My Iowa Predictions
The primary season officially gets underway tonight, as Iowa voters brave the winter weather and head to the caucuses. This will give political wonks some actual hard data to discuss, instead of just opinion polling and sheer speculation, so it's a big day on the political calendar for us. Because it's such an auspicious day, I'm going to make an honest attempt to pick the winners and almost-winners for both parties.
I've always believed that political pundits should not only make such predictions (rash though they might turn out to be), but also post their ongoing scorecard, in much the same way sports announcers do with their picks for various games. Since this is the start of a new election cycle, my slate is wiped clean as I attempt to pick the primary winners for the 2016 race. My self-imposed rules are pretty flexible. On the Republican side, I'll be picking the top three winners (in order), until the race tightens so much that only the outright winner will matter. On the Democratic side, I'm only going to be picking the winner from the beginning, since there are really only two viable candidates in the race (sorry, O'Malley supporters...). So picking the top two slots is really a binary selection -- I can't count it as "two picks" whether I'm right or wrong, because I don't think that'd be a fair way to count. And finally, I'll only be playing this game until a clear nominee emerges from both parties (once one candidate has won, picking further primary wins is kind of pointless).
OK, enough with the rules, let's get on with making the picks. First up, let's take a look at the Republican side.
Republicans
In both the Republican and Democratic contests, picking the winners means estimating the turnout. Will the weather affect turnout? Will first-time voters actually make it to the caucuses? Has the polling been wrong all along? Those are the key questions, and they require more than a little reliance on nothing more than gut feelings.
So what does my gut tell me about the topsy-turvy Republican race? Well, first of all, it's telling me that the following candidates have zero chance of making the top three: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum. The only candidate who truly has a chance at defying expectations and winning third place is Ben Carson. Iowa was supposed to be a stronghold for Carson, and indeed he's been one of only three candidates to lead the Iowa polling during the last six months. But Carson couldn't maintain this lead for very long, and his fall in popularity has been uninterrupted since then. Even with tons of Iowa Republicans who love his life story of redemption, Carson is now nothing more than an afterthought. I think he'll stay an afterthought, and win fourth place (at best).
This leaves the top three candidates to pigeonhole into the top three spots. Marco Rubio's campaign is dreaming of a second-place finish here, but they'll be content with third. Rubio is locked into what his campaign calls a "3, 2, 1" strategy -- place third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, and then win South Carolina outright. While the second two parts of that are doubtful, the first one is eminently within reach. Rubio placing second would require either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to have a truly awful night, to be blunt. In the polling, Rubio is the only candidate of the top three to show a significant late-breaking upward movement, and late-breaking trends sometimes turn out to overwhelm all the polling data on caucus night. Even so, I just don't see Rubio making up enough ground to grab second place.
Ted Cruz is the second candidate who managed to lead the polling in Iowa during the past six months, but he probably peaked too early. Once Trump started attacking him (especially over his Canadian birth) roughly a month ago, Cruz has seen his numbers slump significantly (although not disastrously -- he's still averaging above 20 percent support, which most of the other candidates would kill for, at this point). This is normally bad news for any candidate -- you obviously want to head into the voting with your polling trendline heading up, not down. However, pretty much every campaign consultant I've heard has admitted that Ted Cruz has put together what is most likely the best "ground game" Iowa has ever seen. Cruz is pinning his chances on the state, because (much like Carson) he thinks the state is friendliest of territories for him to win over. Evangelical voters have an outsized influence here, and Cruz has been courting them for a very long time. Cruz always saw Iowa as a necessary springboard for the remaining states on the primary schedule. He could win the GOP nomination without winning Iowa (hey, this year anything's possible), but it would be a lot harder to do than if he chalked up a clear win here. So Cruz has a lot riding on tonight. Right now, he's praying for a low turnout of committed caucusgoers who made up their minds to support him months ago.
Donald Trump, of course, is the frontrunner in the polls, and has been for much of the last six months (to everyone's amazement) -- both in Iowa and nationwide. However, tonight will answer a key question on everyone's mind: Will Trump supporters actually vote? Are all those crowds at his rallies just there for the entertainment value of watching Trump, or do they really support his candidacy enough to turn out? Trump is relying on a large number of first-time voters showing up for him tonight, which is always a risky strategy (because such voters rarely actually make the effort, historically speaking). So if the turnout is high tonight, Trump likely walks away with the win.
