Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses/
if the numbers are what is being reported then I think "pathetic" may be too strong a word to use. "comparable" might work better.
lol thanks for the suggestion mule but I've been using this one since around 1988, it seems to be working. 😉
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
From the link:
According to a statement from Iowa Democratic Party chair Andy McGuire, just over 171,000 Iowa Democrats showed up to caucus for their chosen candidate,
"We saw passionate, engaged Iowans turn out in all 99 counties," McGuire said. "I want to congratulate all of our candidates for running terrific campaigns and thank them for taking the time to travel across our great state to share their visions for the country."
CBS got their information from the Democratic party.
I am guessing that you saw information like this
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/iowa/
But those totals are not the count of votes, Those are the count of delegate equivalents for each precinct in the state.
From the Iowa Democratic site.
http://iowademocrats.org/about-iowa-caucuses/
How do the Democratic Caucuses work?
Eligible caucus goers divide to form Presidential preference groups. If a preference group for a candidate does not have enough people to be considered “viable,” a threshold set at the beginning of the night, eligible attendees will have an opportunity to join another preference group or acquire people into their group to become viable. Delegates are then awarded to the preference groups based on their size.
At the end of the night, who is determined as the “Winner” of the Iowa Caucuses?
On caucus night, Iowans in each precinct elect delegates to their county conventions, but the winner of the caucuses will be the candidate who accrues the most state delegate equivalents. State delegate equivalents are calculated using a ratio of state to county convention delegates. In other words, the ratio determines how many delegates the candidate would receive for the state convention based on the number of county convention delegates a candidate receives.
How are results reported?
Results from each of the 1,681 precincts will be reported to the Iowa Democratic Party by precinct chairs through a new mobile app, created through a partnership with Microsoft and Interknowlogy, that can be used on all major mobile platforms. This app will allow the party to quickly flag any discrepancies, and then allow the IDP to provide secure, accurate, and timely results to both the public and members of the media.
The only "pathetic turnout" is the turnout of accurate information from your keyboard.
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
From the link:
According to a statement from Iowa Democratic Party chair Andy McGuire, just over 171,000 Iowa Democrats showed up to caucus for their chosen candidate,
"We saw passionate, engaged Iowans turn out in all 99 counties," McGuire said. "I want to congratulate all of our candidates for running terrific campaigns and thank them for taking the time to travel across our great state to share their visions for the country."
CBS got their information from the Democratic party.
I am guessing that you saw information like this
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/iowa/
But those totals are not the count of votes, Those are the count of delegate equivalents for each precinct in the state.
From the Iowa Democratic site.
http://iowademocrats.org/about-iowa-caucuses/
How do the Democratic Caucuses work?
Eligible caucus goers divide to form Presidential preference groups. If a preference group for a candidate does not have enough people to be considered “viable,” a threshold set at the beginning of the night, eligible attendees will have an opportunity to join another preference group or acquire people into their group to become viable. Delegates are then awarded to the preference groups based on their size.
At the end of the night, who is determined as the “Winner” of the Iowa Caucuses?
On caucus night, Iowans in each precinct elect delegates to their county conventions, but the winner of the caucuses will be the candidate who accrues the most state delegate equivalents. State delegate equivalents are calculated using a ratio of state to county convention delegates. In other words, the ratio determines how many delegates the candidate would receive for the state convention based on the number of county convention delegates a candidate receives.
How are results reported?
Results from each of the 1,681 precincts will be reported to the Iowa Democratic Party by precinct chairs through a new mobile app, created through a partnership with Microsoft and Interknowlogy, that can be used on all major mobile platforms. This app will allow the party to quickly flag any discrepancies, and then allow the IDP to provide secure, accurate, and timely results to both the public and members of the media.
The only "pathetic turnout" is the turnout of accurate information from your keyboard.
______________________________________________________________________
Yea, the results were first passed through the DNC and then"given" to the lame-stream media.
The DNC and the lame-stream media are well known for falsifying data but idiots, like you and the left-wing extremists, will believe anything you are told.
The DNC corruption in the Iowa caucuses is being reported even by the lame-stream media.
But do not worry, the democrats depend on the low-information votes such as yourself.
