Sanders: It's A 'Mythology' That I Need To Win Iowa

[brooklynite]

Source: Huffington Post

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says the prospect of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg considering an independent presidential campaign "speaks volumes about the state of American politics" and notes that if a race included Bloomberg, Republican Donald Trump and himself, "two of the three candidates would be multi-billionaires."

Sanders said in an interview with The Associated Press Tuesday that the notion that he must win Iowa's caucuses against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton is "mythology" and appeared to lower expectations about the race.

He dismissed the notion that President Barack Obama might be tipping the scales in favor of Clinton, saying the president was "very generous to me." He says both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are trying to be "objective and letting the people decide."



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-its-a-mythology-that-i-need-to-win-iowa_us_56a7e4a2e4b04936c0e89143

---

Lowering expectations. Hmm.....

[retrowire]

1. You wish. nt

[trillion]

55. Why should he wish? Isn't it better to have him against super pac establishment Hillary?

[wordpix]

57. no, we need a battle of 3 billionaires to represent us! (sarcasm)

Even two is too many

[morningfog]

2. Smart move.

[tecelote]

3. It's so great to see the people finally doing what's in their best interest.

As hard as the media try to minimize Bernie's surging popularity, they can't slow him down. So many hit pieces like this just make their panic palpable.

The establishment is so used to manipulating us.

Finally, the people will win a major victory thanks to Bernie.

It's an historic event that will benefit our children.

From endless war to global warming to human rights and healthcare. We're saying we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.

Damn proud to be part of it.

[Plucketeer]

6. Nicely said

Time to take our country back - back into the hands of the people.

[tecelote]

22. Yes. "Time to take our country back - back into the hands of the people."

[MillennialDem]

25. This country has been in the hands of the people? When? Certainly not

in my lifetime.

[iandhr]

4. Full disclosure I am and HRC supporter...

... but my reading of the situation is that New Hampshire is Bernie's must win state. Not Iowa.

[retrowire]

10. why do you think that? nt

[iandhr]

13. Simple

Sanders has been close with Clinton in NH since he announced and was always a bigger underdog in Iowa. My prediction since the start of the race has been and Clinton victory in Iowa and Sanders victory in NH.


it also my impression that Sanders has devoted more resources to NH than IA. But I could be wrong.

[retrowire]

27. So then wouldn't it be more important for him to get Iowa? nt

[iandhr]

47. It would be a huge shot in the arm...

... but it not make or break. And NH can be more important. Clinton winning NH extended the race to a marathon in 2008

[Omaha Steve]

41. Reports show Hillary put everything on IOWA

And nothing after NH before 1-1-16. She may have a $ problem in a long fight! Many donors are tapped out already.

OS

[trillion]

56. She has no money problems. She has a 100 million super pac. Bernie has 3 million.

Bernie refuses a superpac. The superpac is proof Hillary is bought. How Dems are voting for her tells me they have not bothered to hear one single bernie speech.

[nolabels]

60. So which one would you rather have?

A lot of big organizations and so called important people on top with lots of money or a lot of people with a lot of energy and alert eyes looking to get a lot of other people involved who haven't even been charmed to what is going on?

[trillion]

62. When she bowed to the banksters the climate also took a back seat.

But don't worry, it would be like her in the Senate - she would throw us the voters a bone once in a while.

I want her backers in prison for the intentional housing collapse and predatory lending.

[nolabels]

64. I am not worried at all but some those that you note might be.

We are moving forward and winning in ways that were not thought possible. Being on the positive and helping others get involved by them discovering why it matters and what's in it for everybody will take us further.

[trillion]

61. So this is how tired I was last night. Bernie has over 3.2 million donations of $27 on average.

That's way more than 3.2 million dollars. $86,400,000.00

[trillion]

63. If her donations are as they look, I doubt the corporations will have a problem finding

people to funnel donations to her or any of these candidates getting most of their money from lump some $2700 donors.

That's only 100 time the average donation Bernie Sanders gets. I don't believe it's because he has "poorer" people.

