US Presidential Election -- Iowa caucuses

Message boards : Politics : US Presidential Election -- Iowa caucuses
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1761636 - Posted: 2 Feb 2016, 14:00:52 UTC
Last modified: 2 Feb 2016, 14:02:08 UTC

Very Very interesting turn of events.

D's:

Clinton 700 (24 delegates)
Sanders 695 (21 delegates)
O'Malley 8 (0 delegates)

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-vote-count-tight-finish-iowa-caucus-clinton

Yeah, I would be upset too...

R's: (listing only those that received delegates)
Name Votes Percent Delegates
Cruz 51,649 28% 8
Trump 45,416 24% 7
Rubio 43,132 23% 7
Carson17,393 9% 3
Paul 8,478 4% 1
Bush 5,235 3% 1

Fouls comitted here too...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/breaking-carson-accuses-cruz-camp-of-foul-play-at-iowa-caucuses/

Note: to those outside the USA that might not be familiar with things,
'Delegates' refers to delegates to that parties national convention pledged to vote for that candidate.

Yep... last night was a whole bunch of weirdness.
ID: 1761636 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1761645 - Posted: 2 Feb 2016, 14:51:59 UTC - in response to Message 1761636.  

ID: 1761645 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1761658 - Posted: 2 Feb 2016, 15:29:00 UTC - in response to Message 1761645.  

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist


Even still, if they were, P(6 heads in a row) = 1 / 64 (odds, 63 to 1 against). Those aren't bad odds. And I doubt empirically it'd be very much different.

Note: this is not support of Clinton.

The idea of letting it come down to a coin toss is at least mildly annoying.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1761658 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1761665 - Posted: 2 Feb 2016, 15:35:23 UTC - in response to Message 1761658.  

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist


Even still, if they were, P(6 heads in a row) = 1 / 64 (odds, 63 to 1 against). Those aren't bad odds. And I doubt empirically it'd be very much different.

Note: this is not support of Clinton.

The idea of letting it come down to a coin toss is at least mildly annoying.

Probably a better solution than doing a recount, which would take time and who would bear the cost? I've read it takes all types of blackmail and offers to get vote counters just for the one day.
ID: 1761665 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1761689 - Posted: 2 Feb 2016, 16:32:40 UTC - in response to Message 1761658.  

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist


Even still, if they were, P(6 heads in a row) = 1 / 64 (odds, 63 to 1 against). Those aren't bad odds. And I doubt empirically it'd be very much different.

Note: this is not support of Clinton.

The idea of letting it come down to a coin toss is at least mildly annoying.


Put another way: I'm not a gambler. In a certain sense, 63 to 1 against is bad. But, given the Law of Large numbers, one could expect with many applications under the same conditions the number of times the event would occur out of how many trials were performed would reduce to roughly 1 / 64. Compared to many other things considered, this is far from improbable.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1761689 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1761694 - Posted: 2 Feb 2016, 16:45:19 UTC - in response to Message 1761689.  

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist


Even still, if they were, P(6 heads in a row) = 1 / 64 (odds, 63 to 1 against). Those aren't bad odds. And I doubt empirically it'd be very much different.

Note: this is not support of Clinton.

The idea of letting it come down to a coin toss is at least mildly annoying.


Put another way: I'm not a gambler. In a certain sense, 63 to 1 against is bad. But, given the Law of Large numbers, one could expect with many applications under the same conditions the number of times the event would occur out of how many trials were performed would reduce to roughly 1 / 64. Compared to many other things considered, this is far from improbable.

Well, when your person is doing the tossing and your person is doing the calling ... Then there are the referees who toss the coin for overtime and can't get it right ...
ID: 1761694 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1761743 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 1:53:29 UTC - in response to Message 1761689.  

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist


Even still, if they were, P(6 heads in a row) = 1 / 64 (odds, 63 to 1 against). Those aren't bad odds. And I doubt empirically it'd be very much different.

Note: this is not support of Clinton.

The idea of letting it come down to a coin toss is at least mildly annoying.

Put another way: I'm not a gambler. In a certain sense, 63 to 1 against is bad. But, given the Law of Large numbers, one could expect with many applications under the same conditions the number of times the event would occur out of how many trials were performed would reduce to roughly 1 / 64. Compared to many other things considered, this is far from improbable.

Indeed. While that may have taken 9 hours to get the right result (according to the explanation clip), another attempt at the same thing may be successful on the first try, the improbable happens all the time ...

With coin tosses it's the expectation of an even distribution of heads and tails for a series of coin tosses that is misplaced, there are only 20 permutations that would result in a 3/3 distribution, 15 where there'll be 4 heads, (and 15 where there'll be 4 tails), so a 30/64 chance of a 4/2 split, 6 where there are 5 heads, or a 12/64 chance of a 5/1 split, and a 2/64 chance of a 6/0 split. Thus, on average, a 6/0 split will occur for every 10 3/3 splits, which is likely not what many (myself included) intuitively expect.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1761743 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1761759 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 3:15:20 UTC - in response to Message 1761665.  

