Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Clinton claims “victory” in Iowa by not “losing”

Remember in 2007 when we were repeatedly assured by the Clinton lap dogs in the news media that Hillary was the prohibitive “favorite” to win the 2008 Democratic nomination? Polls that supposedly proved this were mostly name recognition surveys. The media may have been in love with the Clintons, but there was no real understanding of what exactly voters really thought about Hillary. Yes, there were the fanatics and disciples who wanted her elected for purely personal political reasons, but most voters—particularly younger voters—were not really all that enamored by the Clintons, seeing them as propelled by the power of self-privilege.  The core Democratic voters in fact wanted someone who they could vote for because they wanted to, rather than simply because they had to. 

In 2015, Hillary Clinton was again anointed as the “inevitable” Democratic nominee for president, despite having one very lame list of “accomplishments” despite holding the offices of U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. The Democratic “establishment” has already made its decision, as demonstrated by the fact that at least half of super delegates have already thrown their support behind Clinton. We have been repeatedly informed that she presents herself as “commanding,” which in actuality is nothing more than a pose that the media chooses to define as such. When Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders presented himself as a challenger, nearly everyone in the mainstream media regarded him as something of a joke, just an old white man with “outdated” ideas, and something of a crazed Sixties radical who never grew up. 

Yet in 2016, Iowa polls essentially showed that Sanders had pulled even with Clinton, despite every effort by the Democratic establishment and the pro-Clinton media to marginalize Sanders. How could this happen? Could it be that people believe Sanders when he said he was about the “people” rather than the corporate power structure with its political stooges? That he actually stands firm on core Democratic principles? Could it be that once again the media, in failing to do its duty in giving people the truth about the world they live in, is not that power of omnipotence and influence that it claims to be? 

Now that the Iowa caucus is over, Clinton and her media supporters are claiming “victory” after “winning” the caucus vote by a grand total of four. Yes, that’s right, just four measely votes. The UK The Guardian is reporting that Clinton only “won” because of a little known “rule” that in the case of a “tie”—probably determined by a loud, unhappy pro-Hillary minority—in a precinct, the “winner” was literally decided by a coin toss. The newspaper reported that Clinton somehow “won” all six of the precinct votes that were determined by a coin toss. 

While a few polls had predicted that Sanders would win by a narrow margin, The Progressive noted that it was unlikely that Sanders would actually win outright because “each of Iowa's 1,681 precinct caucus sites as a bunch of tiny states in an electoral college setting.  Every four years, each precinct is given a preset number of delegates, but instead of it being based on the total population of the precinct, it's based on how many Democrats voted in recent presidential and gubernatorial elections…Like the rest of the nation, 2014 was a notoriously low-turnout election for Iowa Democrats.  The Democrats who did vote, skewed older, more conservative, and more likely to vote for Hillary.  In addition, there are many precincts that might have a lot of people that voted Democrat, but for whatever reason don't participate in the caucuses…Which means that some districts with a more 'liberal' views who likely would favor Sanders were not motivated to vote in the 2014 mid-terms, and would be under-represented in the equivalent 2016 Iowa caucus precinct, and be more heavily skewed to the more Hillary-friendly caucus attendee.”

For the time being, Clinton and her sycophants can claim “victory” at least for the reason she did not “lose” in the way she did in 2008, when she placed third behind Barack Obama and John Edwards. But exit polls showed that first time caucus voters supported Sanders by a nearly 2-1 margin, and this could mean trouble for Clinton in more reliably “blue” states, unless Sanders begins to lose momentum. In fact, Clinton will likely have to rely on more conservative voters in “red” states that likely will not vote Democratic in the national election.

No comments:

Post a Comment