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
From the link:
According to a statement from Iowa Democratic Party chair Andy McGuire, just over 171,000 Iowa Democrats showed up to caucus for their chosen candidate,
"We saw passionate, engaged Iowans turn out in all 99 counties," McGuire said. "I want to congratulate all of our candidates for running terrific campaigns and thank them for taking the time to travel across our great state to share their visions for the country."
CBS got their information from the Democratic party.
I am guessing that you saw information like this
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/iowa/
But those totals are not the count of votes, Those are the count of delegate equivalents for each precinct in the state.
From the Iowa Democratic site.
http://iowademocrats.org/about-iowa-caucuses/
How do the Democratic Caucuses work?
Eligible caucus goers divide to form Presidential preference groups. If a preference group for a candidate does not have enough people to be considered “viable,” a threshold set at the beginning of the night, eligible attendees will have an opportunity to join another preference group or acquire people into their group to become viable. Delegates are then awarded to the preference groups based on their size.
At the end of the night, who is determined as the “Winner” of the Iowa Caucuses?
On caucus night, Iowans in each precinct elect delegates to their county conventions, but the winner of the caucuses will be the candidate who accrues the most state delegate equivalents. State delegate equivalents are calculated using a ratio of state to county convention delegates. In other words, the ratio determines how many delegates the candidate would receive for the state convention based on the number of county convention delegates a candidate receives.
How are results reported?
Results from each of the 1,681 precincts will be reported to the Iowa Democratic Party by precinct chairs through a new mobile app, created through a partnership with Microsoft and Interknowlogy, that can be used on all major mobile platforms. This app will allow the party to quickly flag any discrepancies, and then allow the IDP to provide secure, accurate, and timely results to both the public and members of the media.
The only "pathetic turnout" is the turnout of accurate information from your keyboard.
______________________________________________________________________
Yea, the results were first passed through the DNC and then"given" to the lame-stream media.
The DNC and the lame-stream media are well known for falsifying data but idiots, like you and the left-wing extremists, will believe anything you are told.
The DNC corruption in the Iowa caucuses is being reported even by the lame-stream media.
But do not worry, the democrats depend on the low-information votes such as yourself.
You have been given a couple of links that explain the process. You have pulled facts out of your ass.
That's all.
Yea, the results were first passed through the DNC and then"given" to the lame-stream media.
The DNC and the lame-stream media are well known for falsifying data but idiots, like you and the left-wing extremists, will believe anything you are told.
The DNC corruption in the Iowa caucuses is being reported even by the lame-stream media.
But do not worry, the democrats depend on the low-information votes such as yourself.
But the right wing numbers are correct? Why? Because the right wing never lies?
(Benghazi!)
I don't know why I bother to engage with you. Your arguments are moronic. You have no capacity for critical thinking.
I've said it before... your ignorance is pathetic. Heartbreaking really.
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
Breitbart also reported over 170,000 for the Democrats. Are they part of the left-wing, lame-stream media too?
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
From the link:
According to a statement from Iowa Democratic Party chair Andy McGuire, just over 171,000 Iowa Democrats showed up to caucus for their chosen candidate,
"We saw passionate, engaged Iowans turn out in all 99 counties," McGuire said. "I want to congratulate all of our candidates for running terrific campaigns and thank them for taking the time to travel across our great state to share their visions for the country."
CBS got their information from the Democratic party.
I am guessing that you saw information like this
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/iowa/
But those totals are not the count of votes, Those are the count of delegate equivalents for each precinct in the state.
From the Iowa Democratic site.
http://iowademocrats.org/about-iowa-caucuses/
How do the Democratic Caucuses work?
Eligible caucus goers divide to form Presidential preference groups. If a preference group for a candidate does not have enough people to be considered “viable,” a threshold set at the beginning of the night, eligible attendees will have an opportunity to join another preference group or acquire people into their group to become viable. Delegates are then awarded to the preference groups based on their size.
At the end of the night, who is determined as the “Winner” of the Iowa Caucuses?
