Crowing about winning Iowa, as if it were a golden ticket to the nomination, is ridiculous, regardless of who wins.
Win decisively in New York or California--THEN you can crow.

interesting comment in the article about what happens if Bernie wins Iowa and NH.

"But Sanders would have an avalanche of momentum going for him after wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. The national press corps, which spins even minor stories into crises for Clinton, would portray Clinton’s campaign as being in a meltdown. Momentum usually matters in the primaries — and sometimes it matters a lot — but exactly how many Democrats would change their votes as a result is hard to say. The wave of negative coverage might be especially bad for Clinton, but it’s also possible that, because the media has sounded false alarms on Clinton before, she’d be relatively immune to the effects of another round of bad press. One factor helping Sanders: Voters who had been attracted to his message before, but who weren’t sure he could win, would mostly have their doubts removed after he beat Clinton twice."

(That last sentence doesn't hold for me. I never thought Bernie could not win the primary. I do think he would very likely lose the general, and no doubts would be removed by any primary contest wins).

and 538 reports possibly not much of a lead for Hillary there, though data are not good. Then SC, about which,

"One state that doesn’t look good for Sanders is South Carolina, where Clinton is ahead by 31 points and where the Democratic electorate is majority black and relatively conservative. If Sanders wins there, or comes within a few points of doing so, that will be an unambiguous sign that Clinton is in deep trouble.

If Clinton’s firewall holds in South Carolina, however, she also figures to perform well in the “SEC Primary” states of March 1, at which point she’d potentially build up a fairly large delegate lead and tamp down some of the panicky media coverage."

It must be fun for analysts to try to foresee and quantify the potential effects of what they know is typically overall inaccurate and often dishonest national media coverage.

I blame the zeitgeist

Neither of which are really true

1. This is 2008 all over again for Hillary
2. The dream is dead/back to reality for Bernie

If you weren't quite so partisan you'd see he's bored to death.

I was giving you a silly answer to your silly post.

It is boring, it's been going on and on and on. Most of the threads on DU are taken up with this O so tedious topic, a poll here, an endorsement there, and it keeps dragging on and on.

The Labour party leadership contest was done and dusted in a few months, it never had the chance to become boring.

is a prediction