The Ben Carson, Ted Cruz blowup!
Ah, this is when the liberal media goes crazy. Lead story on many left-wing media outlets, front page articles abound! The Ted Cruz campaign plants rumors about Ben Carson pulling out and going home.
Guess where this started?
CNN ! (aka the Clinton News Network)
On Monday afternoon Chris Moody, a CNN reported, tweeted the Ben Carson was going home after the Iowa primary and would not be going to New Hampshire; A flat out lie.
Next up CNN’s on air “personality” Dana Bash repeats the tweet (lie) and embellishes with more lies.
A Ted Cruz campaign staffer re-tweeted the Chris Moody tweet adding that “CNN is reporting that…”
When Ted Cruz found out what his staffer had done that person was removed even though they did cite the source of the original tweet (lie).
You gotta love it. The corruption in the liberal media is in full throttle. Not too hard to understand why CNN has been relegated to the number two slot and will remain there.
The American People can recognize dishonesty easily after over 7 years of Obama.
[Edited on 2/4/2016 by Muleman1994]
Yes, in every one of your posts...
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.
I don't know where you get your figures, but 186,874 Republican caucused.
There are 615,066 registered Republicans.
My little calculator tells me that this comes out to a little over 32.9% registered Republicans voted, not 20% like you claim.
Go to the Iowa Secretary of State and find out.
What percentage of registered Democrats voted?
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.
I don't know where you get your figures, but 186,874 Republican caucused.
There are 615,066 registered Republicans.
My little calculator tells me that this comes out to a little over 32.9% registered Republicans voted, not 20% like you claim.
Go to the Iowa Secretary of State and find out.What percentage of registered Democrats voted?
_________________________________________________________________________
You are right with the numbers for the Republicans.
The numbers for the democrats is difficult to tell. The Iowa Democratic Party’s numbers are different than the DNC.
Bernie Sanders is calling for the raw numbers from the Iowa cuscuses to be released as he is within 3 to 6 votes of Hillary Clinton but there was voter fraud and a coin-toss gimmick played by an Iowa precinct captain who was also a Hillary Clinton operative. Neither The Iowa Democratic Party nor The DNC has responded to Sanders call but both are all in for Hillary Clinton so looks like Bernie is out of luck.
This is going to get interesting in New Hampshire next Tuesday. NH has a large Independent contingency and many Libertarians who are big time Constitutionalists.
That’s okay. One State down and 40 States, The District and 6 Territories to go.
I don't know where you get your figures, but 186,874 Republican caucused.
There are 615,066 registered Republicans.
My little calculator tells me that this comes out to a little over 32.9% registered Republicans voted, not 20% like you claim.
Go to the Iowa Secretary of State and find out.
I got the number from Smerconish. You caught me. Mule made the assertion that the Republicans had a "massive" turnout. So Jerry... are you saying 32.9% is massive turnout? I hope you are because if you right wingers believe 32.9% is massive turnout you will never occupy the White House again.
20%? 32.9%? Aren't both failing grades? They sure were when I went to school.
Regarding the Democrat turnout, I don't know or care. I stated earlier that I actually caucused. I know it has low turnout. That is why I said the Iowa Caucus is not representative of America.
But some folks just got to be morons.
The Republicans had a massive turnout last night and the democrats did not.
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.
I don't know where you get your figures, but 186,874 Republican caucused.
There are 615,066 registered Republicans.
My little calculator tells me that this comes out to a little over 32.9% registered Republicans voted, not 20% like you claim.
Go to the Iowa Secretary of State and find out.What percentage of registered Democrats voted?
_________________________________________________________________________
You are right with the numbers for the Republicans.
The numbers for the democrats is difficult to tell. The Iowa Democratic Party’s numbers are different than the DNC.
Bernie Sanders is calling for the raw numbers from the Iowa cuscuses to be released as he is within 3 to 6 votes of Hillary Clinton but there was voter fraud and a coin-toss gimmick played by an Iowa precinct captain who was also a Hillary Clinton operative. Neither The Iowa Democratic Party nor The DNC has responded to Sanders call but both are all in for Hillary Clinton so looks like Bernie is out of luck.