On caucus night, Iowans in each precinct elect delegates to their county conventions, but the winner of the caucuses will be the candidate who accrues the most state delegate equivalents. State delegate equivalents are calculated using a ratio of state to county convention delegates. In other words, the ratio determines how many delegates the candidate would receive for the state convention based on the number of county convention delegates a candidate receives.
How are results reported?
Results from each of the 1,681 precincts will be reported to the Iowa Democratic Party by precinct chairs through a new mobile app, created through a partnership with Microsoft and Interknowlogy, that can be used on all major mobile platforms. This app will allow the party to quickly flag any discrepancies, and then allow the IDP to provide secure, accurate, and timely results to both the public and members of the media.
The only "pathetic turnout" is the turnout of accurate information from your keyboard.
______________________________________________________________________
Yea, the results were first passed through the DNC and then"given" to the lame-stream media.
The DNC and the lame-stream media are well known for falsifying data but idiots, like you and the left-wing extremists, will believe anything you are told.
The DNC corruption in the Iowa caucuses is being reported even by the lame-stream media.
But do not worry, the democrats depend on the low-information votes such as yourself.
You have been given a couple of links that explain the process. You have pulled facts out of your ass.
That's all.
______________________________________________________________________
Do you mean the links to CBS News" and the Iowa Democratic Party?
It is no wonder you are so ignorant.Can you explain why The Republican turnout was a record-setting high?
Yes. Republican Christians turned out to vote for Ted Cruz, who speaks to Jesus. They believe Trump may crash and burn, so this could be their chance to get a zealot into office.
Independent-minded conservatives turned out to vote for Donald Trump, who is turning the traditional party upside down. They feel the system needs change. The Donald was supporting partial birth abortion and praising Hilary Clinton not too long ago, so he sure knows some things about change.
Moderate Republicans turned out to vote for Marco Rubio, the more traditional candidate. These voters see the volatility of Trump and Cruz, which could cost the Republicans big time.
So.....the Republican voters have great reason to turn out and vote in record numbers. They need to save the party from each other.
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
Breitbart also reported over 170,000 for the Democrats. Are they part of the left-wing, lame-stream media too?
I hope you don't expect him to answer this.
Mule... according to CBS 180,000 Republicans turned out. 171,000 Democrats caucused. Why do you consider that turnout "pathetic"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-voters-turned-out-for-the-iowa-caucuses//blockquote >
___________________________________________________________________________CBS “News” is nothing more than a liberal support group wholly operated by Obama and the far-left.
Obama’s senior communications director is the brother of CBS “News” president.
When CBS “News” senior investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported the Benghazi criminal activity of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, brother of CBS “News” president David Rhodes had her taken off the air and benched.
After Hillary Clinton was done as Sec. of State, CBS “News” gave her and Obama a prime time 60 Minutes parade to extol her accomplishments which in reality did not exist.
This is the same CBS “News” that had to fire their senior anchorman Dan Rather for falsifying a hit piece against President Bush.
If you actually believe anything from CBS you are as stupid as the few people that actually get their “news” from the left-wing media.
From the link:
According to a statement from Iowa Democratic Party chair Andy McGuire, just over 171,000 Iowa Democrats showed up to caucus for their chosen candidate,
"We saw passionate, engaged Iowans turn out in all 99 counties," McGuire said. "I want to congratulate all of our candidates for running terrific campaigns and thank them for taking the time to travel across our great state to share their visions for the country."
CBS got their information from the Democratic party.
I am guessing that you saw information like this
http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/iowa/
But those totals are not the count of votes, Those are the count of delegate equivalents for each precinct in the state.
From the Iowa Democratic site.
http://iowademocrats.org/about-iowa-caucuses/
How do the Democratic Caucuses work?
Eligible caucus goers divide to form Presidential preference groups. If a preference group for a candidate does not have enough people to be considered “viable,” a threshold set at the beginning of the night, eligible attendees will have an opportunity to join another preference group or acquire people into their group to become viable. Delegates are then awarded to the preference groups based on their size.
At the end of the night, who is determined as the “Winner” of the Iowa Caucuses?