Okay, the answer is by googling how superpacs work. It makes it hard to tell whether it's an individual or corporation donating. I'm still reading on this... It's not super pacs. She can accept millions in lump sums from them.

This looks like it's a truer picture of what happens:
bernie-sanders-rejects-donation-turing-ceo-martin-shkreli
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/16/bernie-sanders-rejects-donation-turing-ceo-martin-shkreli

I'm guessing the wealth give the max. Hillary has the wealthy Dems with the business agenda.

[JonLeibowitz]

12. Agreed. Winning Iowa would automatically make him the frontrunner.

Losing Iowa but with a strong showing means he is still in the race, but an underdog.

[trillion]

66. The math I see here is they would not have been equal and Bernie would have won except

for 6 coin tosses that surprise surprise all went for Hillary.

And all done by the DNC who supports Hillary. I can buy a coin that has heads on both sides for $5 on ebay. I hope someone looked closer at those coins. I can also buy one that is most likely to come up heads.

But anyway they should have averaged out the extra candidates and had 3 each or 2:4 in normal coin tosses. But they didn't. Hillary got all 6 and viola is now even with Bernie. That says Bernie won and Hillary needed the extras to get to be even with him. Last I heard, she was ahead by 1 person. Anyway, it will be interesting to hear what the DNC announces today, and I expect it will be surprise surprise-Hillary! And, by an even wider margin. Either that or the DNC will declare them equal and split the delegates. I can't see them not giving Hillary at least half - this is the DNC who are in bed with Wall Street just like the RNC. And she is their candidate.

I don't think it matters who won IOWA now. It's loud and clear that it was nearly even and both are completely viable.

[misterhighwasted]

31. NH is indeed the must win considering its his home corner of the world. But without Iowa,

which is a bit more diverse than NH, is very telling as to how he would fair outside his NE corner.

If he loses both, I think he'll ride along as far as his money will carry him, just because he can.
At least until August Dem Convention chooses their candidate.

Bernie has stated that he has a big ego, so I don't see him stepping out of the TV eye even with zero chance of the Presidency.
He likes this

[Omaha Steve]

42. Hillary spent most of her $ in Iowa, and very little in Super Tuesday until the panic

OOPS!

OS

[misterhighwasted]

45. Bernie's in a panic??

Sorry, didn't know that.
He should be, however.

[Omaha Steve]

50. YOU know the panic press isn't about Bernie

Nice try!

OS

[yardwork]

39. He can win both but there is still no path to the nomination that I can see.

[misterhighwasted]

48. Me either. Z E R O

He wont win anything.

[Gregorian]

7. No one has ruffled his feathers. He's so cool under fire.

I keep being inspired. Where I would be frustrated, he's logical, clear headed, and focused.

[misterhighwasted]

32. LOL. No one's challenged him "YET".

He knows he has the GOP on his side to challenge Clinton.
He has a sort of protected status where he sits now.
How long he would continue to do the work of RW Pacs is to be determined.

The GOP has a new AD out touting Sanders health care as a promo for Sanders. Yes it was put out by a RW PAC. MSNBC showed it earlier.
If Sanders did succeed in becoming the Dem Nominee, the RW would bury bernie in a day.
We all know how they are.

[davidpdx]

44. Sorry, but I'm calling you out on this one

How long he would continue to do the work of RW Pacs is to be determined.

Bernie Sanders is NOT doing the work of right-wing Pacs. How you can justify saying such a thing is beyond me.

[misterhighwasted]

46. RW PACS are buying AD time supporting Sandrrs health plan.

Google it

[davidpdx]

49. Even if that was true

It has nothing to do with Sanders and you know it. You are implying Sanders' campaign is coordinating with RW Pacs. Just when I thought Hillary Clinton supporters had hit a low. This is vile.

[misterhighwasted]

51. I didn't say he coordinated with the RW.

He has the protection of the RW because Hillary will kuck their behinds.
She will defeat them.
I haven't heard Sanders denounce the assist from the RW, yet.
I'll give him a week.
The AD just came out. MSNBC talked about it earlier.
It is a RW PAC by Paul Singer, pro Sanders, anti HRC.

