Iowa a Virtual Tie Decided By The Tossing Of Coins! Incredibile Win For Bernie!

[sabrina 1]

Just months ago, December airc, Hillary was 30 points ahead of Bernie!

I remember all the polls being posted here, gleefully.

Well last night Bernie and his supporters blew all those predictions and polls to pieces.

Bernie CAN contest the result of this election which is so close no one can call it a clear win.

And here's why his campaign SHOULD ask for a recount, just one example:



I watched CSpan's coverage of Des Moines. Similar thing happened, 3 people were missing at the final count.

Bernie's people wanted a recount. Unlike what you read from Davenport, in Des Moines there was a quick hand count, and that was it.

Bernie has stated he 'wants all the facts' but has not yet asked for a recount.

Whatever he decides, it would be far more respectful to the process for Hillary to tone down her claims of winning..

I believe she declared herself the winning three times last night, whether she used the 'word' or not, when I saw her speech I thought it was over, when it was far from over.

I don't know what Bernie's campaign is thinking re asking for what they are entitled to, a recount, but as things stand, if he lets them stand, this race was a virtual tie.

And it is an amazing victory for Bernie.

Now on to New Hampshire.

[kenfrequed]

1. Yup

Making up 20-30 points in just about a month is somehow considered a loss. I think a tie decided by a coin toss or two isn't much of a win.

[msongs]

2. oddly enough had bernie won those tosses his fans would have no probs with it lol nt

[KingCharlemagne]

5. Sanders supporter here. I'll concede you may have a point there, friend. I suppose it

does come down to whose ox is being gored when everything is said and done.

[Maedhros]

32. I maintain that solving any political election question with a coin toss is stupid,

regardless of who benefits. But that's the Iowa Caucus - it's always been that way, and it's but one part of the stupid bullshit inherent in the American political process.

[99Forever]

7. Do you often presume to speak for others without their consent?

Never mind, the question was rhetorical. I've seen lots of your posts.

[sabrina 1]

9. Yes, I would have a problem with it actually. This may come a shock to you

but some Americans actually care about democracy. Why not just eliminate the entire process and just toss a coin, that would save a whole lot of money, for one thing.

In that exchange I posted from Davenport eg, Hillary's people kept on asking for a recount when it was not in her favor until they got it down to where it was even. THEN they went for a coin toss.

Bernie's people were not the ones demanding recount after recount. They SHOULD have done so imo since that is how Hillary's people decided to try to bring down the numbers not in her favor.

That wasn't the only place this happened.

I want my candidate to win or lose fairly. If my candidate is the kind of person who doesn't care how they win, then s/he wouldn't be my candidate.

Is hard for you to understand? Hillary's 'victory' is already clouded by doubt. I want my candidate win without any doubt.

[senz]

13. + 1000

Cynics will never understand non-cynics.

[sabrina 1]

99. True!

[leftynyc]

24. Did you not know these rules

before yesterday? Did you have a problem in 2004 when during the NV caucus Hillary got more votes but fewer delegates? Perhaps you can link me to where you had a problem with that.

[sabrina 1]

48. What rules? Could you post a link to the rules the include coin tossing? Media has searched

and so far, have not found that rule. However if you found it, please post it.

[leftynyc]

49. LOL

So now Bernie supporters are reduced to claiming Hillary made up the rules all by herself and the Iowa folks - in at least 6 different precincts - just let her. Just how pathetic is this going to get?

[sabrina 1]

50. So there is no rule? You asked me if I 'did not know the rules'. What rule?

Where in the rules, and yes, there are rules for these elections, there is no mention that ANYONE has found so far, that includes coin tossing.

So either provide your evidence to back up your personal attack on me, or that's all it was.

[leftynyc]

63. This took a 10 second google search

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/02/3745150/iowa-coin-flip/


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02vote.html?ref=politics&_r=1

[JTFrog]

14. Nailed it. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. We weren't the ones claiming a 30-point victory margin. We were claiming the ability to contend.

[rhett o rick]

18. Pure projection. We are fighting for honesty in government. nm

[Goblinmonger]

64. Jurie's in

FWIW, I was #4. Looks like someone can't alert for a day.

On Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Pure projection. We are fighting for honesty in government. nm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1122948

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling Hillary Clinton and MSongs a liar is over the top and rude.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 2, 2016, 03:43 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The comments must have been changed, as anything said appears perhaps implied, but is not straight out name calling. For this reason, I vote to leave it alone.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is not rude ... or otherwise inappropriate. A clear statement of one poster's opinion. The complaint is rude and over the top.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: give me a break
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Congratulations, alerter. This is now #1 on my list of stupidest alerts I've ever seen.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alert is COMPLETELY inappropriate. I'd suggest that mods look at alerter's post history to see if this member is ABUSING the ALERT system in order to suppress opposing viewpoints. Voting to leave.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hillary IS a liar, at times.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rhett o rick]

72. I am getting about one a day now. Thanks for posting. nm

[sabrina 1]

98. Good jury, that has to have been one of the most ridiculous alerts ever.

[sabrina 1]

97. Well, some of us are rhett, not all apparently.

[RichVRichV]

25. I find the multiple coin tosses nonsensical, regardless who they favor.

They should award partial at large deligates for ties. So with 6 ties each campaign would receive 6 half delegates or 3 total delegates each. If there were 7 ties then they receive 3 delegates each and can flip for the last. That would assure a more fair split.

[nxylas]

60. We'll never be able to prove or disprove that assertion

I'm fairly sure of that.

[99Forever]

3. K.R

[KingCharlemagne]

4. She certainly didn't win fair and square. She 'won' by hook and crook. - nt

[senz]

12. Yes. Bernie has to watch out for tricks.

They'll do anything to "win."

[leftynyc]

26. Really?

And you surely have evidence of her cheating that we would all love to see. I swear I can't believe the sour grapes I'm seeing here today. It's repulsive.

[KingCharlemagne]

28. Did you deign to read the OP in its entirety before weighing in? - nt

[leftynyc]

30. Yes, I read the entire

sour grapes post. You claim Hillary cheated and I'm asking for proof. Got any? Or just more sore loser bullshit?

[KingCharlemagne]

35. "Sore loser bullshit"??? Riddle me this: how did the vote count go from 94 Sanders-73 Hillary

in one precinct to 84 Sanders-84 Hillary -> coin toss?????? That was one fucking precinct.

Something's rotten in the state of Iowa and everyone knows it.

[Agschmid]

41. People left, people changed their mind.

It's a caucus, the whole system is a shit show.

[leftynyc]

43. Don't like the caucus system?

Tough shit. The caucus rules screwed over Hillary in 2004 and I gotta say - because I'm far from being a perfect person - watching it work against Bernie feels very good to me right now.

And not everybody knows it. The only people talking about Hillary cheating are the sour grapes, sore losers right here on DU.

[KingCharlemagne]

69. "Hillary in 2004"??? You need to stop and take a deep breath, as in 2004 she

was trying to wash the blood of 1 million innocent Iraqis from her hands. Alas, to no avail.

"Out, damned spot!"

[leftynyc]

102. Ah - I have zero desire

to try and talk to someone who only knows from hyperbolic bullshit and wants to lay the entire Iraq war on one woman. Again, you don't like the caucus system, tough shit. I'm betting you didn't give a shit in 2008 when it fucked over Hillary.

[Avalux]

6. K&R. Last night was huge for Bernie and US, no matter what anyone says. n/t

[DanTex]

8. Bernie lost. And it wasn't decided by coins, it was decided by voters.

In Bernieland, of course, a loss is a win, and a win is a loss, and up is down, and the GOP is going to vote for single payer.

This alternate reality is another reason why Hillary is going to be the nominee.

[sabrina 1]

11. What a sad comment. The outcome was decided as everyone acknowledges by the toss of a coin.

Nothing is going to change that. Not a great way to go forward. This will haunt her. She SHOULD have swept Iowa and not had any real challenge from the 'socialist' as her surrogates call him.. But she was in the fight of her political life and she couldn't pull it off without some questionable tactics.

[DanTex]

15. Nobody acknowledges that the outcome was decided by a coin.

The number of county delegates determined by coin tosses wasn't enough to sway the overall result, and everyone knows this. Somehow that crucial fact got dropped somewhere while the story was being circulated around the Bernieweb.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. So give us the delegates decided by coin toss. Since they don't matter and all.

[DanTex]

23. I don't know how much a county delegate is worth, but every story about this has pointed out

that they are only a fraction of a delegate equivalent, and are unlikely to have changed the outcome.

[rhett o rick]

21. H. Clinton won the Iowa caucus count by a grand total of 3.77 delegate equivalents. I think the

6 coin toss wins for Cinton made the difference.

