will own up to what they have done.
Those votes would have gone to Gore and we would have had eight years of a Democratic presidency.
GW Bush 'won' the election by a margin of only 537 votes.
There would have been no recount, there would have been no Iraq War, none of this would have happened if not for those Nader votes, so people need to understand that when they vote their 'conscience', there are consequences.
The terrible world we all live in now was directly caused by the votes of those 'idealistic, joyful, and compassionate' voters, not one of whom will own up to what they have done.
4
Even when i have no expectations of the NYT they still manage to disappoint.
When Hillary Clinton has 90% of her campaign working in Iowa at one point and coming out on top in this virtual tie by virtue of coin flips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztgY-Xsk5RE
The idea of this being good for Clinton is perhaps the last thing that comes to mind after the iowa caucuses.
When Hillary Clinton has 90% of her campaign working in Iowa at one point and coming out on top in this virtual tie by virtue of coin flips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztgY-Xsk5RE
The idea of this being good for Clinton is perhaps the last thing that comes to mind after the iowa caucuses.
342
The NYT needs to rebuild its own Glass-Steagall wall between objective news and editorial opinion.
445
Bob: What a wonderful analogy!
2
It might have more to do with the abandoned "church & state" separation of journalism and $$$.
1
It is objective; Bernie's supporters are not.
2
Strange to hear this claim that Iowa is such friendly terrain to Bernie Sanders when the electorate is so skewed toward older caucusgoers which the writer acknowledged disproportionately supported Clinton.
196
"He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008. "
This quote is fantasy. Sanders has an incredible track record of support for issues minority voters care about, including marching with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the March on Washington. He also has support from crucial nonwhite activists and poll numbers have already begun to trend towards his favor in states like South Carolina.
This quote is fantasy. Sanders has an incredible track record of support for issues minority voters care about, including marching with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the March on Washington. He also has support from crucial nonwhite activists and poll numbers have already begun to trend towards his favor in states like South Carolina.
238
Bernie has a tin ear about blacks and women. Notice that most of the comments supporting him are from men.
5
And how would you know if they are men? Some people use their partners' account, others names give no indication of their ethnicity or sex.
1
MS--of coruse they are men--most Sanders supporters on the internet are rude, insulting white men who resort to personal insult when they learn a website contributor doesn't FEEL the BERN. Their nasty attitudes, profane comments, and personal rudeness leaves a foul taste.
I'm BERNt OUT -- and I'm not the only one.
I'm BERNt OUT -- and I'm not the only one.
4
Oh really? The former assumed shoe in for the democratic candidacy is tied with the insurgent underdog who a year ago was single digits in the polls and had almost no name recognition, and that's "Better for Hillary?".
242
"Shoo-in." No shoe is involved.
4
Get over your racist analysis. People don't vote in blocs. Bernie will make gains in all demographics when his message spreads, just like it did in Iowa and New Hampshire, race is not really a factor. You wonks like to say Bernie has a white liberal problem, but it is really a white pundit problem.
270
Yes, thank you, Michael, and allow me also to mention Sanders' work with SNCC and CORE. Those who support Clinton and call the Bernie people trolls will simply do so; but are you folks actually _reading_ the _substantive_ critiques? (Which critiques are not the same as attacks, btw.)
1
I love it when elite white pundits make sweeping assumptions about minorities. Bill Clinton is the self-important philanderer who had the arrogance to call himself "the first black president." Sen. Sanders is the guy who had the humility to ask Black Lives Matter protesters up on stage with him. Let's see what happens to your assumptions when minority voters actually get to know Sanders.
3
Actually, it was Toni Morrison who called him that; but no argument with the general arrogance.
2
It's good for Hillary that a candidate came out of east jesus with zero money and then ran such a successful campaign that he tied her in the first in the nation caucus? Haha. Ok, NYT.
365
We subscribe to the print edition of NYT, and I have found that NYT, like most other main stream media, has until recently buried stories about Bernie in the middle of the newspaper, if they covered him at all. The significance of Iowa is, first, that a virtual tie has put Bernie on the front page, where he undoubtedly gains recognition; and, second, the Iowa vote shows what he can accomplish on the strength of his ideas, his honesty, and his appeal to voters who would otherwise not participate at all. As Bernie is first to acknowledge, the "political revolution" he champions will only come to pass if the previous non-participants join the fray in large numbers, as they did tonight. Hillary's support may stay the same, as Cohn suggests, yet Bernie can still win by bringing those voters out of their doldrums and into the voting booth. I would definitely vote for Hillary over anyone on the other side, if she wins the nomination; but it scares me that her negative ratings are so high-- and just as her supporters are firm their support, her opponents are vociferous in their opposition. Can Bernie maintain high favorability if he becomes a target of name calling and fear-mongering? Can he overcome the super delegate math? There is no easy path, but it is worth the battle.
678
Will Mrs. Clinton continue to hold 50% of the vote now that the contents of her "top secret but not labeled confidential" emails are being made public? Do we really want a Democratic nominee who gambles with the safety of CIA agents for her own personal convenience?
242
Such nonsense. Don't let the GOP frame the issue for you. They lie.
6
The GOP does lie, but so does Clinton; and all criticisms of -- and simple observations about her--are not lies. Think!
1
You have no proof she lied about anything.