They'll clobber bernie in the GE.
Good thing he'll never get that far.

Later...

[Hortensis]

8. Candidates normally want

to lower expectations when outcomes are not certain, right?

If he doesn't happen to carry Iowa, just think how his supporters here will take it. (!). Remaining in what will be a long race would be a victory, but would they be able to understand that?

Also, some showing up in those crowds and excited by the noise of the crowds and his success so far are likely to be weak willies, enthusiasm too possibly killed by the prospect of a long, uncertain campaign. He needs to prepare them -- in case -- to try to keep them from crashing at the first disappointment.

Good thing Bernie's tough.

[JonLeibowitz]

14. I donate to Sanders with the understanding he almost certainly will not win.

I'd still donate even if I knew he would lose. In the absence of winning, his race is about shifting the Overton window so that Liz Warren will be mainstream in 2020 when she runs.

So yes, some of us understand.

[Hortensis]

37. Of course. In speaking of supporters who might be

easily disillusioned because of too-high expectations, I was not speaking of people like you. I also support, admire, honor, and am grateful to Bernie for helping shift the dialogue farther left than most political professionals realized was possible.

(BTW, I'm prejudiced against the term "Overton window" simply because it arises from conservative strategizing about for lowering taxes on the wealthy still further, dismantling remaining regulations, continuing the shift of power and wealth away from the electorate, etc., etc.)

I'd also love to have Elizabeth Warren run. You do realize she'll be 70 after a probable two terms for the next president, likely spending those 8 years fighting the good fight? Hardly out of the question these days, but I sort of suspect her decision to remain in the senate this time means she will not be running for president later either.

How about Martin O'Malley with Elizabeth's, Bernie's, and Hillary's support?

[JonLeibowitz]

38. I don't think Hillary can win in November.

So i only give it 4 years until she runs.

Interesting point about Overton -- i need to do more reading on that.

Martin O'Malley could be okay but i am uneasy about his campaign finance views. He does have a superPAC.

[Hortensis]

53. What I especially appreciate about Bernie

is his role in, hopefully, making the public receptive to useful ideas, expanding their "window." My prejudice against the term arises not from its theory but from use of techniques by the right for mind-bending instead of education, to shift power away from the electorate rather than encourage its wise use.

[yardwork]

40. What a breath of fresh air! I too appreciate Sanders' campaign for exactly that reason.

[Plucketeer]

9. Go ahead and get comfy with that.

[stonecutter357]

11. K&R!

[Jarqui]

15. I think Bernie has already got a bunch of what he needed from

New Hampshire and Iowa.

He looks like he's going to win New Hampshire handily.

Iowa looks like it's going to be close.

I don't think it completely matters if it's Clinton +2 or Bernie +2 in Iowa anymore. Bernie winning would be awesome and help - no doubt. In fact, if Hillary loses both, her campaign could go into free fall because she had everything going for her once again and she couldn't put it away = there's something wrong with the candidate. The pundits will be asking in the mainstream media daily "why couldn't Hillary put Bernie away?"

Even the Clinton campaign has conceded the primary is going to be a while before it's over - after they were all geared up for the quick kill in the first two states. Bernie has already won that when so many, including the national media, had written him off.

Because of that, Bernie has already raised his profile in the national conversation in a big way. The downstream polls are going to tighten up. I'd really like Bernie to win Iowa. It would be an important, very damaging loss for Hillary. But like Bernie, I do not feel he HAS to win Iowa anymore. The fight is already on.

[shawn703]

16. He doesn't need to win Iowa, but he will anyway.

I'm not sure how this is lowering expectations. One state, a nomination does not make.

[lasttrip]

18. here is a little more of what he said about that..