Enough recap, though, it's time to pick the winners. I'm guessing that the polls are actually correct on the Republican side, and am going with a rather conventional pick: Trump wins first place, Cruz places a close second, and Rubio takes third (far behind the other two).
In essence, I'm betting on a big turnout. I think Trump voters are a lot more committed than the mainstream media has been giving them credit for. To these voters, supporting Trump is no joke. In fact, if Trump isn't the eventual Republican nominee, I bet a lot of them won't even bother to vote in the general election -- that's how committed to the idea of "President Trump" they are. The mighty Cruz ground game effort will fall short of being enough to push him over the top, in the end (although it will place him close to Trump). Cruz will move on to New Hampshire (where he has a decent shot at second place), but he'll be concentrating much more on the Southern states in the weeks to come, where he also thinks he's got a good shot at winning. Marco Rubio may beat expectations when it comes to the share of the vote he pulls in tonight, but he will not manage to take second place. Rubio is playing a longer game at this point, and sees his opportunities getting better as other Republicans eventually start getting out of the race. But it'll be a big night for Trump, and it very may well be the beginning of Trump's eventual nomination.
Democrats
Since there are fewer Democratic candidates, there is less to consider when predicting a winner. Martin O'Malley may be the key to victory -- for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Because of the rather Byzantine rules of the Democratic caucuses, if O'Malley doesn't receive at least 15 percent support in each caucus, his name will drop off the list of choices and his voters will have to move to another candidate (although "undecided" may remain a choice for them). Because the race is so tight, the candidate they move to may thus be the deciding factor. O'Malley, of course, has zero chance of winning Iowa, any other state (outside of the bare possibility of Maryland), or the Democratic nomination. The only real question for O'Malley is whether he drops out of the race immediately after Iowa, or whether he hangs on to see another crushing defeat in New Hampshire before he hangs up his spurs. Sorry, Martin fans, but that's the reality.
The polling between Clinton and Sanders is about as close to "completely tied" as you can get. It's so close, it depends on which poll you believe. Bernie is up in some polls taken in the past two weeks, and Hillary is up in others. Taken as a whole, Clinton probably has the edge in a late-breaking move towards her, but it's impossible to tell if all this is happening within the range of error of the polls or not. As on the Republican side, it mostly comes down to turnout. If the crowds are big, Bernie likely wins. If they're small, Hillary will emerge victorious.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Bernie Sanders takes the night. This one is about as close to a coin toss as you can get, meaning gut feelings play a large role. My gut may indeed be biased, because a Sanders win tonight means a much more exciting contest for at least the next month or so. If Clinton were to win -- even by a very small margin -- it will take a lot of wind out of the sails of the Sanders campaign, and everyone in the media would start talking about her inevitability once again (rather than, if Bernie wins: "Clinton repeating 2008"). Since I write about politics, I have a vested interest in seeing a more interesting contest, so perhaps that's a large bias when I listen to what my gut is telling me. We'll find out soon enough.
But I'm not basing my pick solely on wishful thinking. Sanders seems to have the edge in generating excitement from his supporters, but at the same time I think the media has been missing the excitement Hillary's been creating. Sure, Hillary voters are as a whole older and more staid, but that doesn't mean their commitment to their candidate is any less than the whippersnappers "feeling the Bern." It's been kind of lost in all the noise about the horserace, but seeing the first woman president is a huge deal for a whole lot of voters. Hillary has a good chance of winning because the demographics who support her are also the ones most likely to actually show up and vote on caucus night. Hillary has a geographic edge as well, since she'll probably do better in the rural areas of the state than Bernie. If Bernie's support is all concentrated in the college towns, then Hillary could easily walk off with more delegates when the whole state is counted -- even if Bernie wins the cities by huge margins.
But I'm betting (as with Trump) that Bernie's supporters actually do show up in greater numbers than predicted. I think the turnout will be big, although perhaps not as big as 2008. Bernie supporters know that Iowa is critical for him to win, and they know that the rest of the country's Democrats are watching them closely. This, coupled with mostly-clear weather, will add up to enough of a turnout (with plenty of first-time voters) to give Bernie a clear shot. What will push him over the top -- especially in some of those aforementioned rural areas -- are Martin O'Malley voters who have already decided they don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Because Democrats in Iowa don't just add up all the votes (the way Republicans do in their caucuses), we won't have "margin of victory" numbers to chew over afterwards. It'll all come down to the delegates. If I'm right and Bernie wins, it won't be by much. Clinton and Sanders, in this scenario, will exit Iowa with an almost-equal number of delegates -- which are the truly important thing for winning the nomination itself. If I turn out to be wrong and Clinton wins, the delegate count could be close as well, but there's more of a chance she'll beat all expectations in the delegate breakdown and win a large-than-expected delegate edge.
