Trump has a Better Chance Than Bernie in Winning the Nomination

This is something that has been obscured by the Beltway press lately. Chris Cillizza had a post debate post last night where he looked at the 'winners' and the 'losers' of the debate.

I had to laugh. Before I even read it I knew who his answer would be. Bernie would be the winner, and Hillary would be the loser. Which makes sense in his logic. He rather absurdly tried to draw an absurd equivalence between her and Jeb-as they both had the worst years last year.

Talk about taking the evenhanded, nonpartisan thing to an obsessional level-if you say Jeb has a terrible year then so did Hillary or else you're saying the Republican party had a worse year than the Democratic party which is partisan.

That's classic Beltway logic.

"The former secretary of state was, as always, solid. And, at times -- like in her closing statement on the water in Flint, Mich. -- she was outstanding. Her knowledge -- both the depth and the breadth of it -- is on full display in these debate settings."

"So, why is she in the loser column? Because she did nothing in the debate to slow the momentum that Sanders is building in Iowa and New Hampshire. Aside from guns, where Clinton scored a clean win against Sanders, she was unable to effectively cast him as a pie-in-the-sky idealist and herself as the only person who could truly fight -- and win on -- for Democratic priorities."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/17/winners-and-losers-from-the-4th-democratic-presidential-debate/

I disagree-I think she did a good job of showing him to be a pie in the sky idealist which is what he is.

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-The-trouble-with-Bernie.html

I also have to laugh that Cillizza even thinks that O'Malley was a 'winner.' He also said that President Obama was a winner. But how is Obama a winner while HRC is a loser when she is his choice to be his successor and consolidate and build on his agenda?

If HRC loses, then so does he. Ok, so Cillizza has never been about logic but bashing Democrats and Republicans equally. But he also falls back on a real fallacy: that Hillary had to slowdown Bernie last night that he's got all this 'momentum' in Iowa. In truth, Hillary is still very likely to win Iowa-and according to Nate Silver-she's even a favorite to win NH. 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-democratic/

Indeed, Nate hit the Bernie Maniacs where it hurts by telling the truth: whatever Trump's chances to win the GOP nomination they are much better than Bernie's winning the Dem nomination.

"Is there any chance Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee?"

I think you would have to have some type of renewed scandal or health problem or something like that. I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states. New Hampshire is still very close. But her chances have to be in the range of 90 [percent] to 95 percent. Trump has more of a chance than Bernie.

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/nate-silver-trump-has-more-chance-bernie-beating-clinton-168776