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist


Even still, if they were, P(6 heads in a row) = 1 / 64 (odds, 63 to 1 against). Those aren't bad odds. And I doubt empirically it'd be very much different.

Note: this is not support of Clinton.

The idea of letting it come down to a coin toss is at least mildly annoying.

Probably a better solution than doing a recount, which would take time and who would bear the cost? I've read it takes all types of blackmail and offers to get vote counters just for the one day.


You can't really do a recount of a caucus, its not a secret ballot. It is a head count of each candidates' supporters after all the candidates' presentations and the discussions are done.

But, let me put this another way.

If one ignores the precincts that were a tie, and count only the precincts where there was a clear winner, Sanders wins with 695 to Clinton's 694.

In this case, I agree with Sanders... I would VERY MUCH like to see the raw vote statewide totals (like the Republicans released) instead of just the number of precincts won.


But, anyway.. very weird results in Iowa, and the results don't look good for EITHER party.
ID: 1761759 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1761770 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 4:19:06 UTC - in response to Message 1761759.  
Last modified: 3 Feb 2016, 4:32:27 UTC

One article I read, out of many, said that the method used, was to write their choice on a piece of paper. There were then separated into piles and counted by volunteers. If those piece of paper were kept, then a recount would be possible.

edit] OK, found the original article, that is the republican method. And yes the Democrats method is more complicated and there is no record.
ID: 1761770 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1761773 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 4:30:07 UTC

The coin toss is a straw man. It is true a coin is tossed in certain cases but it is not what it seems on the surface. Take a precinct where 60 show up and it has 5 delegates. It splits 30 30. They don't split the last delegate they toss the coin for the last one. I did hear on NPR that Bernie won a far number of those coin tosses also. Much ado about very little.
ID: 1761773 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1761782 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 5:21:42 UTC - in response to Message 1761770.  
Last modified: 3 Feb 2016, 5:22:45 UTC

One article I read, out of many, said that the method used, was to write their choice on a piece of paper. There were then separated into piles and counted by volunteers. If those piece of paper were kept, then a recount would be possible.

edit] OK, found the original article, that is the republican method. And yes the Democrats method is more complicated and there is no record.

Correct the Republican method of a caucus is gather, speeches, vote paper ballots, count and go home.

Democrat method is gather, speeches, split up into groups, count to be sure groups are "viable" and then regroup wash and repeat. Someone counts heads. Then after your opponent's people go home but before your people do cry foul and do a recount.

<ed>And which party claims to be better in charge of how elections should be run?
ID: 1761782 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1761884 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 13:21:16 UTC - in response to Message 1761759.  

Note: There were some irregularities:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won ALL 6 of the coin tosses....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist


Even still, if they were, P(6 heads in a row) = 1 / 64 (odds, 63 to 1 against). Those aren't bad odds. And I doubt empirically it'd be very much different.

Note: this is not support of Clinton.

The idea of letting it come down to a coin toss is at least mildly annoying.

Probably a better solution than doing a recount, which would take time and who would bear the cost? I've read it takes all types of blackmail and offers to get vote counters just for the one day.


You can't really do a recount of a caucus, its not a secret ballot. It is a head count of each candidates' supporters after all the candidates' presentations and the discussions are done.

But, let me put this another way.

If one ignores the precincts that were a tie, and count only the precincts where there was a clear winner, Sanders wins with 695 to Clinton's 694.

In this case, I agree with Sanders... I would VERY MUCH like to see the raw vote statewide totals (like the Republicans released) instead of just the number of precincts won.


But, anyway.. very weird results in Iowa, and the results don't look good for EITHER party.

Ignoring the precincts where Clinton won an extra delegate to the county conventions via a coin toss but not Sanders?

Lau [a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party] said seven coin flips were reported statewide, and Bernie Sanders won six of them.

(source).

Let me put this another way, if we want to portray the caucus results in such a manner that Clinton looks like an improbable winner, we can. And people will believe it.

For more on how the Iowa caucus operates, the interest might want to take a look at this.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1761884 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1761921 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 15:21:55 UTC
Last modified: 3 Feb 2016, 15:23:14 UTC

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_PAUL_SCOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-03-09-51-56
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Republican Sen. Rand Paul dropped his 2016 campaign for president Wednesday, eclipsed by other candidates who kept his base of support from growing into a viable force in the crowded 2016 field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
ID: 1761921 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1761954 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 18:20:33 UTC - in response to Message 1761884.  

The news media has closed ranks and is misleading you, and yes out-rightly lying to you.

Here is the report on the situtation BEFORE the national media 'sanitized' the situtation with spin and lies.

Here’s what happened in Ames, according to David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University (and Sanders supporter) who participated in the caucus:

A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).

Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.

Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.

Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.

A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate.

Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss.


I have already given the link, but here it is again...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won the toss in Ames, two in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch, and in Davenport.

You don't believe that the (non-Fox, at least) mainstream news media is pro-Clinton? Look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucus-loss-response-nr.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

The video title:

Sanders: Last night we began the political revolution


Look closely at the caption...

