And here's another thing about the coin toss. Yes....it is in the rules (as silly as it is) but the rules say that if you "win" the coin toss....you don't get the delegate. The other person does. So since Hillary won the coin tosses, the delegates should have went to Bernie and they didn't. They went to Hillary. But even if Bernie got them now, he would technically have a "win" but it wouldn't change much at all in the long run. It's still basically a tie either way.
I think that its easy to speak for most democratic leaning voters in that, at least our party isn't in near chaos. Like another party we all might be familiar with. I feel like republicans are in an identity crisis that they may never find their way out of. Like the superficial nonsense has created a whirlpool of dialogue that they might not be able to get past. Which they need to do in order to be credible enough to elect someone president, as far as I can see it. I'm not very old, and I still have much to learn about politics, so I could be all around wrong. I just feel like democrats have their shit in a neater pile than Republicans do, and because of that...I think a large majority of our future presidents will be Democrats.
No matter how huge the republican pile of shit may be and no matter how foul is smells, republicans will still vote for it.
I think the Democrats may be in an identity crisis too but not quite as obvious. I was reading something the other day about Bill Clinton ushering in the "New Democrat" and the article listed off numerous policies and positions that ended up being bad for workers, bad for minorities, bad for the poor and middle class and good for corporations. The article basically said the "New Democrats" should have been called the "Corporate Democrats" because that's who they started working for back then. Many people are tired of that crap...on both sides of the aisle....and that is why Bernie's message has been as successful as it has. I think it shows on the Republican side too. I'm pretty sure this is the first presidential election cycle that we've heard the terms "establishment lane" and "establishment candidate".
The funny thing is, they're talking about this right now on All In with Chris Hayes, lol. But you're right. Both sides are going through a shift. The Republicans are either going to end up mumbling about electrolytes while having dinner at ButtFuckers or they'll end up refocusing into a religious oligarchy. While the Democrats will most likely solidify as a more liberal, more progressive party that stops trying to play the center as much, since the other side treat the aisle more like a moat than a bridge. We just have to make sure to get out the vote. Republicans outnumbered Dems in Iowa by about 10,000 people, I think it was. If that were a general election... *shudder*
Oh yeah... and apparently, this happened... In 24 hours after Iowa caucuses, Sanders donors pony up $3 million, aides say
I saw that vote count too. I haven't thought too much just yet of how those numbers will play out later. I think we have to have a good understanding of the dynamics from the numbers last night before we can estimate what will happen in the general election. Who voted for who and who helped draw those record numbers? Will all of those people vote again later? Maybe. The evangelicals will for sure. But the math is messy and the split between the top three...plus the last couple of Iowa presidential cycles....I think there may be three "tickets out of Iowa" but I also think that the Cruz, Trump and Rubio campaigns should basically act like they all tied as well. That's how I would look at the results if I were managing any of the campaigns.
50% would still give Bernie a slight edge, which is what you normally expect from a series of coin tosses. There's nothing in it for Bernie. Shift a few votes around, and he still gets 15 delegate votes at the convention, just like Hillary. Quite a few votes would have to change to make the delegate split change to 16-14. Nobody at the convention is going to care about popular vote totals. Those numbers are not taken into consideration for any purpose.
Hey, any of you remember 8 years ago at the 2008 Iowa cacus when Hillary broke down and cried in a speech after she scored 3rd place behind Obama and John Edwards?
Remember how she claimed victory 6-9 hours earlier than the finalized results deemed appropriate? Then even after it was finalized at a 0.2% margin...she still proclaimed it proudly like a crazy person? That was great. The more I watch this woman campaign, the less honest she appears. I feel like she will say and do anything to get elected. A political Daisy Domergue. I feel like she needs validation of what she feels is a necessary cake topper on her political life. Which may be why she was so quick to claim and proclaim her technical victory. She wants her name on monuments and stuff. I don't think that her priorities are in order. I would much rather that a person with sound priorities accomplish a few milestones, than have a lot of bullshit done by a person content with being a living milestone.