This is going to get interesting in New Hampshire next Tuesday. NH has a large Independent contingency and many Libertarians who are big time Constitutionalists.
That’s okay. One State down and 40 States, The District and 6 Territories to go.
You seem to think the primary counts are some kind of a battle between the democrats and republicans.
You do realize that there's a relationship between the number of candidates and turnout as each of the candidates has a ground game to bring in their supporters.
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.
I don't know where you get your figures, but 186,874 Republican caucused.
There are 615,066 registered Republicans.
My little calculator tells me that this comes out to a little over 32.9% registered Republicans voted, not 20% like you claim.
Go to the Iowa Secretary of State and find out.What percentage of registered Democrats voted?
_________________________________________________________________________
You are right with the numbers for the Republicans.
The numbers for the democrats is difficult to tell. The Iowa Democratic Party’s numbers are different than the DNC.
Bernie Sanders is calling for the raw numbers from the Iowa cuscuses to be released as he is within 3 to 6 votes of Hillary Clinton but there was voter fraud and a coin-toss gimmick played by an Iowa precinct captain who was also a Hillary Clinton operative. Neither The Iowa Democratic Party nor The DNC has responded to Sanders call but both are all in for Hillary Clinton so looks like Bernie is out of luck.
This is going to get interesting in New Hampshire next Tuesday. NH has a large Independent contingency and many Libertarians who are big time Constitutionalists.
That’s okay. One State down and 40 States, The District and 6 Territories to go.
You seem to think the primary counts are some kind of a battle between the democrats and republicans.
You do realize that there's a relationship between the number of candidates and turnout as each of the candidates has a ground game to bring in their supporters.
________________________________________________________________________
What you think I am thinking is your assumption.
I never asserted any such thing other than that the turnout is a primary indicator of voter enthusiasm.
The Republicans had record breaking turnout and huge new/change party voter registrations.
The democrats lost voters aligned with their party.
The is a clear indication of where the people are in the 2016 Election.
I don't know where you get your figures, but 186,874 Republican caucused.
There are 615,066 registered Republicans.
My little calculator tells me that this comes out to a little over 32.9% registered Republicans voted, not 20% like you claim.
Go to the Iowa Secretary of State and find out.I got the number from Smerconish. You caught me. Mule made the assertion that the Republicans had a "massive" turnout. So Jerry... are you saying 32.9% is massive turnout? I hope you are because if you right wingers believe 32.9% is massive turnout you will never occupy the White House again.
20%? 32.9%? Aren't both failing grades? They sure were when I went to school.
Regarding the Democrat turnout, I don't know or care. I stated earlier that I actually caucused. I know it has low turnout. That is why I said the Iowa Caucus is not representative of America.
But some folks just got to be morons.
The Republicans had a massive turnout last night and the democrats did not.
1) I never said it was a massive turnout, but it's a lot better than most elections where as few as 8% of all registered voters show up.
2) I am an Independent, posted it here many times. I wold have to guess that either you forgot, or you were just trying to be divisive, or just trying to be denigrating. Guess what, didn't work. I forgive you.
3) Why don't you want to know what ratio of Democrats voted. You seemed quite interested in posting false numbers for the Republican ratio. Or was this another instance of "Let's pick on Mule with arcane false numbers"?
4) I would have to believe that the article you say you got your information has gotten buried in all the "new" news since the other day since even a search of Republican voter ratios doesn't turn up anything on the site. And I know you wouldn't just make it up, would you.
Interesting that this thread has turned to an argument over voter turnout rather than an analysis of which candidates did well and which failed to meet expectations and why. Since when has voter turnout become the paramount concern in the outcome of a caucus or primary?
If you really must focus on turnout at least discuss something interesting like why the turnout was high (or low). High turnout could be because voters are motivated behind a candidate, or it could be because voters are motivated to vote against a candidate. Which was it? Or maybe it's just the weather or what's on TV that evening.
Some candidates are helped by a high turnout while others are not. Who was helped and who was hurt because of the turnout in this case?
Arguing over the turnout numbers and sources of turnout information is not really constructive at all, is it?
Lots of generalizations being made here over a caucus. There's many more variables to consider than just turnout ratios.