On caucus night, Iowans in each precinct elect delegates to their county conventions, but the winner of the caucuses will be the candidate who accrues the most state delegate equivalents. State delegate equivalents are calculated using a ratio of state to county convention delegates. In other words, the ratio determines how many delegates the candidate would receive for the state convention based on the number of county convention delegates a candidate receives.
How are results reported?
Results from each of the 1,681 precincts will be reported to the Iowa Democratic Party by precinct chairs through a new mobile app, created through a partnership with Microsoft and Interknowlogy, that can be used on all major mobile platforms. This app will allow the party to quickly flag any discrepancies, and then allow the IDP to provide secure, accurate, and timely results to both the public and members of the media.
The only "pathetic turnout" is the turnout of accurate information from your keyboard.
______________________________________________________________________
Yea, the results were first passed through the DNC and then"given" to the lame-stream media.
The DNC and the lame-stream media are well known for falsifying data but idiots, like you and the left-wing extremists, will believe anything you are told.
The DNC corruption in the Iowa caucuses is being reported even by the lame-stream media.
But do not worry, the democrats depend on the low-information votes such as yourself.
You have been given a couple of links that explain the process. You have pulled facts out of your ass.
That's all.
______________________________________________________________________
Do you mean the links to CBS News" and the Iowa Democratic Party?
It is no wonder you are so ignorant.Can you explain why The Republican turnout was a record-setting high?
For the same reason that the Democrats had a record turnout in 2008. Do you have any idea what the similarities between those two caucuses are?
Hillary Clinton and The democrats: Can you feel the love?
After Hillary’s Narrow Win, Iowa Crowd Chants 3 Brutal Words When She Appears On-Screen
A clear message...
February 2, 2016 at 12:18pm
Even after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared victory in the Iowa Caucuses Monday night, it was clear from the reaction of Bernie Sanders’ supporters that she will never be their choice for president.
Sanders, who lost to Clinton by a razor-thin margin, had a rally for his supporters at the Airport Holiday Inn in Des Moines. A TV was blaring the news of the caucus results.
Eventually, Clinton came on the screen to give her victory speech. Boos broke out among the crowd, as well as cheers when a glitch cut the sound.
Then the real reaction took place when Clinton said, “I’m a progressive who gets things done.”
“You’re no f—-ng progressive!” one man shouted angrily. “No no no no no!” shouted another. “Turn her off!”
“She’s a liar! She’s a liar! She’s a liar!” became the resounding chorus of the crowd.
Sanders himself was as defiant as the rest.
---
There’s Something Funny About Hillary’s Iowa Victory That Has Many Suspicious
"the Clintons will find a way to corrupt..."
February 2, 2016 at 12:21pm
Flipping a coin is supposed to be one of the fairest ways of making a decision, with an equal chance of the coin landing on heads or tails. However, when coins were flipped to decide a tight Iowa caucus races Monday night, things did not work out so evenly.
Coin flips were used to decide at least six counties in Monday’s Democratic caucuses, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. Each coin flip resulted in the awarding of one delegate. Using a coin flip to award delegates was not an impromptu decision, but part of the rules when precincts are deadlocked on a decision. As of Tuesday morning, different media sources were reporting different numbers of cases where a coin flip was used. In some cases, the coin flip was recorded on video.
However there was a common thread among all those cases where a coin flip was used. In all six instances where a coin toss was used to determine the winner of the delegate, Hillary Clinton won over Sen. Bernie Sanders.
TheBlaze did the math on that feat, and found that the odds of winning all six comes out to 1 in 64, or 1.56 percent.
TheBlaze also did the math about the outcome of those coin flips and their significance in the overall tally.
“Clinton’s final delegate count was 699.57, according to the Iowa Democratic Party. Sanders’ was 695.49,” The Blaze reported. “If Sanders had won half of the coin tosses and split the six delegates three and three with Clinton, he would have finished at 698.49 delegates to Clinton’s 696.57.”
Readers of TheBlaze were quick to condemn the outcome.
“If any human involvement occurs in an election, the Clintons will find a way to corrupt it,” wrote one commenter.
After Hillary Clinton's voter fraud and coin-toss corruption:
Bernie Sanders wants raw vote count released after tight finish in Iowa caucuses
Hillary Clinton and The democrats: Can you feel the love?