In conclusion, as we all await the first-in-the-nation voting results tonight, here are my first four picks: Bernie Sanders narrowly beats Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, while Donald Trump wins the Republican race, followed by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Don't agree with me? Let me know in the comments section which picks you'd make instead. With each of these "predict the vote" columns, I will be posting my ongoing record of correct picks, but since this is the first one it's nothing more than "0-for-0" so far. Happy caucus night, everyone!
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I think you are right about the Republicans - I think Trump's support will make the effort for him. I'm going with Hillary however - I think that she has a silent support that is underestimated in its passion and determination.
However, like you, this is pure gut. My gut says that, if you look at the entire gaggle (what is the collective noun for this bunch? "Clown Car" for the Republicans, of course), Hillary is the only responsible choice. I just can't imagine voting for any of the others, so can't imagine other people doing so. Failure of imagination on my part, of course.
At about 82% counted it looks like Cruz is at 27+ and Trump is at 24+. Hope it holds.
Hillary is 1 pt. ahead of Bernie right now. So tight.
They're calling it for Cruz. Good. Question is whether Trump will be second or third. Air out of tires and score one for Iowans not having completely lost their minds.
Still too close to call on Dem side.
Paula -
Looks like I went 1-for-3 on the GOP side, as Rubio didn't catch Trump. Rubio did do better than expected, though, in the raw numbers.
The Hillary/Bernie thing is as close to a tie as I've ever seen in Iowa. With 95.4% reporting, they are 3 apart out of over 1300 total. That's pretty damn close, no matter who wins...
-CW
Well, this is thoroughly disappointing...
Hillary and Sanders tied... :(
Hillary won by a coin toss in 6 counties.. Leave it to the Democrat Party to reduce democracy to a coin toss... :^/
Michale
While I would have preferred a Trump win, Iowa is strongly evangelical which gave Cruz the boost he needed to get comfortably in front on the day. I'm expecting Trump to do better in New Hampshire and on Super Tuesday.
Winning Iowa is not historically a good omen for Republican candidates. Santorum won here in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. It's worth noting that Santorum did go on to place second overall. I'm wondering if that trend will be repeated.
Not that I'm a proponent of historical trends. Too many factors vary from one contest to another for there to be any consistency in relevant variables. Timing alone is not a reliable predictor.
Surprised and pleased to see Bernie Sanders do so well. However it works out in the end, he's made an impressive start.
There's also the fun fact that Sanders beat HRC in Clinton County. That must be delicious irony for the Sanders' camp! :-))
There's also the fun fact that Sanders beat HRC in Clinton County. That must be delicious irony for the Sanders' camp! :-))
heh
Michale
“No one remembers who came in second.” - Walter Hagen
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2013
“No one remembers who came in second.” – Walter Hagen
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 17, 2014
. . . and that's because losing makes you a loser.
. . . and that's because losing makes you a loser.
So... Bernie's a "loser"...
I think you would find some people here would disagree with you, JFC... :D
On the other hand, you toe the Democrat Party line, so you'll probably get away with it.. :D
Michale
Sanders is demanding that the Democrat Party release the raw vote count..
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Sanders won the popular vote but Hillary won the delegate count...
The Left Wingery would twist itself into pretzels in THAT scenario, eh?? :D
It would be worth the price of admission!!
Grab the popcorn!!!
It's CIVIL WAR!!! :D
Michale
Interesting footnote...
Microsoft was intimately involved in the vote counting in Iowa and called the Dem race for Clinton EVEN BEFORE THE VOTING STARTED!!
Now, if THAT don't make ya'all wonder, then there is no synaptic activity anywhere...
Michale
In Iowa, there were 6 counties that had to be decided by a coin toss...
In EVERY ONE, Hillary won the toss...
The odds of that happening are 1 in 64....
Now ya'all know why Hillary's campaign motto is "BY HOOK OR BY CROOK"
Ya almost got to feel bad for Bernie....