[DanTex]

22. The coin tosses weren't for delegate equivalents. They were for county delegates.

[rhett o rick]

29. so what was the difference in the total delegate count? nm

[DanTex]

33. I don't know, but the point is, it wasn't one state delegate equivalent each. I don't know

the details of the delegate assignment math.

[rhett o rick]

36. I guess the point is that you don't know that the 6 didn't make a difference. nm

[TheFarseer]

76. The point is "I'm right"

OK I get it now. Recounting over and over til people get pissed and leave?! Is this democracy? If a third world country did this, we would declare the election a sham.

[DanTex]

77. The point is, Clinton won. Have fun with the conspiracy theories.

[TheFarseer]

78. I hope you get that the general won't be rigged

Watch bernie win new Hampshire by 30% and somehow get less delegates. The whole process is ridiculous.

[senz]

10. Bernie is no longer the "fringe candidate."

Last night did his campaign immense good. It made him very visible and showed he can win.

The MSM has kept his huge crowds a secret. Now everyone can begin to see how much the people want Bernie.

Onward and upward with the People's Candidate.

[bettyellen]

19. Was discredited: 6 out of 11K votes would not have given it to Bernie. 6/11,065 = nothing

[rhett o rick]

27. What new math is that? Clinton won by a margin of 3.77 delegate equivilents.

You compare the 6 with the difference not the total.

[KingCharlemagne]

31. The post to which you're responding demonstrates once and for all that the

21st Century shall belong to China

[bettyellen]

34. there are county delegates 11,065 of them, and state delegates. Y'all confused the two. Sorry!

Look it up for fucks sake.

[rhett o rick]

38. No need to get hostile. It doesn't matter what the total is, what is important is the

difference between the delegates voting for Clinton and those voting for Sanders. That number hasn't been made public but we know it's very, very close. So close that 6 precinct delegates might make a difference. In fact the difference between delegate equivalents is only 3.77.

[bettyellen]

39. It is 6/11,065. That has been widely reported, and nope it would not have helped Sanders.

[rhett o rick]

44. Not disagreeing with the fact that it was only 6 out of 11,065. What is important is the margin

between the number of delegates (precinct) for Clinton and the number of delegates for Sanders. That difference might be less than 6. We don't know. Let's say that Clinton got 5,534 delegates and Sanders got 5,531, with a difference of 3 delegates. Then the 6 delegates would make a big difference.

[bettyellen]

47. nope, this article gets into it as good as any:

effect isn't even a drop in the bucket.


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

[MuseRider]

20. However this goes

or whatever the Sanders team asks for it really matters not to me.

I am so happy and content. This close close almost result is enough to prove that we were right about him all along.

Watching her declare/not declare victory was odd. Her demeanor has never been my thing but it was angry and bombastic and almost felt threatening, at least to me but I ride unicorns so there it is...

His speech was charming, he kept breaking into that smile and laughing. He knows, he knows he may actually be a winner at the end and the support he got must have felt absolutely wonderful. Why be a creepy sounding angry winner (maybe) when you can smile and be happy and look forward knowing it will be hard but oh so worth it.

I do not get anyone supporting the other. Well, I do but it does not compute in my brain and makes my heart ache.....SEE? Some of us can vote with both and are supremely happy and content when we have someone who actually HAS both of those qualities in abundance. It has been so long since we had someone with both that knew how to play this game honestly and well.

He has no chance. He has only glitter bugs and bros supporting him. They will not turn up to vote. She has this by at least 30 points. NEVER discount what smart, hopeful people working together through generations can do.

[randome]

37. "...it would be far more respectful to the process for Hillary to tone down..."

Hilarious. Winners get to talk about winning if they want. I'm sure you'll tell Sanders not to crow about winning NH, won't you? You'll be all quiet and demure about it, right? And you'll insist that he do the same.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

40. Clinton ended up winning 23 state delegates while Sanders won 21 delegates. No one "won the state".

Getting 23 delegates over 21 delegates means you get to go to the national convention with two more delegates.

[Agschmid]

42. Also known as winning, usually the team with more "won".

Sure she didn't blow him out, I never said/thought she would. But 23 is actually greater than 21.

[rhett o rick]

45. It isn't winning when you carry the votes on to the next level. It means she is 2 votes ahead.

Yes she won 23 and he won 21 but the race is still on.