If one wants to make a connection between what it means when more or less people show up for who or what at a caucus and try to connect that to how things will go in the general election, well, congrats. You just became a political pundit.
Primaries and caucuses are about choosing delegates to the convention, as we know. The Democrats use a proportional method. Regardless of coin-tosses and the general barely controlled chaos of a caucus, it shouldn't make one whit of difference to Bernie Sanders if there was even the slightest bit of malfeasance because in the end, he got nearly the same amount of delegates as Hillary (Hillary 23, Sanders 21). The GOP allows for each state to decide on a winner-take-all or proportional. In Iowa, the GOP uses the proportional method. So, even though Cruz got the most votes and the most delegates with eight, Trump and Rubio got seven delegates each.
If more Republicans showed up in Iowa than Democrats, is that really a surprise?
I don't know where you get your figures, but 186,874 Republican caucused.
There are 615,066 registered Republicans.
My little calculator tells me that this comes out to a little over 32.9% registered Republicans voted, not 20% like you claim.
Go to the Iowa Secretary of State and find out.I got the number from Smerconish. You caught me. Mule made the assertion that the Republicans had a "massive" turnout. So Jerry... are you saying 32.9% is massive turnout? I hope you are because if you right wingers believe 32.9% is massive turnout you will never occupy the White House again.
20%? 32.9%? Aren't both failing grades? They sure were when I went to school.
Regarding the Democrat turnout, I don't know or care. I stated earlier that I actually caucused. I know it has low turnout. That is why I said the Iowa Caucus is not representative of America.
But some folks just got to be morons.
The Republicans had a massive turnout last night and the democrats did not.
_________________________________________________________________________
Let's see if Billy has a clue.
"32.9%? Aren't both failing grades? They sure were when I went to school."
Okay, what is the average turnout % of voters in national elections?
Interesting that this thread has turned to an argument over voter turnout rather than an analysis of which candidates did well and which failed to meet expectations and why. Since when has voter turnout become the paramount concern in the outcome of a caucus or primary?
If you really must focus on turnout at least discuss something interesting like why the turnout was high (or low). High turnout could be because voters are motivated behind a candidate, or it could be because voters are motivated to vote against a candidate. Which was it? Or maybe it's just the weather or what's on TV that evening.
Some candidates are helped by a high turnout while others are not. Who was helped and who was hurt because of the turnout in this case?
Arguing over the turnout numbers and sources of turnout information is not really constructive at all, is it?
In this caucus the turnout for both parties had a lot to do with new voters, and especially, young voters.
Another point is that more Democrats re-registered as Republican than Republicans re-registered as Democrats. The GOP gained more voters than the Dems (2954 GOP, 2100 Dem).
The 18-49 age group had more new voters,or those that changed party, than the 50 and up group.
Last point on turnout percentages is that less than 17% of Iowan voters came to the caucus, mainly because there are more voters registered 'no party" than there are for either Dem or GOP ( 584k Dem,
612k GOP, 726k I). So the total turnout vs registered voters was low, but since those who list their preference as no-party cannot vote in either the Dem or GOP caucus (just over 1/3 of all voters) that number is irrelevant.
Turnout itself didn't help Trump or Hillary. News reports were that many young voters were outside some precincts waiting to vote for Sanders. Voters for the different GOP candidates kept Trump from getting his "blowout".
Watching the different crowds at the campaign parties, I saw mostly younger voters with families.
Basically, I think it went well. Lots of voters showed up, more young voters registered, and voted.
Record GOP turnout, Dem went down from 2012. Don't know why it did, but it did.
What's your catch on the caucus?
Note: All figures from Iowa Secretary of State.
1) I never said it was a massive turnout, but it's a lot better than most elections where as few as 8% of all registered voters show up.
2) I am an Independent, posted it here many times. I wold have to guess that either you forgot, or you were just trying to be divisive, or just trying to be denigrating. Guess what, didn't work. I forgive you.
3) Why don't you want to know what ratio of Democrats voted. You seemed quite interested in posting false numbers for the Republican ratio. Or was this another instance of "Let's pick on Mule with arcane false numbers"?