Michale
"So you'll be having the Hubris Special this morning Mr. Trump... Excellent choice Sir, it comes stewed."
I just had to write that.
The schoolyard bully got his nose bloodied...by another schoolyard bully to be sure, but still fun to watch.
I just had to write that too.
As if it hasn't been said enough, The Polls have always been poor predictors of Iowa. Crowd size was a poor predictor of Trump's performance...a lot of people at the venues seem to have been there for the show. Some of the more astute reporters noted that the audience shrank rather dramatically as soon as the speeches started to ramble...but maybe that's just tea leaves too.
The Betfair Republican Nomination Market market is very differently this Tues. AM. Going in, Trump roughly 50%, Rubio, 30%, Cruz 15%. Going forward, Trump and Rubio have traded places, Cruz is still third.
M-14
"nother day, 'nother conspiracy theory.
Ted Cruz was right about one thing ... mourning is coming.
Predictwise.com tracks the Betfair markets closely and has much better charts. Have a look!
The bottom fell out on Mr. Trump!
Who came in second?
"So... Bernie's a "loser"... I think you would find some people here would disagree with you"
He is, in fact, the loser of the Iowa caucus, by a nose. That's a fact. It's also completely irrelevant to the comment I made. Work on that reading comprehension troll.
Or, should I say, what came in second?
Hmm, don't know why that PredictWise.com link doesn't hypertext, but that's the URL
"nother day, 'nother conspiracy theory.
Yea, but this day it's a LEFT WINGERY conspiracy theory.. :D
Thereby providing even MORE evidence (as if any is needed) that there is very little difference between the Left Wingery and the Right Wingery..
"Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same results."
Yarnek/General George Washington
:D
Michale
Liz,
Who came in second?
No, who is on First..
Like TS, I just had to say that.. :D
Michale
He is, in fact, the loser of the Iowa caucus, by a nose. That's a fact. It's also completely irrelevant to the comment I made. Work on that reading comprehension troll.
"That's NOT what you said!! I can have the court reporter read it back exactly....."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
You said, ". . . and that's because losing makes you a loser."
Bernie lost.. That mean, by YOUR definition, Bernie is a loser..
Of course, like all of the Left Wingery, you are entitled to make up whatever you want, in order to satisfy your selfish needs..
"We satisfy our endless needs ....
.... and justify our bloody deeds...."
-The Last Resort, THE EAGLES
:D
Michale
Work on that reading comprehension
du auch... :D
Michale
"Don't cross brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time.."
-Ensign Hikaru Sulu
:D
Michale
Well as usual, I got it wrong. Too much of Trump's support is 'for entertainment purposes only'. This might not be a good omen for Bernie - Dems were allowed their porn if he was going to go up against the crazy that was Trump, but if it is Cruz or Rubio the Dems will look to Hillary from a 'likely to win in November' perspective.
But, getting back to Iowa while JFC nurses his wounds...
Basically Hillary won Iowa due to a coin toss...
THAT says a LOT about the state of the Democrat Party...
HILLARY IS THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR POTUS BECAUSE SHE IS.. ahem "LUCKY" AT CALLING HEADS/TAILS!!!
Whatta campaign slogan.....
The Democrat Party.. It is to laugh... :D
Michale
Well as usual, I got it wrong.
Welcome to my world, my friend.. :D
Michale
Dig that hole deeper. You're good at that.
JFC,
Dig that hole deeper. You're good at that.
"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK."
-Robert De Niro, TAXI DRIVER
:D heh
Michale
Iowa was like an IED. Trump went for "a little ride".
How did Trump lose Canada Cruz? The Donald had the Pizza Ranch endorsement!
but if it is Cruz or Rubio the Dems will look to Hillary from a 'likely to win in November' perspective.
Yea... Only if the "win" in November is decided by a coin toss...
:D
"Coin Toss Clinton"
Has a nice ring to it, don'tcha think?? :D
Michale
Better lucky than good, as the old saying goes, Michale ;)
Hillary could have lost all the coin tosses (frankly it would have been better for her if she had - there are going to be the inevitable conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork) and it will make no difference in three months time. A few delegates here or there aren't going to swing this.
Trump claims that he wouldn't pay Bob Vander Plaats so he endorsed Cruz. The faithers are sheep.
