So the Iowa caucus is behind us now. Most people have given their views on it, but here is my prospective on the affair.
- Sanders can compete with Clinton on a semi-level playing field. I say semi-level, because there are accusations of shenanigans, including a coin toss for a delegate. Yeah, that might actually be legit, but it does not inspire a great deal of confidence that a potential presidential nominee might become a presidential nominee based on nothing more than pure statistical luck. Leaving that aside, Sanders, an insurgent candidate came within a hair of pulling off an upset. Not a miracle, but an upset, honestly a miracle is when he had zero chance of winning, but he had a chance, and came up a bit short. Clinton won a battle, not a war. Don't get cocky kid, as Han Solo would say. She managed to pull Iowa out, by a bit. In general election terms, I would say it would be close enough to force an automatic recount of cast votes.
- Sanders closed a huge gap in the last two months. Caucuses are noted for being momentum builders. If Clinton would have steamrolled over the competition, I could say that Sanders wouldn't be around for the long haul. But the fact that the difference was only .3% or .4%, it shows that Sanders is still gaining traction. Also remember that O'Malley managed to get .6% to 1% of the vote, and those people might not all go with Clinton, as is suggested. If it had been a two horse race, between Clinton and Sanders, the outlook might have been different, if O'Malley had been a stronger candidate, the outcome might have also looked different, but we will never really know how it would have played out.
- The Sanders revolution, is moving forward, New Hampshire seems to shaping up to be less of a battle. People forget history when it does not suit them. Sanders has been in a weak position since the start, and this showing has helped him strengthen his position. Now, most Clinton supporters will not understand how I can be sure of that. Simple, if you studied history, more than what is said in your high school classes. Any movement starts small, from a weak position, with no real support. Even our Founding Fathers started from such a position. They were an extremely rare group of people who had to chide the British into making foolish mistakes, which they used to gain more supporters, and suddenly, an insurrectionist minority movement because a full blown revolution. The longer Sanders stays in, the more ingrained he will become, and the stronger his revolution will become.
- Clinton has been weakened. Yes, she won the battle for Iowa, but it was close. Some dents appeared in her armor. She spent more money to win Iowa than Sanders did. I heard she spent nearly ten million dollars to barely win, otherwise nearly loose to Sanders slightly more than seven million dollars. While Sanders has been getting little positive press, and a great deal of negative attention on social media. See while the #Berniebros, #Bernbots, and whatever else Sanders supporters are being called these days, are slow and steady, some of the antics being pulled by Clinton supporters is only helping them along. She did no favors by calling victory before it was officially called, a master move with her supporters, because she did ink out the win. But it was a mistake given it was only the first caucus, and she is going to need to unite the party for the general, that means independents, O'Malley supporters and Sanders Supporters. Both campaigns and groups of supporters need to remember this, and I am guilty of neglecting Clinton supporters. Then again, for me, if Clinton wins, it there is little tangible difference between her and the short bus riders (at this point even Trump says he wants Universal Health Care, but words and actions are two different things).
- As previously mentioned in this list, the divide within the Democratic Party is growing, and it is not only to do with the differences between candidates. For most people, both Clinton and Sanders supporters, this is an all out ideological war. The future of the Democratic Party is on the line for both groups. In a sense, the Progressive Movement won on a larger scale, when you take into account to two progressive candidates totals (50.2% compared to 49.9%). Speaking of something else that comes to mind... If Sanders had 49.6%, Clinton had 49.9% and O'Malley had .6%, the numbers do not add up. I just double checked, that totals to 100.1%. Guess they rounded up.