"If I lose Iowa by two votes and end up with virtually the same number of delegates, is that a must-lose situation? Is that a tragedy? No," Sanders said aboard a charter flight en route to a rally in Duluth, Minnesota. "We are running a campaign that will take us to the convention and I'm very proud of the kinds of enormous gains we have made.

http://www.krmg.com/ap/ap/political/sanders-says-a-bloomberg-bid-would-point-to-wealth/nqCrB/

[NurseJackie]

17. It's a TRAP! A double-reverse-reverse ploy to make Hillary get over-confident. Don't fall for it!!

[riversedge]

29. chucke.

[msanthrope]

19. Smart.....

http://m.

[JI7]

20. Both Candidates are lowering expectations, it's the smart thing to do

after all Bill Clinton did not win New HAmpshire but that's where he became the "comeback kid" .

[iandhr]

23. You are quite right

It's SOP this late to lower exceptions

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. The last three presidents all lost NH the first time around. NH is not known for picking nominees.

[angrychair]

21. First

To be clear, no one actually "wins" in Iowa. It's a caucus, not a primary. You get delegates apportioned based on how many precent supporters a candidate has in the room that night. It is all about having motivated supporters. Someone may get more delegates than the others but as long as you walk away with delegates than you "won" something.

I feel Bernie supporters are very motivated and energetic individuals so I hope for a very decent outcome and New Hampshire should be positive as well.

[pnwmom]

24. The number of delegates that are split up in a precinct also depends on how many

caucus goers that precinct had in the previous caucus.

So it's a very odd, non-democratic system.

[brooklynite]

30. Yes, BUT...

...the media will announce the top vote/delegate getter in each State as a "winner", which will have implications for future races.

[geek tragedy]

36. Hillary won NH after losing Iowa. nt

[hrmjustin]

26. Sanders needs to win Iowa.

If not he is done.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Agree, Sanders needs more to win anywhere soon or it is over.

[wordpix]

58. he did win Iowa. A race within 0.2% with delegates decided by coin toss

and numerous precincts having probs is a win for Bernie.

[Gothmog]

34. Iowa is a must win for Sanders

Sanders has to win in Iowa to be viable http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/11/bernie_sanders_could_win_iowa_and_new_hampshire.html

What would not change, though, is that Clinton would remain the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Even if Hillary staggers out of New Hampshire with her second loss in as many contests, she’ll still have the same massive advantages she enjoys today: the campaign and super PAC cash, the ground game, the endorsements, the pledged superdelegates, and the general support of a party establishment that won’t soon forget that her challenger is not technically even a part of the Democratic Party. An unexpected loss in Iowa and a less surprising one in New Hampshire wouldn’t change that.

She’d also have a chance to get back on her feet—and fast. Consider what comes next: Nevada (Feb. 20) and South Carolina (Feb. 27), two significantly more diverse states than lily-white Iowa and lily-whiter New Hampshire, and two places where Clinton currently enjoys massive leads in the polls. According to the RealClearPolitics rolling average, Clinton holds a 20-point advantage in Nevada and a whopping 40-point lead in South Carolina. March brings better news still for the former secretary of state, starting with a Super Tuesday slate that includes friendly territory in the form of southern states like Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The rest of the month, meanwhile, includes several big, delegate-rich contests that she won eight years ago during her battle with Barack Obama: Michigan, Florida, and Ohio. Yes, Sanders could have the momentum this time next month, but it’ll be on him to to find a way to keep it as he heads into significantly more challenging terrain than Iowa or New Hampshire, which were always going to offer his best chance at pulling off an early upset or two.

None of this is to say that Clinton has the nomination locked up already. She doesn’t. But if Iowa and New Hampshire are must-wins for anyone, it’s Sanders. Hillary can—and likely would—survive a slow start and still be the one standing on stage at the Democratic National Convention when the balloons come down this summer. Bernie, though, has no such margin of error.

Sanders is doing well in states with 90+% white voting populations and these states are not sufficient for Sanders to win the nomination. There are four states where Sanders is polling well in: Utah, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont. Texas has almost twice the number of delegates of these four states combined

[geek tragedy]

35. 1) it's true; 2) all candidates play the expectation game;

3) only desperate candidates call any given state a must-win.