Better lucky than good, as the old saying goes, Michale ;)
Apparently, lucky is all that it takes to satisfy the Clintonistas.. :D
Hillary could have lost all the coin tosses (frankly it would have been better for her if she had - there are going to be the inevitable conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork) and it will make no difference in three months time. A few delegates here or there aren't going to swing this.
True, it's going to be spin'ed, regardless of the facts on the ground..
"... nature of the beast.."
-Col Hadley, THE FINAL OPTION
:D
Michale
Hillary could have lost all the coin tosses (frankly it would have been better for her if she had - there are going to be the inevitable conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork) and it will make no difference in three months time. A few delegates here or there aren't going to swing this.
"You may have won the vote, but I won the count."
-Joseph Stalin
Ya'all didn't like that very much in 2000, eh??
But, when it's a person with a '-D' after their name.. I guess it's acceptable... :^/
I'm just sayin'.....
Michale
From this morning's <a href="Des Moines Register re the Sander's campaign:
"Symone Sanders, spokeswoman for the campaign, said the delayed results were due to the Iowa Democratic Party’s failure to staff the precincts in question.
'They are asking the campaigns to sort it out,' she said to a gaggle of media waiting for to be transported to a charter flight headed for New Hampshire, where Bernie Sanders would continue campaigning.
One of the journalists on board quipped, 'Iowa just became Florida.'
'You said it, I did not,' Symone Sanders replied."
I thought Miami was in OH.
Sorry.
Also, @Michale, that paper in another article, reports that 5 precincts where decided by coin flip, a 1 in 32 chance, so not really that remarkable. Even if it were 6 precincts, 1 in 64 isn't that suspicious -- a little less common than pulling a 3 of a kind in 5-card stud. Doesn't happen a lot, but not outlandishly uncommon.
You know, among other things, I'm a web developer. You'd think I'd figure out the formatting here.
Also, @Michale, that paper in another article, reports that 5 precincts where decided by coin flip, a 1 in 32 chance, so not really that remarkable. Even if it were 6 precincts, 1 in 64 isn't that suspicious -- a little less common than pulling a 3 of a kind in 5-card stud. Doesn't happen a lot, but not outlandishly uncommon.
Well, the current tally is Six counties...
And I am willing to wager that, if Trump had won Iowa by virtue of winning 6 straight coin tosses, Weigantians would be screaming hysterically how "outlandishly uncommon" it was... :D
Am I wrong???
I doubt it.. :D
Michale
No one won or lost, any more than someone who got Connecticut Avenue on the first turn has won or lost to the opponent who rolled doubles to Just Visiting and then got a seven to pick up Second Prize in a Beauty Contest. They got varying numbers of delegates.
It ain't over til it's over
-- Yogi Berra
The coin-toss delegates, if I understand correctly, are a total non-issue: they're delegates to the state convention, not the national convention. The national convention chooses the presidential nominee and ratifies the national platform; the state convention does pretty much nothing that matters to anyone who doesn't attend.
So.... Nothing about Iowa matters???
"Whoaa.. That's different"
-Memphis, HAPPY FEET
:D
Michale
Com'on!!
No kudos for COIN TOSS CLINTON??
I thought that was pretty damn clever... :D
Michale
Carson's vote total was the most impressive last night. It's remarkable that there are that many never-say-die people willing to vote for a brain-dead former brain surgeon's zombie campaign. Actually, zombies are livelier than Carson and they make more sense when they speak. Anyway, Carson was the winningest Republican loser. I hope he hangs in there and grifts a little longer.
M-15
Bottom line, the Iowa race was very close, almost a tie Clinton got 22 delegates, Sanders 21. You can't evenly split 43 delegates.
Bottom line, the Iowa race was very close, almost a tie Clinton got 22 delegates, Sanders 21. You can't evenly split 43 delegates.
And the fact that Microsoft counted the votes and M$ called the race for Clinton BEFORE the voting even got started has absolutely NO meaning, eh??
What a far cry from the Left Wingery DIEBOLD hysteria eh??? :D
Michale
I guess conspiracy theories are only valid if the are against the RIGHT Wingery... Benghazi, etc etc etc :D
Shucky darn, shoulda realized that..
My bust.... :D
Michale
@Michale [#45]
Ahem, if you really want to impress me, all your quotes today have to come from "Groundhog Day."
"People just don't understand what is involved in this. This is an art-form!"
