So, it’s now predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the Nevada caucuses by around 4%. However, it needs to be pointed out that according to all the polls prior to 2 weeks ago, she was supposed to win by 20%. Yet, since she managed to win Nevada by that narrow 4% margin, the pundits are claiming she is a shoe in for the Democratic nomination, which is odd, since they claimed the same thing in 2008 when she managed to beat Obama and win Nevada by 10% (which is 6% more than the 4%). We all know how well that went for President Hillary… Oh, right.
Now, once again, I want to make it clear that I haven’t made up my mind on who I’d vote for in November. And even if I had a candidate I liked more than any of the others, since I’m not affiliated with any party (not even Independent) I won’t caucus or vote in a primary. So nothing matters to me until everything shakes out and we have actual nominees to research and decide upon. However, with all that said, it’s not Hillary who I’m confused about today. I think she ran a good campaign in Nevada and her victory speech was far more open and inclusive of the American people. It was a whole lot less about HER and how she would do things for people, and more about how everyone working together can make a change.
What has me scratching my head are the pundits and commentators reporting Hillary’s win.
They’re all acting as if Hillary has no history of losing steam to a rising star with a groundswell of support from young and disenfranchised voters. It’s happened before and, when you look at the numbers, it appears to be happening again. Sanders was supposed to lose big in Nevada, this was supposed to be Hillary’s “Firewall”. But winning by only 4% when she was supposed to win by over 20% may be enough of a “win” for Sanders to keep his momentum going into Super Tuesday.
Whatever the case, I can’t imagine the Democratic race ending anytime soon.
