Hillary vs Bernie coming down to the wire in Iowa, Cruz wins over Trump

[Ns1]

gravity has a pro-Clinton bias.

I think that's actually my biggest problem with Sanders - dude looks 0% like a president.

 

[HomerJS]

gravity has a pro-Clinton bias.

Gravity is just a theory. Conservatives have doubts

 

[theeedude]

If Hillary really won 6/6 coin tosses, that's 1/64 chance, God must be on her side this season.

 

[Jhhnn]

Iowa democrats need to release the popular vote count, so we know who the people really supported. If Hillary had won it, they would have released it by now.

Yeh, must be a conspiracy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think that's actually my biggest problem with Sanders - dude looks 0% like a president.

He reminds me of a mad scientist.

 

[flexy]

I think that's actually my biggest problem with Sanders - dude looks 0% like a president.

Ever thought that could be a good thing, "not looking" like a president?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think that's actually my biggest problem with Sanders - dude looks 0% like a president.

and rMoney looked like he was made at a 'make-a-president' doll factory.

 

[buckshot24]

I read she won 6. but yeah 4 is possible..but still slim.

Oh that's different. A 1 in 64 chance. hmmm

 

[Subyman]

They should have split the delegates evenly. No random bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

They should have split the delegates evenly. No random bullshit.

Well the rules have been set that way for awhile beforehand now if I'm not mistaken, so you can't change them after the fact.

That being said, they should absolutely get rid of this stupid system as soon as possible. Hell, we should get rid of Iowa as the first primary state too while we're at it. Make it into a rotating primary schedule so every state gets a chance to be first.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ] Hell, we should get rid of Iowa as the first primary state too while we're at it. Make it into a rotating primary schedule so every state gets a chance to be first.

Rotating? Yes, good idea. Every state? Bad idea. It's important to start with smaller states so fresh faces have a chance to build support. If you start in a big state or region, then money rules all and the only candidates who have a chance are establishment favorites and billionaires. I don't want that, and I suspect you don't either.

 

[nageov3t]

They should have split the delegates evenly. No random bullshit.

caucuses are absolutely bizarre and terrible... said every Clinton '08 supporter. lol

 

[fskimospy]

Rotating? Yes, good idea. Every state? Bad idea. It's important to start with smaller states so fresh faces have a chance to build support. If you start in a big state or region, then money rules all and the only candidates who have a chance are establishment favorites and billionaires. I don't want that, and I suspect you don't either.

I do want every state, actually. Small states already have innumerable electoral advantages over larger ones and their interests frequently diverge significantly from those of larger states. I don't think the argument for permanently codifying yet another small state electoral advantage into our presidential selection system is a good idea.

Or put more succinctly, I don't think that it's a good idea to base our electoral system on the price of media markets. Every state deserves an equal chance to have its priorities come first. Or hell, just have a national primary day.

 

[Ns1]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[nageov3t]

according to https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-clintons-6-for-6-coin-toss-victories-were/ the 6/6 coin toss is wrong.

Hillary did win 6, but there were also several coin tosses that went in Sanders' favor and the end results were closer to 50/50.

 

[Bowfinger]

I do want every state, actually. Small states already have innumerable electoral advantages over larger ones and their interests frequently diverge significantly from those of larger states. I don't think the argument for permanently codifying yet another small state electoral advantage into our presidential selection system is a good idea.

Or put more succinctly, I don't think that it's a good idea to base our electoral system on the price of media markets. Every state deserves an equal chance to have its priorities come first. Or hell, just have a national primary day.

So what's your solution to the funding issue, or are you OK with limiting elections to establishment favorites and billionaires?

 

[fskimospy]

So what's your solution to the funding issue, or are you OK with limiting elections to establishment favorites and billionaires?

I don't think that the first state a primary is held in has such enormous influence that starting in a large state would mean only those backed by the establishment or billionaires would win. It does give that state greater influence, but that's the whole point. As we have it now the entire first month of the primary season where numerous candidates already drop out due to their poor showing takes place in states where the combined population is smaller than Pennsylvania.

So basically I just don't see how the advantages to better funded candidates are so great that they eclipse the problems with giving tiny states such an outsized role in selecting candidates. Why is it we have spent $90 billion or so on corn subsidies over the last 10 years but California has huge unfunded infrastructure needs? The Iowa caucuses certainly don't help. Considering the vast array of electoral advantages that small states enjoy for reasons that really don't make any sense in modern America anyway it's hard for me to accept an argument for furthering them.

 

[waggy]

according to https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-clintons-6-for-6-coin-toss-victories-were/ the 6/6 coin toss is wrong.