-- Larry
Ahem, if you really want to impress me, all your quotes today have to come from "Groundhog Day."
ACK! That's a tough bill to fill...
"Well, it's Ground Hog Day....Again"
:D
Michale
Sorry, the only one I can come up with is this:
"OK... So... She's a dog.."
-Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS
:D
Michale
Ok, I read another article about the coin-toss delegates, and I was wrong. They do matter, a little, because the state convention sends delegates to the national convention. Also, another coin-toss delegate came to the attention of the media. Sanders' supporters won that toss, so the Clinton edge was only six out of seven, about a one-in-twenty event instead of the one-in-sixty-four that we were looking at before.
Anyway, the upshot of it all is that they basically tied in the caucus head-counts, and the coin tosses meant that Clinton got one more delegate to the national convention.
Credit where credit is due, it's a catchy phrase to say that money literally decided the outcome.
Credit where credit is due, it's a catchy phrase to say that money literally decided the outcome.
To be accurate, money literally decided the DEMOCRAT PARTY outcome..
Which is wholly and unequivocally apropos, don'tcha think??.. :D
"I try not to. But yer young. Think all you want!"
-Warden Smithers, DEMOLITION MAN
:D
Michale
JFC,
Dig that hole deeper. You're good at that.
Yer just outclassed by The Talent around here... :D
"Did he actually call himself 'the talent'?"
-Larry, GROUNDHOG DAY
:D
Michale
M-48
Any actual evidence that M$ software somehow rigged the count? Until you produce some evidence, perhaps by actually examining the software, you have nothing more than a speculative theory....a conspiracy theory. M$ Bing routinely predicts elections, they predicted Hillary would win Iowa, therefore M$ software rigged the count. Not exactly an open and shut case, more like faith based.
Any actual evidence that M$ software somehow rigged the count?
There was no actual evidence that DIEBOLD rigged anything..
Yet, that didn't stop the hysterical Left Wingery from throwing out accusations left and right...
Not exactly an open and shut case, more like faith based.
No more so than any other Democrat Party driven agenda item...
THAT's exactly my point.. :D
Michale
perhaps by actually examining the software, you have nothing more than a speculative theory....a conspiracy theory.
Just like all ya'all had when ya accused the Republicans of using the Benghazi hearings to bring down Hillary Clinton..
It was nothing more than a speculative theory....a conspiracy theory..
But that didn't stop ya'all from screaming it hysterically to the high heavens..
Oh... Wait.. I know..
"That's different.."
There.. I already posted your response so you don't have to.. :D
Michale
Coinghazi
Coin tosses are used in Iowa Democratic caucuses when calculations for electing delegates to local county conventions result in an extra delegate that can’t be assigned to one candidate by rounding.
County delegates are worth a tiny fraction of state delegates which themselves are worth a fraction of national delegates.
To illustrate the differences: HRC finished with 700.59 state delegate equivalents while Bernie accumulated 696.82. Keeping in mind that these are state delegates and that county delegates are each worth only a small fraction of one state delegate, it becomes immediately obvious that the coin tosses could not have determined the outcome in Iowa.
So far, twelve precincts have reported using coin tosses to determine county delegates. Six of these were won by HRC and six by Bernie Sanders. There may have been more but so far, these twelve are the only precincts to report coin tosses.
Michale [58]
Re: Benghazi, two words:
1. Kevin
2. McCarthy
Looks like there there 13 coin tosses on Monday night, and Hillary won 7 of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-coin-flips-iowa-caucus/459429/
Can we call CoinGhaziGate over? No chance - the Fox News Nuts will keep it going - why let facts interfere with a good conspiracy, after all.
Hi Al,
What were the questions, again?
Voters in Iowa decided that seeing Trump on the same stage as Palin reminded them too much of Palin. He really should ditch her.
Neil,
Re: Benghazi, two words:
1. Kevin
2. McCarthy
Two words..
1. What's
2. Yer
3. Point
:D
Michale
Can we call CoinGhaziGate over? No chance - the Fox News Nuts will keep it going - why let facts interfere with a good conspiracy, after all.
Why call it over??
It's too much fun pushing the meme that the Democrat Party race was decided by money!! :D
How fracked up is the Democrat Party that they have to decide their primaries by a frakin' COIN TOSS!!???
Why would you want to stop the laughter???
