It's hard, in fact, to see how a single 2008 Republican candidate benefited from anti-immigration rhetoric.
The conventional wisdom is that a candidate benefits by having the spotlight on him for a week.
The Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) candidate benefitted from strong economic growth in recent years, largely without the high levels of crime suffered by its Central American neighbours.
In other ways, too, Ms Fernández, the candidate, benefited unfairly from being Mrs Kirchner, the first lady: she made liberal use of the presidential plane, for example.
As many votes as possible that were cast in good faith and marked in a fashion that can fairly be discerned should be tabulated and included in the final count, regardless of which candidate benefits.
Try different possibilities, and see which candidate benefits.
Rahm may look like he's rolling, but another candidate benefited marginally from the collapse of CMB: Miguel del Valle, who moved from fourth to third.
So if the issue of race is politically neutralized for Hispanic voters casting ballots in the Democratic primary, which candidate benefits?
In fact, when you are the candidate benefiting without complaint from the ridiculous, archaic and undemocratic caucus process, it's probably best to just steer away from that whole "will of the voters" pretense.
While Sanders' credibility as an electable candidate benefits from his reliance on grassroots support, that same reliance places him at a decided disadvantage when it comes to mounting a campaign that could actually secure the Democratic Party's nomination.