4) I would have to believe that the article you say you got your information has gotten buried in all the "new" news since the other day since even a search of Republican voter ratios doesn't turn up anything on the site. And I know you wouldn't just make it up, would you.
It wasn't an article. Never said it was. It was a radio program.
I was responding to the "massive turnout" assertion of Mule.
I'm not interested in the number of Democrats or Republicans. I'm just saying it was not a massive turnout.
A caucus isn't even a vote.
I too am an Independent. I'm a Left Wing Independent. Are you not Right Wing?
Regardless. I'm on my way to see Stanley Clarke tonight. Certainly don't have time for this. Have a great night! 
The whole charade is pointless. Hilarious Clinton is the choice of the NWO Corporation. Voting is a joke. Not quite sure what happened with their star boy Jeb, must have been some endgame reshuffle in the boardroom.
Hillary Clinton's voter fraud and corruption exposed by the media:
'Something smells:' Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa Dem caucus
Hillary Clinton's voter fraud and corruption exposed by the media:
'Something smells:' Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa Dem caucus
Fox news? Really? Liberal sites are to be ignored and then you post Fox News? You are a moron, Mr. Executive.
1) I never said it was a massive turnout, but it's a lot better than most elections where as few as 8% of all registered voters show up.
2) I am an Independent, posted it here many times. I wold have to guess that either you forgot, or you were just trying to be divisive, or just trying to be denigrating. Guess what, didn't work. I forgive you.
3) Why don't you want to know what ratio of Democrats voted. You seemed quite interested in posting false numbers for the Republican ratio. Or was this another instance of "Let's pick on Mule with arcane false numbers"?
4) I would have to believe that the article you say you got your information has gotten buried in all the "new" news since the other day since even a search of Republican voter ratios doesn't turn up anything on the site. And I know you wouldn't just make it up, would you.It wasn't an article. Never said it was. It was a radio program.
I was responding to the "massive turnout" assertion of Mule.
I'm not interested in the number of Democrats or Republicans. I'm just saying it was not a massive turnout.
A caucus isn't even a vote.
I too am an Independent. I'm a Left Wing Independent. Are you not Right Wing?
Regardless. I'm on my way to see Stanley Clarke tonight. Certainly don't have time for this. Have a great night!
No wonder I couldn't find an article on www.smerconish.com.
I've got to ask, why do you think a caucus isn't a vote?
I'm happy that you're an Independent voter. I vote Constitutionally, that is for the person running who will support the Constitution and not his party. Sometimes hard to find out which one holds to the Constitution more than others and will support the rights given by the Constitution than trying to water them down.
I haven't said it was a massive turnout either, but I will say again that when you have a record high amount of
voters show up, it needs recognition.
Sorry that you're not going to have more time to discuss the fine points, but have fun at the show.
Buh-bye.
This turnout argument you are having is hilarious. As if it really means anything to the rest of the nation. Only reason Iowa (and NH for that matter) get any attention in national politics is because they happen to go first every 4 years. By March Iowa will be forgotten and other than a handful of delegates and maybe some impact on fundraising, the results in Iowa mean next to nothing. Did anyone really think that Santorum or Huckabee would be POTUS or even the GOP nominee after winning Iowa the last two election cycles? It's not like Iowa is reflective of the nation in terms of demographics. So go ahead and read whatever you want into it, but in the big picture Iowa is pretty much meaningless.
[Edited on 2/5/2016 by gondicar]
I've got to ask, why do you think a caucus isn't a vote?
I've done both, in Iowa, and they are very different processes.
I haven't said it was a massive turnout either, but I will say again that when you have a record high amount of voters show up, it needs recognition.
I don't disagree. None of my posts were in reply to that premise. I was replying to Muleman's assertion that the Republicans had massive turnout and that somehow that equates to a massive Republican win over Democrats. That seems a ridiculous assertion.
I'm in full agreement with the following post by gondicar.
This turnout argument you are having is hilarious. As if it really means anything to the rest of the nation. Only reason Iowa (and NH for that matter) get any attention in national politics is because they happen to go first every 4 years. By March Iowa will be forgotten and other than a handful of delegates and maybe some impact on fundraising, the results in Iowa mean next to nothing. Did anyone really think that Santorum or Huckabee would be POTUS or even the GOP nominee after winning Iowa the last two election cycles? It's not like Iowa is reflective of the nation in terms of demographics. So go ahead and read whatever you want into it, but in the big picture Iowa is pretty much meaningless.