After Hillary’s Narrow Win, Iowa Crowd Chants 3 Brutal Words When She Appears On-Screen
A clear message...
February 2, 2016 at 12:18pmEven after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared victory in the Iowa Caucuses Monday night, it was clear from the reaction of Bernie Sanders’ supporters that she will never be their choice for president.
Sanders, who lost to Clinton by a razor-thin margin, had a rally for his supporters at the Airport Holiday Inn in Des Moines. A TV was blaring the news of the caucus results.
Eventually, Clinton came on the screen to give her victory speech. Boos broke out among the crowd, as well as cheers when a glitch cut the sound.Then the real reaction took place when Clinton said, “I’m a progressive who gets things done.”
“You’re no f—-ng progressive!” one man shouted angrily. “No no no no no!” shouted another. “Turn her off!”
“She’s a liar! She’s a liar! She’s a liar!” became the resounding chorus of the crowd.
Sanders himself was as defiant as the rest.---
There’s Something Funny About Hillary’s Iowa Victory That Has Many Suspicious
"the Clintons will find a way to corrupt..."
February 2, 2016 at 12:21pmFlipping a coin is supposed to be one of the fairest ways of making a decision, with an equal chance of the coin landing on heads or tails. However, when coins were flipped to decide a tight Iowa caucus races Monday night, things did not work out so evenly.
Coin flips were used to decide at least six counties in Monday’s Democratic caucuses, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. Each coin flip resulted in the awarding of one delegate. Using a coin flip to award delegates was not an impromptu decision, but part of the rules when precincts are deadlocked on a decision. As of Tuesday morning, different media sources were reporting different numbers of cases where a coin flip was used. In some cases, the coin flip was recorded on video.
However there was a common thread among all those cases where a coin flip was used. In all six instances where a coin toss was used to determine the winner of the delegate, Hillary Clinton won over Sen. Bernie Sanders.
TheBlaze did the math on that feat, and found that the odds of winning all six comes out to 1 in 64, or 1.56 percent.
TheBlaze also did the math about the outcome of those coin flips and their significance in the overall tally.
“Clinton’s final delegate count was 699.57, according to the Iowa Democratic Party. Sanders’ was 695.49,” The Blaze reported. “If Sanders had won half of the coin tosses and split the six delegates three and three with Clinton, he would have finished at 698.49 delegates to Clinton’s 696.57.”
Readers of TheBlaze were quick to condemn the outcome.
“If any human involvement occurs in an election, the Clintons will find a way to corrupt it,” wrote one commenter.
Who tossed the coins? Did you know that every one of them was recorded? Of course Sanders wants the raw vote released, it was a close election. But the fact is, the raw vote in the Iowa caucus is the same as the popular vote in the presidential election. It is not the deciding factor.
Readers of TheBlaze were quick to condemn the outcome.
LOL ..... now there's a reliable source......... 😛 😛 
4 out of 5 registered Republicans in the State of Iowa did NOT caucus.
That is to say, only 20% of registered Republican voters turned out to caucus.
Muleman? Why do you think that is "massive" turnout?
Admit you are wrong Son.
4 out of 5 registered Republicans in the State of Iowa did NOT caucus.
That is to say, only 20% of registered Republican voters turned out to caucus.
Muleman? Why do you think that is "massive" turnout?
Admit you are wrong Son.
________________________________________________________________________
Where did you get that information; the DNC?
The Republicans had record setting turnout and had more people caucus than did the democrats.
Explain that son.
Nothing to explain. I've already pointed out that 9000 more Republicans caucused than Democrats. BFD. Still, 4 out of 5 registered Republicans did not caucus. It was a record turnout for Republicans. Again, BFD.
Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine. You have no comprehension of the process. The majority of registered voters do not caucus in Iowa, Democrat or Republican.
You are quick to point out alleged "fraud" involving Hillary. What about the fraud being alleged by the Donald concerning Cruz?
Looks to me like the Republican Party is in at least as much chaos as the Democratic Party.
Yet you are looking for some kind of "win".
Ridiculous.
Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine. You have no comprehension of the process.
