Check it out:
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
All members get a free subscription to Huffington Post.
Coming in second in Iowa is hardly losing. Poor Bernie thought Microsoft might mess with the outcome thru high tech means. Then, loses to Hillary in six precincts by coin toss -- stats about one in 64 of happening. Low tech cheating is much harder to catch.
Coming in second in Iowa is hardly losing. Poor Bernie thought Microsoft might mess with the outcome thru high tech means. Then, loses to Hillary in six precincts by coin toss -- stats about one in 64 of happening. Low tech cheating is much harder to catch.
--------------------------------
By: Upset Voter from Iowa: Stated the following:
According to Iowa's Democratic caucus guide; The Coin Toss was determined Incorrectly, .
I think they have been doing the coin tosses all wrong in Iowa anyways. They have been doing them in such a manner that the winner of the coin toss wins the delegate. But that is not how the rule is written.
Under Iowa's Democratic caucus guide, ties between two or more candidates can be determined by a coin toss.
The guide states: "Note: In a case where two or more preference groups are tied for the loss of a delegate, a coin shall be tossed to determine who loses the delegate."
It states the coin toss determines who loses the delegate, not who wins the delegate. My interpretation of this rule is that the candidate that wins the coin toss loses the delegate. I think it is stupid the rule is written like that. But, it is what it is and my interpretation is that the winner of the coin toss is the candidate that loses the delegate.
Hillary is LUCKY Again...1/64 chance winning all coin tosses. According to this Iowa Voter, Hillary should have lost the delegates.
River Runner posted:Coming in second in Iowa is hardly losing. Poor Bernie thought Microsoft might mess with the outcome thru high tech means. Then, loses to Hillary in six precincts by coin toss -- stats about one in 64 of happening. Low tech cheating is much harder to catch.
--------------------------------
By: Upset Voter from Iowa: Stated the following:
According to Iowa's Democratic caucus guide; The Coin Toss was determined Incorrectly, .
I think they have been doing the coin tosses all wrong in Iowa anyways. They have been doing them in such a manner that the winner of the coin toss wins the delegate. But that is not how the rule is written.
Under Iowa's Democratic caucus guide, ties between two or more candidates can be determined by a coin toss.
The guide states: "Note: In a case where two or more preference groups are tied for the loss of a delegate, a coin shall be tossed to determine who loses the delegate."
It states the coin toss determines who loses the delegate, not who wins the delegate. My interpretation of this rule is that the candidate that wins the coin toss loses the delegate. I think it is stupid the rule is written like that. But, it is what it is and my interpretation is that the winner of the coin toss is the candidate that loses the delegate.Hillary is LUCKY Again...1/64 chance winning all coin tosses. According to this Iowa Voter, Hillary should have lost the delegates.
Ordinarily, I accuse Hill's supporters of using a double headed coin. More likely, it was a two faced coin -- more fitting.