Sorry that you're not going to have more time to discuss the fine points, but have fun at the show.
Stanley Clarke was great. I was able to get the front table and sat right in front of the stage. The show was good, but Stanley showcased his drummer too much for my tastes. There were at least 4 drum solos. He also has a young kid on piano from the Republic of Georgia. The kid was discovered by Condoleezza Rice. He is a phenomenal talent and was not featured enough for my tastes.
The food was good. A decent platter of red beans, but the show could have been better.
Turnouts in the Iowa caucuses are somewhat meaningless for both sides. Most people do not vote in primaries or attend caucuses nationwide. The Iowa caucuses are difficult because they occur in the evening and last about an hour. If you work evening shifts or can't find a baby sitter or can't attend for any other reason, you are out of luck. This on its own lowers the turnout. Massive turnouts in a caucus will never happen. If the 32.9% figure is accurate, that is a good turnout for Iowa.
This turnout argument you are having is hilarious. As if it really means anything to the rest of the nation. Only reason Iowa (and NH for that matter) get any attention in national politics is because they happen to go first every 4 years. By March Iowa will be forgotten and other than a handful of delegates and maybe some impact on fundraising, the results in Iowa mean next to nothing. Did anyone really think that Santorum or Huckabee would be POTUS or even the GOP nominee after winning Iowa the last two election cycles? It's not like Iowa is reflective of the nation in terms of demographics. So go ahead and read whatever you want into it, but in the big picture Iowa is pretty much meaningless.
[Edited on 2/5/2016 by gondicar]
What argument?
You can read whatever you want to into my posts, but I believe that delegates are like pennies. A few here, a few there, and they end up a significant number.
This turnout argument you are having is hilarious. As if it really means anything to the rest of the nation. Only reason Iowa (and NH for that matter) get any attention in national politics is because they happen to go first every 4 years. By March Iowa will be forgotten and other than a handful of delegates and maybe some impact on fundraising, the results in Iowa mean next to nothing. Did anyone really think that Santorum or Huckabee would be POTUS or even the GOP nominee after winning Iowa the last two election cycles? It's not like Iowa is reflective of the nation in terms of demographics. So go ahead and read whatever you want into it, but in the big picture Iowa is pretty much meaningless.
[Edited on 2/5/2016 by gondicar]
What argument?
You can read whatever you want to into my posts, but I believe that delegates are like pennies. A few here, a few there, and they end up a significant number.
__________________________________________________________________________
Did you notice that numb-nuts downplays the 32.9% voter turnout for the Republicans which is about the same as the national turnout for presidential elections?
keller also ignores the less than turnout for the democrats.
The democrats have nothing more than a criminal/liar and a socialist to offer. It is not hard to understand the low enthusiasm of the left.
Turnout is everything in an election. it all comes down to the number of people who actually vote and so far, the Republicans win.
Now, sit back and watch the liberals cry.
I think we've whipped this one down from a post to a twig, so on to New Hampshire.
This turnout argument you are having is hilarious. As if it really means anything to the rest of the nation. Only reason Iowa (and NH for that matter) get any attention in national politics is because they happen to go first every 4 years. By March Iowa will be forgotten and other than a handful of delegates and maybe some impact on fundraising, the results in Iowa mean next to nothing. Did anyone really think that Santorum or Huckabee would be POTUS or even the GOP nominee after winning Iowa the last two election cycles? It's not like Iowa is reflective of the nation in terms of demographics. So go ahead and read whatever you want into it, but in the big picture Iowa is pretty much meaningless.
[Edited on 2/5/2016 by gondicar]
What argument?
You can read whatever you want to into my posts, but I believe that delegates are like pennies. A few here, a few there, and they end up a significant number.
True, but Iowa and New Hampshire combine for all of 10 electoral votes...
I think we've whipped this one down from a post to a twig, so on to New Hampshire.
__________________________________________________________________________
Watch for the excuses on Wednesday morning when Sanders beats Hillary like a rented... Mule.