True, all criticisms of her are not lies- but "gambling with the safety of CIA agents" is one. And it isn't a "simple observation."
Don't let the GOP frame the issue for you.
True, all criticisms of her are not lies- but "gambling with the safety of CIA agents" is one. And it isn't a "simple observation."
Don't let the GOP frame the issue for you.
4
More importantly Clinton is crushing Sanders in the race for super delegates, and it doesn't look like he can come back from it.
Via David Wasserman: "... in order for Sanders to be 'on track' to break even in pledged delegates nationally, he wouldn't just need to win Iowa and New Hampshire by a hair. He would need to win 70 percent of Iowa's delegates and 63 percent of New Hampshire's delegates."
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179
Via David Wasserman: "... in order for Sanders to be 'on track' to break even in pledged delegates nationally, he wouldn't just need to win Iowa and New Hampshire by a hair. He would need to win 70 percent of Iowa's delegates and 63 percent of New Hampshire's delegates."
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179
99
The superdelegate race is a joke. This will only be a factor if Clinton is really close. In 2008, Obama won the majority of the elected delegates and the superdelegates switched quickly. The same can and will happen with Sanders.
3
Super delegates. That's fair and democratic.
3
Very interesting Nate. Thank you for the great article.
The fact of the matter is that Iowa is very demographically favourable to Sanders, who mainly attracts white liberals. If the best he gets there is 50%, I have serious doubts that he'll win the nomination.
We'll get a clearer picture in a month. Twelve states vote on March 1.
The fact of the matter is that Iowa is very demographically favourable to Sanders, who mainly attracts white liberals. If the best he gets there is 50%, I have serious doubts that he'll win the nomination.
We'll get a clearer picture in a month. Twelve states vote on March 1.
124
Exactly. It's almost sad to see the same Commenters (all 186-275 of them) on every thread. The U.S. Electorate is never going to elect a Socialist.
Get over it, kids. Enjoy the rush in New Hampshire and then we can get down to Real Business in the Real America.
Get over it, kids. Enjoy the rush in New Hampshire and then we can get down to Real Business in the Real America.
2
I'm really looking forward to going to my caucus in Colorado March 1st. Not sure what demographic I fit into... I'm 46 y.o. woman raised in Kansas by "Greatest Generation" conservative Republican Catholic parents. And I'm caucusing for ... wait for it... Bernie Sanders. If my mom were still alive I think I'd have a chance of convincing her to vote for Bernie too. Vive la Revolution.
2
Really? Hillary Clinton is arguably one of the most famous people in the world and tied with a senator from Vermont who was down 40 points 3 months ago.
954
Come on. Hillary was supposed to do much better in Iowa than she actually ended up doing. The polling average had her up by about 6%, meaning that Bernie Sanders outperformed his polls significantly. Spinning this as somehow a bad thing for Sanders is silly. Sanders had a good night and did much better than most thought he would.
861
Uh, no. Not true. Bernie's number's had been going up, he under-performed from the last poll numbers.
2 days ago - "According to the poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, released Monday morning, the Vermont senator is ahead of Clinton 49 to 46 percent among Iowa's likely Democratic caucus-goers."
2 days ago - "According to the poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, released Monday morning, the Vermont senator is ahead of Clinton 49 to 46 percent among Iowa's likely Democratic caucus-goers."
3
Guess Hillary will have to cry in New Hampshire again.
225
Can we please stop his childish way of speaking? How long is the human race going to stay in kindergarten?
It's fine for anyone to prefer for one candidate over another but let's stop this way of communicating. Why do you think Trump gets big cheers for being rude.
Let's bring civility back into both politics and our lives.
It's fine for anyone to prefer for one candidate over another but let's stop this way of communicating. Why do you think Trump gets big cheers for being rude.
Let's bring civility back into both politics and our lives.
3
Jennifer
So far, as I write this, 217 people thought that was witty.
Almost like an epitaph for the human race. A woman showed
emotion for a second, and they attributed it to a ploy to win New Hampshire.
If she had lost New Hampshire, would anyone remember the moment some reporter balefully hounded her, after the loss in Iowa, for some sort of "gotcha" moment? But she won, so the myth is, she did it to win New Hampshire.
So far, as I write this, 217 people thought that was witty.
Almost like an epitaph for the human race. A woman showed
emotion for a second, and they attributed it to a ploy to win New Hampshire.
If she had lost New Hampshire, would anyone remember the moment some reporter balefully hounded her, after the loss in Iowa, for some sort of "gotcha" moment? But she won, so the myth is, she did it to win New Hampshire.
2
I disagree. The fact that Bernie is neck and neck with Hillary at this point would have been a surprise given the general consensus months ago, which was that Hillary would have the Democratic nomination in the bag all along.
555
Since when is it good for a front runner to tie to an underdog? If Hillary was asked if she would be happy with a tie 2 months ago, so would think that's a TERRIBLE result.
641
Are you sure a tie would benefit Hillary? I'm not.
317
The Times has it all figured out. "Yes Sanders surprised us but there is no need to panic. We can be sure it won't happen again."
1
Wow, if you don't think this competitive showing doesn't win Sanders more backing, more attention, and more credibility then you may be a little out of touch.
826
Another even more hilariously out of touch article called Sanders 'relatively inexperienced.' You apparently have to work for the previous administration or several decades in national politics doesn't count.
5