News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

Mischief said:
I wonder whether we'll now be seeing innuendo about Bernie's honesty....

I doubt it somehow.

And as far as the coin toss and the caucus system being "corrupt", this may serve to educate a bit:
Click to expand...
I never thought Bernie was the one who said anything about Hillary, I have no doubt some of his supporters did though. They're the ones whose posts filed up my timeline saying Hillary only won because of the coin tosses.
 
Calliegirl said:
I never thought Bernie was the one who said anything about Hillary, I have no doubt some of his supporters did though. They're the ones whose posts filed up my timeline saying Hillary only won because of the coin tosses.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't think Bernie said anything, or his campaign either. Bernie strikes me as refreshingly straightforward.

I don't think it's just (some) Bernie supporters - I think it's Hillary haters who were jumping to spread anything to discredit Hillary.
 
Calliegirl said:
Slimy Coin Toss Smear Against Hillary Implodes - Bernie Won Six Tosses
Click to expand...
How many coin tosses did they actually have in the Iowa Dem caucuses?! Are the caucuses a kind of election or a coin tossing contest?!

The quote within the article you link to, supposedly from Des Moines Register, is not found in the article they link to. Probably just a mistake, but still. Instead, the link is to the article I linked to earlier, about Clinton winning 6 coin tosses.

Edit: There are videos from at least 3 of the coin tosses (links to tweets with videos in the Des Moins Register article) in which one can hear Clinton being declared winner in 2, the third is a bit unclear, but you should be able to identify the winner by studying the cheering supporters at the end ... So if there was a total of 6 or 7 coin tosses, the assertion that Sanders won 6 sounds unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Snopes.com is currently undecided as to the truth of the claims.
WHAT'S TRUE: Under rare conditions, Iowa caucus rules call for a coin toss to determine to which candidate delegates are awarded.

WHAT'S Undetermined: Whether Hillary Clinton won six out of six (or seven) coin tosses in Iowa in 2016; how many coin tosses occurred; the specific breakdown of coin toss results.
Click to expand...
More: Iowa Caucus Coin Toss
 
What I am even more interested in other than who tossed what coin, however, is, what happens next.

For the nomination as Democratic presidential candidate, do all the votes from Iowa now go to Hilary Clinton, or are they awarded based on the percentages?

Best regards,
Andy
 
Andy_T said:
For the nomination as Democratic presidential candidate, do all the votes from Iowa now go to Hilary Clinton, or are they awarded based on the percentages?
Click to expand...
Clinton get 23 delegates, Sanders 21. The coin tosses probably didn't influence that outcome, if I understand correctly. The Iowa delegates are then sent off to the Democratic Convention where they help determine who is going to be the Democratic presidential candidates.
 
Last edited:
Andy_T said:
What I am even more interested in other than who tossed what coin, however, is, what happens next.

For the nomination as Democratic presidential candidate, do all the votes from Iowa now go to Hilary Clinton, or are they awarded based on the percentages?

Best regards,
Andy
Click to expand...
Iowa's caucus system makes no sense to anyone. In some states, it is winner takes all delegates, in some it is by percentage.

And IS's explanation of what happens next is as good as any I've seen! :)
 
Indian Summer said:
Clinton get 23 delegates, Sanders 21. The coin tosses probably didn't influence that outcome, if I understand correctly. The Iowa delegates are then sent off to the Democratic Convention where they help determine who is going to be the Democratic presidential candidates.
Click to expand...

That sounds good to me!

Means that basically, regardless of whether Hilary won by 49.8 vs. 49.5 or the other way round, it does not really matter much, as far as the final outcome is concerned.

Unlike the actual US presidential election, where the candidate with 50.1 % of the votes takes 100 % of the votes of the state.
 
From what I understand, he's now concentrating on his Senate race, which he will probably win, so he didn't really lose much.
 
I'm very concerned that if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination , large swaths of voters will be so angry they'll refuse to vote, especially young voters. Young people don't often envision or understand the consequences of their actions, or in this case, their inaction.
 
Amy SF said:
I'm very concerned that if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination , large swaths of voters will be so angry they'll refuse to vote, especially young voters. Young people don't often envision or understand the consequences of their actions, or in this case, their inaction.
Click to expand...

Or they're just fed up already when the only option is picking the lesser between 2 evils. I'm not a young person but I realized even back when I was we don't really have a choice. Really tired of the 2-party thing. Really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Moll Flanders said:
I just read a little about Rubio and his views. It will be interesting to see what happens in New Hampshire.
Marco Rubio emerges as champion of battered Republican establishment | Reuters



I don't know if that was a particularly bad example of her speaking in public when she was promoting Trump but she sounded as if she was drunk and slurring her words. It was bizarre.
Click to expand...

She's bizarre every time she opens her mouth.

I don't think McCain wanted to inflict her on us. I think he was told by his party to choose her to appeal to the young voters who were head over heels in love with Obama. Whether you like McCain or not, he isn't as dumb as a box of rocks and I don't think he'd have associated with her on his own. (And I realize the comment about McCain wasn't yours, but I couldn't find the original and got tired of looking. :p)
 
Here's an interesting article about Sarah Palin's transformation after being "plucked away from Alaska":

At the time, Palin’s politics could only be described as moderate. Democrats liked her. She had no problem with taxing oil companies or handing out money to help people with fuel costs. She believed in climate change. As for the word-salad syntax problem everybody makes fun of? Up north, nobody cared. Maybe it even added to her regular-person cred (our long-serving representative Don Young suffers from the same affliction).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
beancounter said:
If you go to the caucus/enter with/stand in line with a group of people, you can be persuaded by peer pressure before you enter the room, and the potential influence on the minor candidates supporters still stands
Click to expand...

Standing in line at the caucus is very much like standing in a line anywhere else; the checkout counter at the supermarket or the movie theatre -- everybody minds their own business. Unless you are wearing a candidate's t-shirt or a button, nobody would have any idea who you were there to caucus for. In all my years attending - I have never observed peer pressure, we're not all back in high school, we're adults.There are not bully's walking around trying to intimidate people.

beancounter said:
What happens to the undecided? How can they even participate if they can't choose a candidate?
Click to expand...

If an individual is undecided - they are open to being persuaded by any of the representatives of the prospective candidates. Whether they ultimately decide to choose a side or not - they have participated. Come on, BC! Do I have to quote Neil Peart? If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!

beancounter said:
There is no comparison. Ballot voting significantly reduces the potential for influence making it a far superior method.
Click to expand...

I do not care. I chose to participate in the caucus - I'm not arguing that it is the best method. In Iowa (and other states) it's what we do. There are 49 other states that also get to weigh in during this process.

beancounter said:
I believe there are thirteen caucuses. Have you attended all thirteen? How can you be certain they all operate the same way?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure none of them operate in exactly the same way. I'm just giving you perspective from the inside of an Iowa caucus. Which is at least as reliable as someone's perspective from the outside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mischief
Top Bottom