Discussion: Des Moines Register Calls For Audit Of Iowa Dem Caucus: 'Something Smells'

jw1 · February 4, 2016, 2:25pm

Pleased to see your sense of humor sir!

jw1

pbj_diddy · February 4, 2016, 2:26pm

No, no. The Sanders people are right. Bernie actually got 90% and Hillary only got 10%, but the party hacks stole it for her. Also, there is enormous groundswell in the country for a 75 year old socialist who vows to raise everyone’s taxes – and the only reason the media and the republicans haven’t laid a glove on him is because there’s nothing there to criticize, while Hillary has endured 25 years of near-constant negative propaganda from the GOP because she’s really republican-lite and the corporations love her even though they (seemingly) are spending a billion dollars against her. Things are not what they seem, they are what you think they are. That’s the most obvious conclusion here.

tomdibble · February 4, 2016, 2:27pm

Didn’t happen. Paranoid delusions and a persecution complex led to a complete reversal of the actual facts.

The actual facts are that five of the six known Sanders-Clinton coin tosses were won by Sanders, not Clinton! And Sanders also won a Sanders-O’Malley coin toss! Anyone calling for an investigation into this “unlikely outcome”?

Now let’s talk coin tosses. One side winning 6 coin tosses is a 1 in 32 chance (2^6 == 64, but the same questionable result would be present no matter which side won so divide that by 2). One side winning five of six coin tosses is a 1 in 5.33 chance (2^6/6 = 10.67, then again divide by 2 because it would be just as interesting if Clinton did that as if Sanders did). We aren’t talking about lottery winner long-shot odds here. The purported six-toss sweep originally reported wasn’t nearly as unlikely as it was reported, and frankly fairly close to what one would expect with that low of a sampling rate (the standard deviation for 6 coin tosses is 3:3 +/- 2 each, so ranging from 5:1 to 1:5; we are just one outside standard deviation in that purported “suspicious” outcome!)

Please stop repeating this BS.

jordanolsen26 · February 4, 2016, 2:33pm

Caucuses are stupid and undemocratic. The whole system needs an overhaul.

We need a rotating primary schedule. For example:

You place the states in tiers based on population (Texas, California, New York in Tier 1, North Dakota, Montana, in tier 5).
For 2020 you draw say one from Tier #1, one from Tier #2, two from Tier #3, three from Tier 4, and three from tier 5. This way you have a random selection of states, but you don’t end up with one presidential election starting with New York, California, and Texas all in the first round.
Then you have 5 primary dates. The first date 10 states vote. Candidates have to split their time as they see best. Will they pander to the biggest state? Maybe. That’s their strategy.
In 2024, the next 10 will go first. and the first group of 10 that got to vote first in 2020 will vote in the final primary vote.

Maybe this wouldn’t work, but we need to do something to stop the candidates from pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire every election and having two of the most non diverse states be the start of the winnowing process.

khaaannn · February 4, 2016, 2:36pm

Why are they not calling for an investigation of the REPUBLICAN Caucuses?
Because the Des Moines Register is a reliable tool of the Republican Party. Always has been.
The way Cruz suckered the Carson voters to vote for him is WAY more stinky than anything on the Democratic side (and if you have EVER been to a Caucus you know they are ALWAYS like this) and the Republicans DESPERATELY want Sanders as the Democratic candidate so they can run against a “Wild-haired, Shouting, Finger-Wagging, Old, Socialist, Atheist, Brooklyn-Jew” as the TV Attack Ads and whisper-campaigns just write themselves.
Nothing to see here. Move along.

khaaannn · February 4, 2016, 2:38pm

Especially considering the fact that NOBODY knows how many “coin-tosses” actually occured.
The Des Moines Register based their “6 Coin Tosses” on a scan of SOCIAL MEDIA. Nothing more.
The entire thing smacks of a co-ordinated attack on Hillary by the Republicans, desperate to make Sanders the candidate.

ralph_vonholst · February 4, 2016, 2:41pm

Also, A postieriori vs a prior probability. Chance of 6 Heads in a row = 1/64. Chance of the next toss being heads still = 1/2.

established_1781 · February 4, 2016, 2:40pm

Easy there, Iowa.

‘Coin-toss’ Clinton isn’t going to like you plebeians questioning her decisive .02% ‘victory’.

The “proud moderate” may become quite vexed with you.

thunderhawk · February 4, 2016, 2:44pm

The delegate margin (701-697) won’t change. The delegate numbers would be very difficult to fuck up. I can just about guarantee that those numbers weren’t reported errantly. This is a goddamn waste of time.

In our precinct, Hillary had twice as many supporters but only won delegates 5-3 due to the rules:

http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IDP-Caucus-Math-One-Pager.pdf

Ergo “winning” and “losing” is a fallacious premise.

The media is such a bunch of fucking shit-slinging whores. The caucus isn’t an election with absolute winners and losers; it’s a delegate grab. Even on the Republican side, Trump only got one fewer delegate than Calgary Ted, 8-7. Cruz “beat” Trump in the thinnest of ways. Team Obama understood in 2008 that the media was a bunch of fucking hyenas and focused like a laser on bagging delegates. They didn’t give many fucks about “winning” outright after Iowa (which they needed to “win” in the media to prove viability.)

bdtex · February 4, 2016, 2:45pm

And then there’s threats,at least from the DNC,to strip other states of delegates if they move their primaries up. I’ll never forgive the DNC for 2008 nor donate to them ever again.

canary02 · February 4, 2016, 2:48pm

You’d thing the DM Register would know that there can’t be a recount of a caucus. Democrats vote with their bodies, and we’ve all gone home!

daveyjones64 · February 4, 2016, 2:49pm

Agreed. And as I said, NH could care less about that threat. The media coverage the garner from being First in the Nation far outweighs the actual delegate impact they have on the nomination process.

jw1 · February 4, 2016, 2:49pm

I’d have been upset had you slandered monkeys.

jw1

jw1 · February 4, 2016, 2:51pm

So now you’ve done it!

jw1

established_1781 · February 4, 2016, 2:54pm

Yeah, she’s just like us, really. Doesn’t everybody get half a million dollars to make a speech?

Her regular fee is $200,000.00. Goldman Sachs paid her the extra $475,000.00 because she told really funny jokes.

pixwhite · February 4, 2016, 2:59pm

Something smells alright … how about we lose the caucus idea entirely. Talk about undemocratic! IA represents 1% of total delegates and Hillary and Sanders split them … let’s all move on and instead ask ourselves why we start with two of the whitest states in the country to decide the candidate for president … those are way more important questions than obsessing over coin tosses and caucus shenanigans.

occamsrazor2 · February 4, 2016, 3:05pm

And the same DMR editorial board that is now calling for a recount endorsed Hillary Clinton, so that’s further proof of their dishonest bias.

ralph_vonholst · February 4, 2016, 3:09pm

I don’t know about you, but I’m definitely not worth that kind of money, and Mrs Von Holst agrees.

littlegirlblue · February 4, 2016, 3:08pm

The Register endorsed Clinton, so I wouldn’t want to see what her opposition would say. But on caucuses and their usefulness, from everything I’ve seen and read they seem to be the antithesis of democracy and openness if for no other reason that people who don’t or can’t attend are not part of the process.

occamsrazor2 · February 4, 2016, 3:09pm

It endorsed Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio in their respective Iowa primarys.