Well Bernie has a good chance of winning unfortunately and choosing Warren and Donald of choosing Palin but I so hope Palin isn't first U.S female president :( .

So Ted Cruz won in Iowa... not really surprising after the last 2 Republican winners. Seriously though I'd rather have Trump winning I think, how anyone can like Cruz is utterly beyond me. Every bit as detestable and dangerous as Trump but with the bonus of being perhaps the fakest politician there is and just generally needing a punch to the face.

 

Clinton and Sanders essentially in a dead heat, yet to be called either way but really Clinton has won by not being convincingly beaten even if she ultimately technically loses. It's not quite a crushing defeat for Bernie but he needed to do better than this most likely. :(

 

Also O'Malley has FINALLY dropped out. He was entirely irrelevant to the proceedings by this stage anyway but I feel like we'll be seeing him again in 4 or 8 years' time...

NO, it's fine, it's fine! *.* Cruz is eminently beatable. I mean, so is Trump but it would set an incredibly worrying precedent if he ended up the nominee.

 

Danny proving v prescient by calling in the Santorum precedent for the Democratic race, but regardless of who technically wins that's the Democratic race decided - if Bernie can at best only scrape the narrowest of wins in one of the most favourable states in the country for him, that's a Clinton win overall.

 

Still think Rubio's gonna be the nominee.

OMG Bernie has 86% of the youth vote :(

 

He's gonna win with more media coverage after this as well as social media.

 

Cruz is also :/

 

Santorum effect?

So, that's all broadly good news then. Well so much, not Rubio looking like he's going to be THE ONE following this, but if Trump is as egotistical as he has been up to this point hopefully he runs as an Independent.

OMG Bernie has 86% of the youth vote :(

 

He's gonna win with more media coverage after this as well as social media.

Yeah, the trolling doesn't really work when this is the equivalent of Labour pulling a close loss out of a seat in Manchester. If he isn't winning here, he won't get enough support to win in anything other than a handful of states in New England and the odd one elsewhere.

I'm still thinking that Sanders will start chipping away at the leads Hillary has with the demographic groups which back her most strongly as the primaries continue and it becomes such a pronounced two-horse race. At this point, winning ten or so states and pushing her into asking Warren or another establishment lefty to be her running mate should be seen as achievable and highly commendable.

Yeah, the trolling doesn't really work when this is the equivalent of Labour pulling a close loss out of a seat in Manchester. If he isn't winning here, he won't get enough support to win in anything other than a handful of states in New England and the odd one elsewhere.

 

You're forgetting there was a media BLACKOUT on him, except on social media - hence the youth (and let's face it, at times hipster) polling. With a two horse race and increased media coverage, esp. After a huge win in NH, puts the trend towards him.

In what sense has there been a media blackout of him?! The media have been doing literally everything in their power to turn this into a two-horse race!

 

And no, again, much as the media may try to create that narrative, narrowly losing and then winning two of the most favourable states for you in the country does not 'put the trend towards him'. Bases of support are KIND OF A THING

Maybe I've just been getting all of my American news from Reddit (and I'm sure it's different with TV and other news sites) but it seems there's virtually no good publicity for Clinton in the media and every bit of good publicity for Bernie. He's doing fine on that front. Probably not on the actually winning things front after this.

 

Cruz winning is a bit awful that he's getting vindicated but there's no chance of him winning the whole thing so I'm not that worried.

There were two really interesting things about the result:

 

a. the Republican establishment threw everything they had at bringing down Cruz and barely anything at Trump.

b. the expectation on Cruz's side was that an ordinary turnout was good for Cruz and a huge turnout was good for Trump.

 

Despite all that, the turnout was huge and Cruz still won. Which raises the question: was it huge because a lot of people were coming out to vote against Trump and voted for Cruz as the most likely to beat him? Or was it huge because Cruz's turnout operation is *that* good?

Well Iowa voted for Huckerbee last time!

 

Newspapers are even asking WHY the media missed Bernie earliee so he was ignored by media trying to delegitimise him.

Newspapers are even asking WHY the media missed Bernie earliee so he was ignored by media trying to delegitimise him.

You mean the Bernie Sanders that has had more news coverage in every month since his campaign started than Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and who has had basically the same amount of coverage as Hillary Clinton since the Benghazi hearings finished? Mmm, really ignored.

 

http://i.imgur.com/5gfcWFz.png

I counter with:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/18/politics...-sanders-media/

You're countering an actual metric of the media coverage every candidate has received with a headline really transparently serving a media narrative, which says nothing to refute the measurement other than an unsupported assertion that he hasn't had much coverage?

You're countering an actual metric of the media coverage every candidate has received with a headline really transparently serving a media narrative, which says nothing to refute the measurement other than an unsupported assertion that he hasn't had much coverage?

It's not clear what your graphic is showing. Is it showing the number of searches, or the number of news items found? If it is the former, that could support the contention that Sanders isn't getting as much coverage. It could be that people are using Google to find the sort of information they haven't found in, for example, print and broadcast media. It is notable that the top search questions for Sanders are more policy-related than those for Clinton, although there are, of course, many possible explanations for this.

It's not clear what your graphic is showing. Is it showing the number of searches, or the number of news items found? If it is the former, that could support the contention that Sanders isn't getting as much coverage. It could be that people are using Google to find the sort of information they haven't found in, for example, print and broadcast media. It is notable that the top search questions for Sanders are more policy-related than those for Clinton, although there are, of course, many possible explanations for this.

News items found.

Bernie is already chasing her lead in SC and other states ...

 

The trend is clear even if you say her support base will help against it.

Btw your graph is wrong. It is a googletrends graph for SEARCHES.

 

Here:

 

https://www.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_LVTAMlIBAAC_5M_en

No it isn't - it's a Google Trends graph for News stories. As it says at the top of the image.