There is no Republican or Democrat victory in caucuses or primaries. The parties are not running against each other. The only victories or defeats are among candidates of the same party. To claim otherwise is just plain silly, but some people are so partisan that they just can't help themselves from sounding silly.
muleman has sucked everyone in to his bait and switch tactic...just let him have his delusions.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to show was a terrible president he would be...after running away from the debate because the moderator was unfair to him, now he is calling for a do-over in Iowa because he says Cruz was unfair. Well then let's call the WAHHHHHHmbulance. I mean really, I've never seen anyone run for president who has thinner skin than Donald Trump...and in the meantime all he does is denigrate anyone and everyone and everything in his path. I'm more convinced that he doesn't have what it takes to be POTUS. Wonder what Putin will have to say when Trumps accuses him of being unfair, lol.
Trump calls for 'new election' in Iowa, accuses Cruz of stealing votes
by Ben Brody
Bloomberg
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz "stole" first place in the Iowa caucuses and called for "a new election" or nullification of Cruz's win.
Trump's complaints: what Cruz said about the billionaire's positions on abortion and President Obama's health-care law; controversial mailers Cruz sent to caucus-goers; and how the Cruz campaign alerted caucus- goers to rival Ben Carson's decision to go home after the caucuses, stoking speculation he would drop out.
"Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!" Trump wrote to his 6 million Twitter followers.
It's a marked change in tone for second-place Trump, who until now said he was proud of his results considering it's his first political campaign. He leads polls in New Hampshire, which will hold its primary Feb. 9. Trump also led polls in Iowa leading up to the caucuses. He ended up 3 percentage points behind Cruz in the final tally.
Trump signed a so-called GOP loyalty pledge last summer but has since suggested he's still open to an independent bid if the Republican Party treats him unfairly. Spokesmen for Cruz's campaign, the Iowa GOP, and the Republican National Committee didn't immediately return requests for comment.
A spokesman for Carson, the former surgeon who is still in the race, had called the Cruz campaign's actions on caucus night "dirty tricks." Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler earlier Wednesday denied the campaign had spread the message Carson was dropping out-potentially freeing his supporters to support Cruz in Iowa instead-and had merely told supporters about Carson's travel plans.
"There was no dirty trick," Tyler said on CNN.
Cruz, whose mailers were condemned by the Iowa secretary of state, said before the caucuses he wouldn't apologize "for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote," according to USA Today.
Edward Foley, an election law professor at Ohio State University, said Trump hasn't shown any evidence that the Cruz campaign's statement about Carson affected a single vote, let alone how the candidates ranked.
"It's important to recognize that there may be some hyperbole and bluster here," Foley said. "As far as I can tell, there's not even a single voter coming forward saying, 'I would have voted for Carson instead of Cruz if I'd known Carson was in the race.' "
Even if Trump could demonstrate that the Cruz campaign's comments affected the outcome of the caucus, he'd still have to prove that Cruz had intentionally engaged in wrongdoing, Foley said.
"It's very hard to void an election and get a new election. You'd have to prove wrongdoing that had a consequence of effecting the result," Foley said, noting Cruz had apologized for his staff not following up with caucus-goers on the Carson reports. "That doesn't sound like it adds up to proving wrongdoing."
If Trump somehow managed to reach the high threshold needed for a legitimate challenge to the results, he'd have to take his complaint to Iowa's Republican Party, which may or may not have any sympathy for the real estate mogul's grievance.
"Caucuses are creatures of the party so it would be the party's decision how to deal with this," Foley said.
[Edited on 2/3/2016 by gondicar]
Nothing to explain. I've already pointed out that 9000 more Republicans caucused than Democrats. BFD. Still, 4 out of 5 registered Republicans did not caucus. It was a record turnout for Republicans. Again, BFD.
Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine. You have no comprehension of the process. The majority of registered voters do not caucus in Iowa, Democrat or Republican.
You are quick to point out alleged "fraud" involving Hillary. What about the fraud being alleged by the Donald concerning Cruz?
Looks to me like the Republican Party is in at least as much chaos as the Democratic Party.
Yet you are looking for some kind of "win".
Ridiculous.
