NPR: "No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton"
Hillary Clinton got lucky Monday night. Very lucky. But not for the reasons some are alleging.
FiveThirtyEight: "Republicans Need To Treat Donald Trump As The Front-Runner"
Donald Trump became the latest Republican presidential candidate1 to win at least 20 percent of the vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire after an overwhelming victory here on Tuesday; he beat his nearest rival, John Kasich, 35 percent to 16 percent. If Trump’s underwhelming performance in the Iowa caucuses last week was reminiscent of Pat Buchanan, his New Hampshire result put him more on par with Mitt Romney, who also finished second in Iowa four years ago before winning easily here.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...-new-hampshire-victory-wasn-t-so-huge-n516066After the New Hampshire contest, NBC News allocated 15 delegates to Sanders. But NBC also allocated 14 delegates to Hillary Clinton, who lost the primary by an almost historic margin.
Why are those two numbers so close even though Sanders walloped her in the state?
The answer has to do with a quirk unique to the Democratic Party called superdelegates. They are delegates to the party convention -- usually members of the DNC and other state and federal elected officials -- who are allowed to endorse their own pick regardless of how their home state votes.
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...ers-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html1. His margin of victory was the highest for a non-incumbent candidate in any state since JFK.
2. He won almost every demographic group—male, female, young, old, moderate, liberal, college educated, high school-educated—with the exception of voters making more than $200,000 per year.
3. He became the first Jewish candidate to win a state primary in U.S. history.
4. He became the first non-Christian candidate to win a state primary in U.S. history.
Q: Why does Hillary Clinton have so many more Superdelegates this time around?
A: Because Superdelegates are the establishment, and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Period.
A quick look at the chart below, courtesy of Wikipedia, shows how insanely imbalanced the Superdelegate race is at this point in time:
Q: From everything you’ve told me so far, I can’t understand why you’re calling Superdelegate votes “irrelevant.” It seems to me like they have the same voting power as a normal delegate, and this puts Sanders in a tremendous hole from the word “go.”
A: Here’s why it doesn’t matter: Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.
Q: If Superdelegates can shift allegiances, and if going against the people’s will is so unthinkable, why don’t the pundits ever mention it?
A: It’s almost like there’s an agenda, right? Not to keep picking on McBride, who is a very minor figure in all this, and who had the bad luck to appear on my timeline yesterday, but what purpose do those numbers serve other than to discourage Sanders supporters? They’re essentially meaningless, but when presented without context, they give the impression of an unbeatable juggernaut, and tacitly encourage outsiders to give up all hope.
Charles Koch says Hillary Clinton might be better than GOP candidatesIn an interview in Kansas that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Koch was asked if it's possible for another Clinton to be better than another Republican after he said President Bill Clinton "in some ways" was better than President George W. Bush.
"It's possible," Koch said.
ABC's Jonathan Karl asked Koch, "You couldn't see yourself supporting Hillary Clinton, could you?"
"We would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way," Koch said. "But on some of the Republican candidates we would, before we could support them, we'd have to believe their actions will be quite different than the rhetoric we've heard so far."