I am always fascinated by candidates who claim they “won” an early primary or caucus state, and the media that trumpets their victory, when they all got was a miniscule number of votes more than the other candidate. For example, in Iowa last night Hillary Clinton apparently received 49.9% percent of the vote and Bernie Sanders got 49.6%. This may or may not translate into one more delegate to the Democratic National Convention for Secretary Clinton than Senator Sanders. But really, to use a phrase made famous in another context, “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”
This is not Florida in November of 2000; it’s Iowa in February of 2016. There are dozens of primaries and caucuses left, and hundreds of delegates to be elected. What difference does 0.3% and maybe one extra delegate make at this point? Especially if you remember that, in 2012, Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses the night of the vote, and only a couple of days later, after Mr. Romney got all of the credit for “winning,” did the absolute final vote total show that Rick Santorum actually got more votes. (Oops. And here.) But what difference did those few hundred votes make anyway – other to the “winner”-obsessed media?
The fact is this was the first state. What counts is that both candidates got virtually the same number of votes and that all of the other states are still coming up. A few hundred votes one way or the other just isn’t that big of a deal.
Comments