In the end, Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the Iowa caucuses due to a coin flip.

Six very improbable coin flips in a row all going Clinton’s way if we’re counting (and we are), as she edged out Sanders in a 49.9%-49.5% contest that every single poll had Clinton winning by wide margins just month ago. This narrow decision was an obvious victory for Sanders that the Clinton camp simply can’t spin.

So what caused Clinton’s implosion in the “first in the nation” caucuses?

I think there is a very strong argument to be made that Clinton’s obsessive focus on gun control, particularly in the days leading up to the caucus, caused many voters to utterly reject her. They either voted for Sanders, or stayed home.

We’ve long marveled at Clinton’s ill-advised decision to make gun control the key issue of her campaign, at a time when more Americans than ever before are buying guns, buying more guns, are engaging in more shooting sports, and are obtaining concealed carry permits at a record rate almost everywhere in the nation, is nothing less than political suicide.

Her opposite in the 2016 primaries is the winner of the Republican contest in Iowa, Ted Cruz. Cruz not only won, but did so with the largest number of votes ever amassed by a candidate in Iowa. Cruz is well known to voters as a hunter, shooter, and a supporter of gun rights.

Is there a lesson to be drawn here?

Cruz is drawing considerable support from a large group of single-issue guns rights voters, whereas Hillary is pandering to a group of single-issue gun control voters that is so vanishingly small as to be statistically insignificant.

Hillary Clinton continues to lie about the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms At (PLCAA), doesn’t recognize self-defense as a legitimate reason to own a firearm, and favors the “Australian model” of gun control, which means the banning and confiscation of most handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

Clinton has become the most unAmerican candidate to have ever run for the Presidency.

Perhaps we should not be surprised at all that when Democrats are faced with a choice between Sanders and Clinton, they find the economically illiterate socialist  to be a more palatable option.