[Agschmid]

46. Yes and 2 votes ahead is winning.

You will be winning after NH I have no doubt, and then from there on its harder to predict.

[sabrina 1]

53. Usually delegates are not chosen by coin toss. And usually when a race is

this close, there is, in some states, a recount. Bernie has not yet decided whether to challenge the results, which he ha83% s a right to do. His campaign wants 'all the facts' before making that decision.

She is not in a position to decalre victory. She wasn't in a position to declare victory with only 83% of the vote counted and some of the biggest precincts still not in. Even the Bernie hating Corp media shills were shocked by that declaration. Now of course she's saying she didn't declare victory. Well, Rachel Maddow, Me, Chris Matthews, Laurence O'Donnell, Brian Williams and millions of other people HEARD her 'victory speech'.

She should have been able to win Iowa as the major Dem candidate. The truth is as more people get to know Bernie his numbers continue to rise.

In December, I saw it here, Hillary was 30 points ahead of Bernie in Iowa. What happened?

[Agschmid]

73. Actually the coin toss is written right into the caucus rules.

This is why caucuses are silly, also you can't recount a caucus. There isn't a way to do it which would really be 100% accurate, it's essentially impossible.

[SoapBox]

52. And after New Hampshire...

He'll be ahead by how many delegates?

Probably more than 1 or 2!

[sabrina 1]

56. It's definitely an embarrassment for the supposed Front Runner, the inevitable 'winner'

as someone said, Bernie has prevented a 'coronation'. But we have to keep on doing what we have already done.

Bernie talking now, not happy about 'coin tossing' for democracy but needs more info. She should not be claiming victory here.

[stonecutter357]

54. sorry your man lost last night.

[sabrina 1]

55. Bernie just mentioned the coin flip, he still 'doesn't have all the information' and his campaign

still waiting for information

I'm sorry your candidate lost so much support in Iowa since December that she ended up having to toss a coin to try to eke out a miniscule 'victory'. All that money, all the DNC tricks on her behalf, the whole Establishmet behind her, Bernie steadily rose over the past couple of months to force the 'inevitable' Super Pac backed candidate to have to claim she won by the toss of a coin.

Embarrassing for sure, but hey, good luck in NH!

[pnwmom]

58. Wrong. The coin tosses didn't affect the overall outcome, as explained by the

Des Moines Register. They were connected with the selection of county delegates, not the state delegates, and didn't change the outcome of the selection of a single state delegate.

It happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames, where supporters of candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton disputed the results after 60 caucus participants apparently disappeared from the proceedings.

As a result of the coin toss, Clinton was awarded an additional delegate, meaning she took five of the precinct’s eight, while Sanders received three.

Similar situations played out at various precincts across the state, but had an extremely small effect on the overall outcome, in which Clinton won 49.9 percent of statewide delegate equivalents, while Sanders won 49.5 percent. The delegates that were decided by coin flips were delegates to the party's county conventions, of which there are thousands selected across the state from 1,681 separate precincts. They were not the statewide delegate equivalents that are reported in the final results.

The statewide delegate equivalents that determine the outcome on caucus night are derived from the county-level delegates, but are aggregated across the state and weighted in a manner that makes individual county delegate selections at a handful of precincts count for a tiny fraction of the ultimate result.

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

[sabrina 1]

75. Why did Hillary do so badly in Iowa? She was expected to win that state, just weeks ago??

[pnwmom]

79. She didn't do "so badly." Most of the polls said the election was close, but she would win.

And she did.

But we'll never know how close the vote count was because of Iowa's ridiculous caucus system, where a single delegate could represent a widely varying number of voters, depending on the precinct.

I tried to warn everyone before this all happened. If they didn't already hate caucuses, they would soon. I knew that would happen because this was going to be a close race, so every wart and mole would be examined under a magnifying glass. And they were.

But we should stop paying attention to the warts (the coin tosses) and notice how sick the whole system is. In a precinct with two delegates, for example, one candidate might get 25% of the vote and the other 75% -- but they'd both be assigned exactly ONE delegate each.

How anyone can defend the caucus system is beyond me. The problems go way beyond coin tosses.

[sabrina 1]

84. I'm sorry, but as the Dem Party's choice for the nomination, with all the advantages of Corp Money

etc flowing into her campaign, a nobody from a small state overcame her huge lead in Iowa and demonstrated that she is moe than vulnerable.

