After the Iowa Caucus, many news outlets were quick to analyze the situation with the conclusion that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), who came in a close second to Hillary Clinton (49.9-49.6), is going to be a fierce competitor for the DNC nomination, while Donald Trump, a close second to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (27.6-24.3) and not beating U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) (23.1 percent) by much, is nearly out of the race for the GOPs. While the winners of the Iowa Caucus certainly indicate the direction things are going, to act like any of these candidates aren’t still completely in the race is absurd.

On Trump, because many polls showed him with a lead ahead of Iowa, it’s easy to say he’s on the downturn, but it was never clear how exactly the polling on him would translate into votes. As should be clear from the media coverage around this entire election cycle, Trump is no traditional candidate, from his funding, to his platforms, to the way he communicates and expresses his ideas altogether. Some of the same media outlets (like the one pictured above) that said Trump had no chance before Iowa are now taking his second-place spot as proof that he’s on the downturn. If he had no chance to begin with, I don’t see how a close second can equate to a loss. Trump’s said repeatedly that the media hasn’t been fair to him, and to some degree I think that’s true. There’s no question he’s still a competitor and some of these reports take his Iowa loss much too far.

While Rubio came in third, he was only 4.5 percent behind the winner, showing what a viable candidate he was in Iowa and still has the potential to be.

Iowa showed us that Sanders can put up a real fight against Clinton, and the race between them going forward, at least in the immediate future, will certainly be heated.

With all this in mind, be sure to analyze the media reports you read about the viability of candidates. Don’t rule anyone out because of overdramatic reporting. Look at the numbers and context, and decide for yourself.