The winner of the Iowa Caucuses, besides Ted Cruz, was spin.
Hillary didn't claim a victory last night, but she has sent out a fundraising letter this morning calling her achievement results in Iowa an "historic win."
Telling it like it is-- the truth, as usual, Bernie Sanders said, in his speech last night, "tonight, while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie."
Marco Rubio spoke like he won, even though he came in third. Rubio, by the way, talks in neocon code when he refers to creating a "new american century." The name of the founding neocon organization was the Project for a New American Century." Here's what Wikipedia says about it:
"The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3]think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.[4][5] The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[6] The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[7]
Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.[8][9][10][11] Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.[12][13][14][15] Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated.[16][17][18]
The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;[19] it was replaced by new think-tank Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009.
Look to neocons supporting Rubio as soon as Jeb! Bush drops out. .
Winning with Six Coin Flips, with a point one percent margin-- yep that's historic.
The way I see it, having been separated by four points, and having won six coin flips, it looks to me that Hillary won with a historically low margin-- the lowest ever-- strictly because of luck. Iowa Democrats should change the rules-- ties should be recorded, and at the end of the night, split evenly. If there are an uneven number of ties, maybe then, do a coin toss. As it stands, if this, more democratic, less arbitrary approach had been applied, Bernie would have won by one.
Let's keep going on the spin. The composite of polls, using RealClearPolitics, predicted that Hillary would win by four percent. She massively underperformed. If a business underperforms that badly it is not considered a win. It tanks. Another way to look at it is over the course of the past eight months Hillary lost 40 percentage points of lead. She won by the smallest margin in Iowa Caucus history. yet Hillary supporters are mocking Sanders for not winning, as a small percentage of polls predicted.
it's ironic that some Hillary pundits have spun that old Bernie Sanders has the support of old white men. Yet the New Yorker reports:
"Sanders got eighty-six per cent of the Democratic vote in the seventeen-to-twenty-four age group, eighty-one per cent in the twenty-five-to-twenty-nine group, and sixty-five per cent in the thirty-to-thirty-nine age group. Clinton, by contrast, was largely reliant on the middle-aged and the elderly. Among forty-something voters, she won by five percentage points. Among the over-fifties, she won by more than twenty per cent.
When you are so heavily reliant on support from creaky-kneed voters, it is tricky to project yourself as the voice of the future."
What spins are you thinking or hearing?
2
2
1