Hillary did win 6, but there were also several coin tosses that went in Sanders' favor and the end results were closer to 50/50.

that's far more likely. winning 6 out 6 lead me to believe someone was cheating for her. But the article says it was more of a 50-50 win on both. that is logical and believable.

 

[Bowfinger]

I don't think that the first state a primary is held in has such enormous influence that starting in a large state would mean only those backed by the establishment or billionaires would win. It does give that state greater influence, but that's the whole point. As we have it now the entire first month of the primary season where numerous candidates already drop out due to their poor showing takes place in states where the combined population is smaller than Pennsylvania.

My point is that a candidate has to have deep pockets to run a campaign in a large state like California or New York, or a multi-state event like Super Tuesday. Without the bankroll, candidates are invisible in big venues. They will never even get started. The retail politics of smaller states gives good candidates an opportunity to make their case and become visible. This opens the doors to the money they need to be competitive on Super Tuesday.

So basically I just don't see how the advantages to better funded candidates are so great that they eclipse the problems with giving tiny states such an outsized role in selecting candidates. Why is it we have spent $90 billion or so on corn subsidies over the last 10 years but California has huge unfunded infrastructure needs? The Iowa caucuses certainly don't help. Considering the vast array of electoral advantages that small states enjoy for reasons that really don't make any sense in modern America anyway it's hard for me to accept an argument for furthering them.

Two points. There are plenty of other small states besides Iowa. You'll also note that Cruz one last night in spite of his stance against such subsidies. While corn subsidies are certainly an issue in Iowa, it's only one of many.

 

[fskimospy]

My point is that a candidate has to have deep pockets to run a campaign in a large state like California or New York, or a multi-state event like Super Tuesday. Without the bankroll, candidates are invisible in big venues. They will never even get started. The retail politics of smaller states gives good candidates an opportunity to make their case and become visible. This opens the doors to the money they need to be competitive on Super Tuesday.

I mean I get what you're saying, I just think the costs outweigh the benefits. There isn't a candidate in the race that you see even in Iowa that hasn't raised millions in contributions, so it's not like nobodies really get in there anyway.

The basic argument as I understand it is that we should give small states a permanent preference in winnowing the presidential field because you think it will give us a greater collection of candidates to choose from. My position would be that the greater proportion of candidates is smaller than you think because while the small states might give people without a lot of money a chance they also preclude candidates that have greater appeal to larger states. In addition, a lot of these benefits that small states get are probably economically inefficient anyway.

Two points. There are plenty of other small states besides Iowa. You'll also note that Cruz one last night in spite of his stance against such subsidies. While corn subsidies are certainly an issue in Iowa, it's only one of many.

Sure, but other small states will have other similarly silly policies they will go after. Let small states enjoy their disproportionate senate, house, and electoral college representation without giving them even more.

 

[Exophase]

If Hillary really won 6/6 coin tosses, that's 1/64 chance, God must be on her side this season.

Yeah that sounds like the best explanation :hmm:

I'm going to wait to see if this story about Hillary getting 6/6 coin flips is really even validated because it sounds like the kind of thing that could be born from rumor or exaggeration. If it really did happen I'd like to know more about what they did to ensure that a fair coin was used and a fair flip was performed.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah that sounds like the best explanation :hmm:

I'm going to wait to see if this story about Hillary getting 6/6 coin flips is really even validated because it sounds like the kind of thing that could be born from rumor or exaggeration. If it really did happen I'd like to know more about what they did to ensure that a fair coin was used and a fair flip was performed.

Turns out the 6/6 thing was bullshit. There were more coin flips and the total outcome was fairly close to 50/50.

 

[Subyman]

Turns out the 6/6 thing was bullshit. There were more coin flips and the total outcome was fairly close to 50/50.

That is what I get for trusting the internet

 

[Exophase]

Turns out the 6/6 thing was bullshit. There were more coin flips and the total outcome was fairly close to 50/50.

Yeah, I saw that article link after posting. I had a pretty good feeling it didn't really happen like that.

 

[werepossum]

Gravity is just a theory. Conservatives have doubts

If Hillary really won 6/6 coin tosses, that's 1/64 chance, God must be on her side this season.

This is Hillary Clinton: God will be where she damn well tells him to be.

Rotating? Yes, good idea. Every state? Bad idea. It's important to start with smaller states so fresh faces have a chance to build support. If you start in a big state or region, then money rules all and the only candidates who have a chance are establishment favorites and billionaires. I don't want that, and I suspect you don't either.

Isn't that kind of backward? Small states have limited media. Seems to me that a well-funded candidate could swamp the airwaves and thus crowd out the poorly funded candidates.