TY--that's what I meant---get rid of the electoral BS. One person--one vote instead of all the tricky maneuvers.
A big problem is, the presidency has become such a terrible job that most normal people wouldn't want it. Bernie seems very normal, for a politician.
I'm not sticking up for Clinton with this coin flip -----but I did roll 3 12s in a row one time in Vegas. What are the odds of that? So, I guess 6 wins in a row could be legitimate, but it seems a poor way to run an election/delegate choice. ( the odds were the same each time I threw the dice--35 to 1. But 3 in a row? Can anyone here figure that out?)
Coin flips are a pretty horrible way to choose the next democratic candidate. Wiz, is there any talk in your state of moving away from the caucus? It seems so outdated. I've never really paid attention to it before last night but it is pretty ridiculous. In another news, bernie is polling ahead 33% in New Hampshire. I'm not too worried about Clinton's Iowa "victory." Also, a black SC lawmaker and lawyer, I can't remember his name, sorry - but I did read in the news yesterday he originally endorsed Clinton but reneged on the endorsement and endorsed Sanders instead after meeting him on MLK day. This could turn the tide for Sanders in SC as we have a higher percentage of blacks than the national average. He really needs the minority vote here and this could swing things his way.
If she would have flipped another 20 times, that would have been the equivalent to her winning this past huge power ball jackpot! I find it funny how she consistently flipped a coin and won! If all else fails, she can start panhandling people flipping quarters on the street corners, or prison!
Tomorrow night at 9:00 EST, we have the first debate that is between only Clinton and Sanders, on MSNBC. Possibly the last one. Without Martin O'Malley, when will viewers take their bathroom breaks and make runs to the refrigerator?
I was just listening to a discussion about this on NPR earlier today. There can be changes made to the system as long as it's still technically a caucus. A deal was made with New Hampshire years ago that gives NH the first primary and Iowa the first caucus. So we can caucus before them but if we have a primary, they will move theirs to an earlier date. Now if we decide that we don't care about being first in the nation, we can make whatever changes we want but we won't be giving that up anytime soon. I don't care for the process at all. I don't think it's very fair on a number of levels.
Just imagine if your relatives and your boss saw you voting what they considered to be the wrong way, and they treated you like shit over it. Not good. The main rule change you need in the short term is allowing precincts to report a tie as their end result, rather than going to a coin toss to determine a winner.
That is one of the problems. At least the Republicans vote privately and on paper. Some other problems are that the caucuses take place at a certain time in the evening and the only way to participate is by being there...on time. Doors close at 7 sharp. Car breaks down? No vote for you. Have to work? No vote for you. Live in a nursing home and can't get out? Etc, etc. There should be method of absentee voting. We should also be counting actual votes to determine who wins. We can still have a caucus to decide who the delegates will be but as it is right now.....one person can win the popular vote in every single precinct across the state and still be awarded the same number of delegates as the person who lost.....as long as the vote is close enough. I've heard that Bernie is asking for the actual vote count to be released but I doubt if it will be. I really am surprised that it was this close because everyone I know is saying that their precinct was easily won by Bernie....in some cases by a 3 or 4 to one margin and in some cases with the rooms overflowing into the hallways with Bernie supporters. Maybe we can't trust party officials to report the true numbers. I don't know but nobody around here saw anything close to a tie on Monday night and with the way it works right now....I'm not sure there is a way to go back and recount. That's a problem.
As far as I know, the Iowa Dems already said they won't be doing a recount or releasing the vote count... and that's what Bernie's campaign has said they won't challenge. Also, apparently there were more than just 6 coin flips and Sanders won some of them. The one story I read about that said that the total was closer to a 50/50 split on the coin tosses. *shrug* There definitely needs to be a change to the Dem caucus. It really should be a blind vote with each vote tallied and the placement based on those numbers. As it is now is deeply flawed.