________________________________________________________________________
"Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine."
I made no such assertion. That is your usual assumption which is nothing more than you misrepresenting my post.
The fact that more Republicans participated in the caucuses than democrats does show that the Republican base is more engaged in the process and demonstrated strong support for their candidates without having to use voter fraud and a rigged coin-toss to achieve a tie.
"Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine."
I made no such assertion. That is your usual assumption which is nothing more than you misrepresenting my post.
The fact that more Republicans participated in the caucuses than democrats does show that the Republican base is more engaged in the process and demonstrated strong support for their candidates without having to use voter fraud and a rigged coin-toss to achieve a tie.
Of course that is what you are asserting and you continue to assert the same even in the above post.
What do you say to the Trump accusations that Cruz used fraudulent methods to get his win? That the Cruz team reported that Carson was finished so Cruz got Carson votes?
The best thing to come out of Iowa and Ted Cruz is the word "Trumpertantrum" 
Ted Cruz slams Donald J. Trump for "Trumpertantrum" over Iowa results. http://cnn.it/1SYvcwG
"Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine."
I made no such assertion. That is your usual assumption which is nothing more than you misrepresenting my post.
The fact that more Republicans participated in the caucuses than democrats does show that the Republican base is more engaged in the process and demonstrated strong support for their candidates without having to use voter fraud and a rigged coin-toss to achieve a tie.
Of course that is what you are asserting and you continue to assert the same even in the above post.
What do you say to the Trump accusations that Cruz used fraudulent methods to get his win? That the Cruz team reported that Carson was finished so Cruz got Carson votes?
________________________________________________________________________
Accusations in a political contest?
This is what you run to? Like that has never happened before.
I am more interested in Hillary Clinton pulling out a democrat party standard tactic; voter fraud.
Prior to her indictment she has to use voter fraud and coin-toss corruption to achieve a tie with a socialist.
Very sad but that is all that the democrats have.
The best thing to come out of Iowa and Ted Cruz is the word "Trumpertantrum"
Ted Cruz slams Donald J. Trump for "Trumpertantrum" over Iowa results. http://cnn.it/1SYvcwG/blockquote >
Fraudulent? No.
Dishonest? Maybe.
Primary politics? You betcha.
"Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine."
I made no such assertion. That is your usual assumption which is nothing more than you misrepresenting my post.
The fact is that more Republicans participated in the caucuses than democrats does show that the Republican base is more engaged in the process and demonstrated strong support for their candidates without having to use voter fraud and a rigged coin-toss to achieve a tie.
Of course that is what you are asserting and you continue to assert the same even in the above post.
What do you say to the Trump accusations that Cruz used fraudulent methods to get his win? That the Cruz team reported that Carson was finished so Cruz got Carson votes?
________________________________________________________________________
Accusations in a political contest?
This is what you run to? Like that has never happened before.I am more interested in Hillary Clinton pulling out a democrat party standard tactic; voter fraud.
Prior to her indictment she has to use voter fraud and coin-toss corruption to achieve a tie with a socialist.
Very sad but that is all that the democrats have.
Most of us on here present arguments backed by links to the info. If you don't like the link, you claim it is left wing. Then you use The Blaze and Breitbart. You want to play by different standards than you want us to play by. When all else fails, you make a general "liberals believe.." and act as if your opinion is fact. The fact that all people, whether they be liberal of conservative, can think differently and believe in different parts of the political platforms. Then there are those in the middle, the ones who see good and bad on both sides. You don't see them at all. You see everything in black and white because if you saw grey, you can't understand it. That is why I have been pushing you to say who you support. You won't answer because taking a stand for something and trying to distinguish between two or more candidates on the GOP side is beyond your intellectual ability. All you do is rant on, get proven wrong, ignore it and rant some more.
Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks that you are a troll? Does that even matter to you? Who do you support for president? Don't say you have already posted who you support because I looked back at your posts and you haven't.
"Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine."
I made no such assertion. That is your usual assumption which is nothing more than you misrepresenting my post.
The fact is that more Republicans participated in the caucuses than democrats does show that the Republican base is more engaged in the process and demonstrated strong support for their candidates without having to use voter fraud and a rigged coin-toss to achieve a tie.