That is a loss for the Power Structure that runs this country.

I would think most Dems would be happy to see big money so successfully challenged by the 'little people', no?

[pnwmom]

85. The caucus system in Iowa is designed to reduce the differences

between two candidates, as shown by my example of candidates with 25% and 75% of the vote getting the same number of delegates.

So she might have had a much bigger lead in reality. Or maybe he did. We'll never know anything except that the final count was 23 to 21.

And that, in a nutshell, is why that system stinks.

[rhett o rick]

83. That argument has holes. We don't know exactly how close the precinct delegate count

turned out because the exact figures haven't been published, but we can tell from the closeness of the delegated equivalent count, which is directly based on the delegate count, that the actual delegate count was very close. The actual precinct delegate count might be closer than 6 delegates. But again, we don't know. We do know it was very, very close.

[pnwmom]

86. You're missing the forest for the trees.

The caucus system in Iowa means that in a precinct with 2 delegates, one candidate with 25% of the vote and another with 75% can be assigned the same number of delegates: one each.

To put it another way, delegates in different precincts represent widely varying numbers of actual voters.

Concentrating so much attention on a few coin tosses for one of 11,000 county delegates is just ridiculous. The problem with caucuses is so much bigger than that.

I guess it's because coin tosses are so much easier for people to visualize and get excited about. But the every day ordinary math of the caucuses is a disgrace, and that hardly seems to bother anyone.

[rhett o rick]

87. And after the delegates are assigned then there is a count.

The precinct delegate count has not been published but the margin between the two is very small as we can tell by the number of delegate equivalents given to each, which is directly related to the actual delegate count. We don't know what the number actually is that Clinton had more than Sanders. It may have been as little as 3 or 4 delegates. Until we know the actual difference between her number and his, we won't know the significance of the coin tosses.

[pnwmom]

88. But nothing is related to the actual VOTER count. As I said, a single delegate

can represent a much smaller or bigger number of voters than another.

(One thing this article doesn't mention is that the number of delegates assigned to a precinct isn't related to the number of voters -- but to the number of voters in the two previous elections.)


http://time.com/4172793/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders/

The complicated rules of the caucus process are inherently tilted toward equalizing the strength of candidates, especially in a two person race. Only the number of delegates awarded in each precinct will be published on caucus night, which means there will be no official record of the candidate’s share of the voters at the caucuses—a figure that will likely more closely mirror the pre-caucus polls.

As a result, Clinton will be at the mercy of a process little changed over generations, in which candidates can tie the delegate count, even if Clinton has far more support inside the room. If Sanders surprises with an upset, by bringing more caucus goers out, he will face a similar result, which looks more like a draw.

Here’s how it works: Each of 1,681 precincts in the state is assigned a delegate count based on its relative strength of Democratic Party within that part of the state. To earn delegates, candidates are required to meet a threshold—25% in two-delegate precincts to 15% in precincts with four or more delegates—in order to earn any delegates from each precinct. (The vast majority of precincts have four or more delegates, requiring the 15% threshold.)

For the large number of precincts with an even number of delegates, however, Clinton would have to win by large majorities in order to net more total delegates than Sanders. In odd-numbered-delegate precincts, barring a blowout, Sanders would still pick up several delegates.

SNIP

[rhett o rick]

89. This issue has nothing to do with the voter to delegate situation. This issue pertains to

what happens after the precinct delegates are selected. Once selected they are counted and there were 11,065. After those 11,065 are tallied then the difference between the delegate count for Clinton and the delegate count for Sanders is what we are talking about. Discounting MOM, let's say that Clinton got 5,534 and Sanders got 5,531, with a difference of 3 delegates. The 6 coin tosses decided whether delegates were assigned to Clinton or Sanders. That's a potential swing of 12 delegates. The difference between Clinton delegates and Sanders delegates is what's important. The number hasn't been published but it has to be super close because the difference between Clinton delegate equivalents (based directly on number of delegates) and Sanders delegate equivalents was less than 4.

[pnwmom]

92. Are you aware that there were more than 12 tosses and that the State Party spokesman

says Bernie won 7 of them?

These two articles, read together, shed some light on the situation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-coin-flips-iowa-caucus/459429/


The Democratic caucuses in Iowa on Monday were so close that more than a dozen delegates were awarded based on coin flips.

