Sanders sets record for biggest loser in Iowa expectations game

Sen. Bernie Sanders, by essentially battling Hillary Clinton to a tie in Iowa, completed perhaps the most unlikely rise by a candidate in U.S. presidential election history.

Yet, the expectations were that the Vermont senator had a very good shot, based on several polls, of beating Clinton in Monday’s caucuses. So his shortfall by 0.2 percent of the Democratic vote – and his loss of a series of coin flips to break certain tie votes for delegates – was portrayed in headlines this morning as a Clinton victory.

The New York Times went so far as to offer this analysis: “Why a 'Virtual Tie' in Iowa Is Better for Clinton Than Sanders.”

It’s worth reminding the pundits that, until the Iowa voting commenced, nearly every media interview with Sanders began something like this “… a 74-year-old avowed socialist who began this race with just 3 percent support nationwide ...”

Beyond his unconventional left-wing message, Sanders had no organizational support and no endorsements. He shunned PAC money but collected 3 million contributions averaging $27. 

Sanders had already shattered expectations

Sanders shattered the expectations of everyone over the past eight months, but when he came within reach of beating the Democratic prohibitive favorite in recent weeks, the expectations changed. In Iowa, candidates either beat expectations, or they don’t.

The whopping 70-point advantage Sanders managed over Clinton in the 18-29 age bracket gets buried in today’s news coverage and analysis. The party is moving leftward and Sanders lack of foreign policy acumen doesn’t seem to matter. Those represent huge shifts in Democratic politics. But what the senator will face in the coming weeks is a barrage of scrutiny focused on the idea that he is unelectable.

If he wins New Hampshire next week, that’s not the story because he is expected to win his neighboring state.

Pundits rule in Iowa

Columnist Susan Demas, on her new website, susanjdemas.com, wrote a piece this morning that thrashes the punditry that passes for political wisdom every four years in Iowa.

On the Republican side, Sen. Ted Cruz won but that victory is discounted because many saw it coming. Plus, Iowa is friendly territory for Cruz’s evangelizing. The story this morning is that the Texas senator exposed the fallibility of a narcissistic Donald Trump. But Cruz is given little chance of carrying on in New Hampshire, Demas writes, though he is tied for second place with John Kasich (behind Trump) in the Granite State.

Here’s how Demas, a former Iowa resident, deconstructs the conventional wisdom:

“The first (false conclusion) is that Marco Rubio really won the GOP contest (not Ted Cruz, the actual winner) by beating expectations by finishing third (and almost defeating Trump). 

Rubio's 'victory speech'

“… Pundits (and furiously spinning establishment Republicans) aren't wrong. The Florida senator certainly showed he could compete in a crowded field and withstand the Trump free-media juggernaut. 

“But the idea that Rubio actually won Iowa is laughable, although he gets props for his audacious "victory" speech. In politics, you can often fake it till you make it (as long as you sell it convincingly). Hey, it almost worked for Trump, right?”

Demas, editor and publisher of Inside Michigan Politics, added this warning:

“… Beware of what pundits are trying to sell you. They're too often seduced by the most sensational (and ratings-rich) narrative.”