Of course that is what you are asserting and you continue to assert the same even in the above post.
What do you say to the Trump accusations that Cruz used fraudulent methods to get his win? That the Cruz team reported that Carson was finished so Cruz got Carson votes?
________________________________________________________________________
Accusations in a political contest?
This is what you run to? Like that has never happened before.I am more interested in Hillary Clinton pulling out a democrat party standard tactic; voter fraud.
Prior to her indictment she has to use voter fraud and coin-toss corruption to achieve a tie with a socialist.
Very sad but that is all that the democrats have.
Most of us on here present arguments backed by links to the info. If you don't like the link, you claim it is left wing. Then you use The Blaze and Breitbart. You want to play by different standards than you want us to play by. When all else fails, you make a general "liberals believe.." and act as if your opinion is fact. The fact that all people, whether they be liberal of conservative, can think differently and believe in different parts of the political platforms. Then there are those in the middle, the ones who see good and bad on both sides. You don't see them at all. You see everything in black and white because if you saw grey, you can't understand it. That is why I have been pushing you to say who you support. You won't answer because taking a stand for something and trying to distinguish between two or more candidates on the GOP side is beyond your intellectual ability. All you do is rant on, get proven wrong, ignore it and rant some more.
Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks that you are a troll? Does that even matter to you? Who do you support for president? Don't say you have already posted who you support because I looked back at your posts and you haven't.
_________________________________________________________________________
"Who do you support for president? Don't say you have already posted who you support"
because I looked back at your posts and you haven't.
Demonstrating your ignorance again?
You looked? Apparently you can't read either. But you keep trying son.
"Your assertion that this is some kind of Republican victory is asinine."
I made no such assertion. That is your usual assumption which is nothing more than you misrepresenting my post.
The fact is that more Republicans participated in the caucuses than democrats does show that the Republican base is more engaged in the process and demonstrated strong support for their candidates without having to use voter fraud and a rigged coin-toss to achieve a tie.
Of course that is what you are asserting and you continue to assert the same even in the above post.
What do you say to the Trump accusations that Cruz used fraudulent methods to get his win? That the Cruz team reported that Carson was finished so Cruz got Carson votes?
________________________________________________________________________
Accusations in a political contest?
This is what you run to? Like that has never happened before.I am more interested in Hillary Clinton pulling out a democrat party standard tactic; voter fraud.
Prior to her indictment she has to use voter fraud and coin-toss corruption to achieve a tie with a socialist.
Very sad but that is all that the democrats have.
Most of us on here present arguments backed by links to the info. If you don't like the link, you claim it is left wing. Then you use The Blaze and Breitbart. You want to play by different standards than you want us to play by. When all else fails, you make a general "liberals believe.." and act as if your opinion is fact. The fact that all people, whether they be liberal of conservative, can think differently and believe in different parts of the political platforms. Then there are those in the middle, the ones who see good and bad on both sides. You don't see them at all. You see everything in black and white because if you saw grey, you can't understand it. That is why I have been pushing you to say who you support. You won't answer because taking a stand for something and trying to distinguish between two or more candidates on the GOP side is beyond your intellectual ability. All you do is rant on, get proven wrong, ignore it and rant some more.
Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks that you are a troll? Does that even matter to you? Who do you support for president? Don't say you have already posted who you support because I looked back at your posts and you haven't.
_________________________________________________________________________
"Who do you support for president? Don't say you have already posted who you support"
because I looked back at your posts and you haven't.Demonstrating your ignorance again?
You looked? Apparently you can't read either. But you keep trying son.
You are nothing but a lying troll. You know it, I know it, everyone who reads your posts knows it. What time does your next shift at Burger King start, Mr. Executive? 😛
Accusations in a political contest?
This is what you run to? Like that has never happened before.I am more interested in Hillary Clinton pulling out a democrat party standard tactic; voter fraud.
Prior to her indictment she has to use voter fraud and coin-toss corruption to achieve a tie with a socialist.
Very sad but that is all that the democrats have.
??????? 😮 ???????
What are you citing if not accusations Mule?
You really are a moron Dude.