:D
Michale
Re: Benghazi, two words:
1. Kevin
2. McCarthy
But thank you for proving my point..
The idea that the Benghazi hearings were designed to bring down Hillary Clinton is nothing but a... what was it that TS said... "a speculative theory....a conspiracy theory..
A conspiracy theory that the Hysterical Left Wingery will grasp at ANY straw, no matter how innocuous, to "prove"... :D
Michale
Looks like there there 13 coin tosses on Monday night, and Hillary won 7 of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-coin-flips-iowa-caucus/459429/
Actually, there were only 6 documented coin flips.. Another 7 have been rumored thru some mobile app, but are nothing more than rumors..
Rumors probably started by Coin Toss Clinton to offset how ridiculous her win was..
I can't believe this.
I am defending Bernie and ya'all are defending Clinton!!! :D
Gotta love the irony... :D
Michale
Coin tosses are used in Iowa Democratic caucuses when calculations for electing delegates to local county conventions result in an extra delegate that can’t be assigned to one candidate by rounding.
Order of operations to determining Iowa winners:
1. Tallied votes
2. Coin toss
3. Rock paper scissors
4. Staring contest
Heh...
The Democrat Party is one big joke. :D
How could the Party NOT be prepared for this??
There hasn't been such a cluster-f*ck run caucus since the Republican caucus of 2012!!
Sorry ta take the winds outta ya'all's sails.. :D
It's what I do... :D
Michale
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/616956/angry-voters-arent-going-away?mref=home_top_main
Again, it's all about the WHY...
Michale
And, keep in mind one salient point as ya'all celebrate Hillary's win...
Romney "won" Iowa in 2012... Romney was the big winner in Iowa.. Right up until the GOP changed the count and made Santorum the winner...
For Clinton, who had an "unbeatable" 50 point lead in Iowa six months ago, this was a face-slammed in the mud loss..
Clinton got her ass handed to her by a octogenarian socialist...
While it's not the BERNIE BERNS CLINTON headline I was hoping for, it's enough to bring a smile to this old and tired face... :D
Michale
I made another mistake on the coin-toss thing. I said the coin-toss delegates were state delegates. Actually, not even: they're county delegates.
dsws,
Then, if they are meaningless, why does the Democrat Party even bother with them??
Michale
Actual candidate quotes as read (and emoted) by "Jesus." Very funny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXS9IZnvzPI
Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party'
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/des-moines-register-audit-iowa-results-218731#ixzz3zE0wMaZ
Oh yea... Nothing to see here...
Move along, Sheeple...
Michale
Release the vote count, Democrat Party...
What are you afraid of???
What are you hiding???
I can't believe that *I* am the only Weigantian calling for this....
What happened to transparency???
Michale
Even as Hillary Clinton has stepped up her rhetorical assault on Wall Street, her campaign and allied super PACs have continued to rake in millions from the financial sector, a sign of her deep and lasting relationships with banking and investment titans.
Through the end of December, donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial-services firms had given at least $21.4 million to support Clinton’s 2016 presidential run — more than one of every 10 dollars of the $157.8 million contributed to back her bid, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by The Washington Post.
Now... Correct me if I am wrong..
Ya'all have stated time and time again that Wall Street is evil and that the money coming from Wall Street is bad...
Is it only bad when it goes to Republicans??
Just curious....
Michale
@ts,
i saw the jesus video literally a moment before i looked and saw your post, so it was a bit of a strange and disorienting experience, almost as if the laws of cause and effect somehow reversed themselves. nonetheless, it was a pretty funny sketch.
JL
also, it's a strange day indeed when i agree with both michale and donald trump. it seems like clinton and cruz both pulled some sketchy stuff in iowa. of course, there's no evidence to prove that either in fact cheated. coincidence? perhaps i'm just getting cynical in my old age.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-04/clinton-campaign-warns-sanders-against-bernie-bros-attacks
Waaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Somebody call the WAAAAAAA-mbulance... :D
Michale
also, it's a strange day indeed when i agree with both michale and donald trump.
Truly the End Of Days :D
It's funny that no one else around here wants to go on record as saying something is wanky...
Party Uber Alles
:D
Michale
Iowa margin shifts as errors found...
Clinton camp trying to shut down questions...
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/05/iowa-margin-between-clinton-sanders-shifts-errors/79877898/
Gods, I hate being right all the time. :D
Michale