How many is not exactly clear—the state party doesn’t track all the games of chance that occur as part of the complex process for divvying up delegates at hundreds of caucus sites across the state. But despite initial reports that Hillary Clinton had improbably run the table, it appears that Bernie Sanders won a sizable share of coin tosses as well, according to information provided on Tuesday by the state Democratic Party.

SNIP

The early reports out of caucus sites gave a different impression. The Des Moines Register collected reports from six different precincts that resorted to coin flips—and Clinton won all of them. But Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party, said that Sanders fared better in the games of chance that were reported through the party’s official mobile app. He won six of those seven coin flips—a fact that underlines how incomplete the available data remains, and the likelihood that a full accounting of all the coin flips on Monday night would yield a more even result than initial reports suggested.


http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

Iowa has a multistep process for picking delegates. Monday night was just Step 1. Here's how it works:

1. There were 1,683 precinct caucuses on Iowa caucus night.

2. Those precinct caucuses elected 11,065 delegates to the county conventions, which take place March 12.

3. That universe of 11,065 delegates is whittled down to 1,406 who will attend congressional district (April 30) and state conventions (June 18).

4. And here's the root of what's causing all the confusion: The breakdown of those 11,065 is not reported on caucus night.

5. What IS reported, what Clinton's 49.9 to 49.6 percent tracing-paper-thin lead is based on, is "state delegate equivalents."

6. Those are ESTIMATES of how many of those 11,065 will attend the congressional district and state conventions.

So ... when those coin tosses are happening, they are elected delegates in that larger universe.

That means, for Clinton to have picked up the four delegates, she would have had to have won not six in a row, but more like 47.

[rhett o rick]

93. No I am not. I searched but didn't find that. Will you share a link? nm

[pnwmom]

94. I just added a couple of links here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1125848


The second shows how, even if she had won all six (initially reported) tosses, it still wouldn't have changed the outcome. But the first article calls the whole issue into question, since it now seems there were twice as many coin tosses and divided much more evenly.

[rhett o rick]

95. And from your link, " And their use underscores the fact that even small shifts in individual

precincts can have an outsized impact in a race as tight as this one."

[pnwmom]

96. Well, it's certainly having an outsize impact -- in public opinion.

But it didn't change the outcome of the election.

Just keep in mind the basic fact: a single delegate can represent wildly varying numbers of voters, depending on the precinct. That's just fundamentally unfair. And had a lot more impact on this election than a few coin tosses (which now appear to have been divided more evenly between the two candidates.)

[rhett o rick]

103. The result that counted is Clinton 23 and Sanders 21. nm

[840high]

57. Someone once said it's not how

you vote but how it's counted.

On to NH.

[sabrina 1]

59. Bernie just stated that he is a bit disturbed about coin tossing deciding delegates.

He has not yet acknowledged Clinton as the winner, 'needs more information'. Also just answered the question: Is Hillary a Progressive? His response: Sometimes

That was a shocker too, Clinton saying 'I am a Progressive'! Lol, all things to all voters during election season.

[pnwmom]

80. He's milking this for all it's worth. That's what politicians do.

He's deliberately trying to churn up his followers, even though he knows the coin tosses didn't affect the outcome of the election. Again, he's a politician, just like Hillary. That's why he's been so successful in Vermont all these years.

[Eko]

61. Key word is virtual.

I'm glad Sanders did well, I would be gladder if he won. But he didn't. You can round up or complain about coin tosses or whatever you want but that doesn't change the actual numbers at all. Acting like the real numbers are not important is kinda lame.

[sabrina 1]

74. Bernie is the one to decide that. He isn't satisified with the coin tossing, he said at his

press conferrence and 'wants all the facts' so Hillary might be wise to stop claiming victory on something that even the Corp Media talking heads are doing double takes over.

Doesn't really matter because Bernie lit a fire in Iowa where jjust weeks ago, Hillary was over 30 points ahead, and he did it FAIRLY.

[pnwmom]

81. Hillary would be DUMB to stop claiming victory just because Bernie wants her to.

She's won 23 delegates to his 21 and that's not going to change. The Des Moines Register had an article today where they carefully explained the math -- all those coin tosses put together didn't change a single state delegate vote: they were connected to one of 11,000 county delegate votes.

And they don't do recounts in Iowa caucuses. Or re-votes.

And Bernie knows that. This is just smoke and mirrors, trying to get his followers riled up in N.H.