The last line...


Sen. Bernie Sanders | (R) Presidential Candidate


CNN is calling Sanders a Republican... ROFLMAO

As you are no doubt aware, in Previous presidential elections the Democrat party establishment has put much store into the 'national raw vote count', even though it is totally meaningless...

Well, in the 2016 Iowa caucus, what is so wrong with them releasing the raw vote totals... What are they afraid of? If Clinton really did win, as the establishment Democrats (and their buddies in the Mainstream News Media) are claiming, surely they would have released it by now, if only to hush up Sanders...
ID: 1761954 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1761978 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 20:11:32 UTC

And another one bites the dust ...
Rick Santorum
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/03/rick-santorum-to-drop-out-of-2016-presidential-race/
Rick Santorum, the deeply conservative former senator who won nearly a dozen contests in the 2012 race for the Republican nomination, is expected to announce Wednesday that he will suspend his latest and long-struggling run for the presidency.

Santorum is scheduled to appear Wednesday evening on Fox News Channel, where an aide said he will make “two major announcements.” According to several national Republicans familiar with his plans, he will discuss his decision to end his 2016 campaign and he will likely make an endorsement of one of his GOP rivals.

ID: 1761978 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1761980 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 20:34:10 UTC - in response to Message 1761954.  

You don't believe that the (non-Fox, at least) mainstream news media is pro-Clinton? Look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucus-loss-response-nr.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

The video title:

Sanders: Last night we began the political revolution


Look closely at the caption...

The last line...


Sen. Bernie Sanders | (R) Presidential Candidate


CNN is calling Sanders a Republican... ROFLMAO

I looked very closely. My screen does not say what your screen does. I'd suggest you do a virus and spyware scan.
Mine says:
Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally in New Hampshire after a razor-thin loss to Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

ID: 1761980 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1761986 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 20:51:55 UTC - in response to Message 1761954.  
Last modified: 3 Feb 2016, 20:53:35 UTC

The news media has closed ranks and is misleading you, and yes out-rightly lying to you.

Here is the report on the situtation BEFORE the national media 'sanitized' the situtation with spin and lies.

Here’s what happened in Ames, according to David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University (and Sanders supporter) who participated in the caucus:

A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).

Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.

Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.

Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.

A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate.

Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss.


I have already given the link, but here it is again...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

Clinton won the toss in Ames, two in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch, and in Davenport.


1) Jason Noble of the Des Moines Register says on Feb 2nd that Clinton won six coin tosses, and does not identify how many coin tosses there were state-wide. This is incontrovertible evidence of election fraud in favor of Clinton.

2) Jason Noble and Jason Clayworth of the Des Moines Register say on Feb 3rd, that it's not known how many coin tosses there were state-wide, quote an Iowan Democratic Party spokesman as saying Sanders won six coin tosses, and that they have sources for seven coin tosses in which Clinton won six and Sanders won one. This is incontrovertible evidence of the national media "sanitizing" the situation.

Do I have that right?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1761986 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1761998 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 22:50:10 UTC - in response to Message 1761986.  

Do I have that right?

Looks like that is what is being said to me .....
ID: 1761998 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1762007 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 23:56:44 UTC - in response to Message 1761998.  

Do I have that right?

Looks like that is what is being said to me .....

(Deliberate misread) Yes, Bobby, you have the liberty to say that to Gary.
(We now you return you to our regularly scheduled serious conversation.)
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1762007 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1762009 - Posted: 3 Feb 2016, 23:58:41 UTC - in response to Message 1761980.  
Last modified: 4 Feb 2016, 0:28:22 UTC

You don't believe that the (non-Fox, at least) mainstream news media is pro-Clinton? Look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucus-loss-response-nr.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

The video title:

Sanders: Last night we began the political revolution


Look closely at the caption...

The last line...


Sen. Bernie Sanders | (R) Presidential Candidate


CNN is calling Sanders a Republican... ROFLMAO

I looked very closely. My screen does not say what your screen does. I'd suggest you do a virus and spyware scan.
Mine says:
Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally in New Hampshire after a razor-thin loss to Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

That is indeed what it says under the video image, though when playing the video the text on the video says:

2016 RACE
SANDERS RALLIES IN N.H. AFTER RAZOR-THIN IOWA RACE
Sen. Bernie Sanders | (R) Presidential Candidate

Naturally this is part of the undeniably pro Clinton liberal media's attempt to portray her opponent in an unflattering light, rather than an error, the kind of which happens every day on TV.

Here's MSNBC's coverage when the coin toss story started to break, complete with a math mistake in Sanders favor (that the coin tosses were to decide Congressional District and State convention delegates - 1406 total - rather than county convention delegates - 11,065 total, suggesting that if the coin tosses had gone the other way, Sanders would be leading). Clearly, like CNN, MSNBC is in the pocket of Clinton.

[editted to correct a typo - the kinda thing I can do that CNN can't with a video of their broadcast ... ]
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1762009 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : US Presidential Election -- Iowa caucuses


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.