Some reporters really want to grade Hillary Clinton on the kindest of curves. The Unstoppable Juggernaut of 2015 won a caucus in Nevada by five points? Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post oozed “Hillary Clinton deserves a massive amount of credit for winning Nevada.” Massive!
Cillizza began:
Yes, Hillary Clinton was way ahead in the Nevada caucuses for much of the last year. And yes, her numbers among Latino voters in the state will furrow some brows at Clinton headquarters in the next few days. And yes, the broader race against Bernie Sanders is far from over.
But Hillary Clinton badly needed to win the Nevada caucuses. And she won them. Period.
The man who denies there is a pro-Clinton bias in the media seems to be pandering to the Clinton backers who think he’s not pro-Clinton enough.
“It's easy to nit-pick Clinton's campaign — and I know many of her allies believe I do that on a daily basis. But it's important to remember that, at the end of the day, there is only winning and losing in these presidential races,” he added. “I've come to realize that Clinton's best traits as a candidate are her resilience and her perseverance. She will not give up. She will not stop working because she is tired. She will not back away. Ever.”
So winning 19 delegates to Bernie’s 15 is somehow “yuuge,” to borrow from Trump. “Clinton found a way when she needed to find a way. For that, she and her team deserve a huge amount of credit.”
In one precinct, Hillary won a tie vote by a random pull from a deck of cards -- a little like Iowa's coin flips.