[sabrina 1]

90. Correction, that's what she's CLAIMING. Now it appears there is an investigation into possible

hanky panky re the 'coin tossing' decisions. May be why Sanders isn't conceding anything. DNC accordiing to CBS, is involved in the investitation.

Look, Bernie did way better than anyone expected in Iowa. Normally he would take that as a victory and move on. I wondered frankly, why he didn't, it WAS a victory, less than one point in Hillary's favor.

But the fact that he, uncharacteristically, is stating he 'needs more information', plus his cancelation of his departure last night, now the report of the investigation, explains to me, why he hasn't yet conceded that extremely slim margin which most people acknowledge is a huge victory for him.

[pnwmom]

91. Correction: that's what the Des Moines Register is explaining,

and they know how their system works.

And Bernie obviously isn't above creating a lot of political smoke and mirrors, and the DNC will dutifully check into his faked concerns.

It happened in precinct 2-4 in Ames, where supporters of candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton disputed the results after 60 caucus participants apparently disappeared from the proceedings.
As a result of the coin toss, Clinton was awarded an additional delegate, meaning she took five of the precinct’s eight, while Sanders received three.

Similar situations played out at various precincts across the state, but had an extremely small effect on the overall outcome, in which Clinton won 49.9 percent of statewide delegate equivalents, while Sanders won 49.5 percent. The delegates that were decided by coin flips were delegates to the party's county conventions, of which there are thousands selected across the state from 1,681 separate precincts. They were not the statewide delegate equivalents that are reported in the final results.

The statewide delegate equivalents that determine the outcome on caucus night are derived from the county-level delegates, but are aggregated across the state and weighted in a manner that makes individual county delegate selections at a handful of precincts count for a tiny fraction of the ultimate result.

http://dmreg.co/1SV0rc1

[sabrina 1]

100. That isn't what is under investigation. As far as 'making very little difference' in a race

this tight, it made the difference between winning and losing. If you think it makes no difference, then the right thing to do would be to split the delegates since Bernie and Hillary were tied evenly for them which is why a coin was tossed.

We are the laughing stock of the world, tossing coins, as Bernie said, not a very good way to run a democracy, to decide an election. There is all kinds of ways this could be manipulated, and it is a charge that in at least one precinct it may have been.

CBS reported the story.

[pnwmom]

101. What IS under investigation?

Are you aware that the Iowa State Party spokesman said that, in actuality, there were 12 or more coin tosses, and that Bernie won 7 of them?

Are you aware that coin tosses are an official caucus procedure in that state?

Are you aware that Iowa caucus rules provide for no recounts and that the state Chair says there's nothing more to be done?

So what is being investigated?

[SidDithers]

62. No, it wasn't....

You're wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511123143

Sid

[KittyWampus]

65. Factually incorrect, once again. Skinner explained it for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1123143

[33taw]

66. Iowa is done. Move on - there are 49 other states to work on.

The delegates were split. Everyone agrees that Bernie did well and has some momentum. He needs to focus his energy in other states (besides NH). Time to move on before the coin flippers becomes the new birthers as the birthers.

[Cryptoad]

67. Geez,,, it seems like only yesterday,,,,,,

that Bern was boasting a prediction of a landslide Win,,,,,,,,, oh wait,,,, it was yesterday
Win my ass
yall will have one in NH his home state
then what?

[sabrina 1]

104. It seems like only yesterday I was looking at daily polls showing Hillary 40, 30 points

ahead in Iowa. What happened?

And like the day before when 'Bernie can't keep up the momentum needed to get past the summer, nor can he afford it if he won't take Corp donations'

He was supposed to fade by June or July latest.

Goal posts moving frantically now I see.

[CajunBlazer]

68. Wrong - if the coin toss had gone 50%-50% Bernie would have still lost

[MissDeeds]

70. Yep

K&R!!!

[Duval]

71. I watched CSpan's coverage and I hope Bernie asks for a recount.

There IS a shadow over these results and it stinks.

[pnwmom]

82. There is no such thing as a recount in the rules for Iowa caucuses. How would they do it?

Ask everyone to come back in for another fun evening of moving from corner to corner?

Because that's how they count votes. Voters go over and stand in a corner of the room with other voters for their preferred candidate. And then they move around if their candidate doesn't get enough votes.

And at least one of these coin tosses occurred because 60 voters had disappeared before it came to the critical moment. They probably scooted out after they first gave their vote, not realizing it would be the first of many required votes.

What a system.