NEVADA DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY CAUCUSES:
CNN reports that Hillary Clinton had a "decisive" win in Nevada. Other superlatives I heard was that the Clinton's win was "solid," Let's examine that "decisive," "solid" victory that Clinton supposedly
|Sen. Bernie Sanders|
Clinton won the Nevada caucuses with 52.7% of the vote. That translates into 649 vote victory over Sanders. If just 325 Hillary Clinton voters anywhere in the state of Nevada changed their vote in the precinct caucuses, Sanders wins.
To do the Math differently, Democrats hold their caucus in Nevada at the precinct level. There are 1,835 precincts in Nevada. Only one Hillary Clinton voter would have had to change his or her mind in every six precincts for Bernie Sanders to have won.
The notion that Hillary Clinton won a great victory last night is not borne out by the numbers. This is especially true when you consider that the polling showed seven weeks ago that Clinton led in the Silver State by 28 points and previously polled ahead by 46 points. Given that advantage, one would think a 649 vote win would considered to be close, and possibly a lose for Clinton.
For the record, that much discredited (at least in Democratic circles) media outfit Fox News characterizes the result as Hillary Clinton "edging" out Sanders in the "closely-contested caucuses" in Nevada.
I don't mean to say that Bernie Sanders is on track to win the nomination. I think Clinton's solid support among African-Americans will trump (pardon the verb) Sanders in the long run. Her southern "firewall" of states that have large percentages of black Democrats is a real thing.
There is a bigger story though on the Democratic side that most media outlets are missing. Unlike the 2008 race where the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drove record numbers of voters to Democratic primaries and caucuses, that doesn't seem to be happening this time around. Even with some in the party "feeling the bern," Democrats are staying home while Republicans are the ones energized.
SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
The media spin on the Republican side is equally absurd. CNN reports that Trump had a "massive" victory. New Republic possibly went even further calling Trump's win a "landslide."
In South Carolina Trump had 32.5% of the primary vote followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio with 22.5% and Texas Senator Ted Crus with 22.3%. I'm not sure there has ever been a "landslide" in which 2/3 of the voters voted for someone other than the winning candidate.
Like Clinton in Nevada, Trump had huge lead in South Carolina polls. Most pegged him with a 15% to 20% lead. A CBS poll released just a week before the South Carolina showed Trump's lead at 22%. It was only a few days before the election that some polls started showing Trump's lead falling into the single digits.
Listening to the political analysts, it seems the consensus was that if Trump didn't win by double digits it would be considered to be a loss. So since Trump won by 10.0% that's considered a "massive," "landslide" victory while if his margin had fallen to 9.9% then it would be considered a loss? Well possibly media spinsters round off, so maybe it would have had to fall to 9.4% to be a loss. It is still absurd.
While the media talking heads seem ready to coronate Donald Trump as the GOP nominee, few seem to have noticed that there seems to be a 35% or so cap on Trump's support. Scores of candidates have dropped out, yet Trump does not seem to be gaining any support from their departures. Trump's 35% is a good performance in a race where the total vote is fractured among several candidates. However, 35% does not look as good when the total vote is split between only two or three candidates. Fortunately for Trump, although Jeb Bush suspended his campaign last night, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Ben Carson seem to be staying in for the long haul.