Message boards :
Politics :
US Presidential Election -- Iowa caucuses
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Note: There were some irregularities: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Note: There were some irregularities: 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. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19012 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Note: There were some irregularities: 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. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Note: There were some irregularities: 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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Note: There were some irregularities: 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 ... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Note: There were some irregularities: 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 ... |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Note: There were some irregularities: 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. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19012 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
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. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11360 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. 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? |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Note: There were some irregularities: 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 ... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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 |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
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: 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... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
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. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
You don't believe that the (non-Fox, at least) mainstream news media is pro-Clinton? Look at this: 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. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
The news media has closed ranks and is misleading you, and yes out-rightly lying to you. 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 ... |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Do I have that right? Looks like that is what is being said to me ..... |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Do I have that right? (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. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
You don't believe that the (non-Fox, at least) mainstream news media is pro-Clinton? Look at this: 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 ... |
©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.