New Hampshire was a must-win for McCain in 2008, and so it is for Sanders in 2016 if he doesn't win Iowa.

[Gothmog]

43. Sanders would need to win 70 percent of Iowa's delegates...to even "be on track" to stay competitive

According to one of the experts for the Cook Report, Sanders needs to win big in Iowa to have a chance http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-needs-more-than-a-win-in-iowa-to-beat-clinton

As David Wasserman wrote in the Cook Political Report last week, "98 percent of pledged Democratic delegates will come from states with lower shares of liberal whites than Iowa and New Hampshire." That is a big problem for Sanders who has yet to prove he can expand his base....

Yet, even then, delegate allocation is proportional, which means that Sanders would have to begin winning by major margins to make the race a serious contest.

Wasserman estimates that according to his models, Sanders would "need to win 70 percent of Iowa's delegates and 63 percent of New Hampshire's delegates" to even "be on track" to stay competitive with Clinton in later states where demographically speaking, Clinton has shown she has more support. And in a states like Florida and South Carolina, Clinton leads in recent polls by 36 points and 19 points, respectively.

"It is not merely the delegate process that favors Hillary, it is the voters. She has earned the loyalty and support of communities of color, women, the LGBTQ community, environmentalists, and other vital parts of the Democratic coalition," says Democratic strategist Paul Begala, a Clinton supporter. "Bernie's coalition - so far - is more narrow. It is impressive in its energy and its passion, but it is, I think, more narrow."

I have not seen any projections or polls that show that Sanders being close to these numbers.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

52. Frankly, any polling from Florida, South Carolina, Nevada, etc.

is going to be influenced by what happens in Iowa and NH. If Sanders takes both of those states I'd expect his poll numbers to take a bounce.

Still, just one month ago I suggested that Sanders had a shot at both Iowa and NH and if he took them both this race would look completely different. What happened? Several people laughed that off as unrealistic. I'm guessing they aren't laughing so much now.

[Gothmog]

54. Iowa was a must win for Sanders

Sanders is only polling well in four states where the voting population is 90+% and if Sanders can not win in Iowa then he is in trouble in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/01/iowa_caucus_stakes_for_hillary_clinton_and_bernie_sanders.html

For Bernie, meanwhile, a Hillary victory would be an undeniable blow. With the exception of New Hampshire and his home state of Vermont, the Hawkeye State—with a Democratic electorate that skews white and liberal—represents the friendliest terrain on the map for Sanders. If Bernie can’t win in Iowa, Clinton and her allies will have no problem brushing off a Sanders win in New Hampshire next week as little more than the result of the senator being a near-native son in the Granite State. Sanders, then, would be in need of a win elsewhere to reset the race—and soon—but won’t have any obvious place to turn.

[wordpix]

59. so says slate, known for "contrarian arguments"

snip;
Reputation for counterintuitive arguments ("Slate pitches&quot [edit]

Since at least 2006,[10] Slate has been known for publishing contrarian pieces arguing against commonly held views about a subject, giving rise to the #slatepitches Twitter hashtag in 2009.[11] The Columbia Journalism Review has defined Slate pitches as "an idea that sounds wrong or counterintuitive proposed as though it were the tightest logic ever" and explained their success as follows: "Readers want to click on Slate Pitches because they want to know what a writer could possibly say that would support their logic".[19] In 2014, Slate's editor-in-chief Julia Turner acknowledged that a reputation for counterintuitive arguments forms part of Slate's "distinctive" brand, but argued that the hashtag misrepresents the site's journalism: "We are not looking to argue that up is down and black is white for the sake of being contrarian against all logic or intellectual rigor. But journalism is more interesting when it surprises you either with the conclusions that it reaches or the ways that it reaches them."[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_(magazine)

[Sunlei]

65. This is why I only donate to Sanders campaign. Americans, including Mrs. Clinton NEED to hear him.