A coin toss??
WTF??
Yep.. Only dems could invent that as an election process.. Actually this morning -- it was up to SIX coin tosses and the Hilldebeast won them all.
Coin had an image of Debby Wasserman Shultz (Sgt Shultz) on both sides..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A coin toss??
WTF??
I was watching the coverage last night on msnbc and Maddow was actually beside herself with laughter that this was clearly fishy. I was shocked to see & hear her response to all of it.A coin toss??
WTF??
Yep.. Only dems could invent that as an election process.. Actually this morning -- it was up to SIX coin tosses and the Hilldebeast won them all.
Coin had an image of Debby Wasserman Shultz (Sgt Shultz) on both sides..
I think the coin was required to land & stay on its edge in order for Sanders to winHmmm....
'HEADS' - The lying, corrupt, incompetent Ex Sect of State who sacrificed 4 American lives and who is currently under investigations of Corruption and crimes under the Espionage Act who endangered the mission, lives, and the way the US collects Intel....
OR
'TAILS' - The old self-Professed Socialist Party Member who isn't even a member of the Democratic Party, only using them as a political platform!
WHAT A DEAL!
You dumbfucks are ALWAYS bitching about the GOP trying to make the election process too difficult for the public and now you're going to defend this bullshit?Democratic caucuses are quite undemocratic. Each precinct is apportioned a number of delegates based on Democratic turnout in the past two elections. It’s like an electoral college at a micro level.
This means turnout doesn’t matter. If a precinct is supposed to have five delegates to the county convention, it doesn’t matter if eight people show up to the Democratic caucus or 800. The precinct is still only getting five delegates. (Precincts elect people to the county convention, which elects people to the district convention, which elects people to the state convention.)
After attendees show up to a Democratic caucus, they are divided into preference groups based on candidates whom they support. Bernie Sanders supporters will stand in one area, Hillary Clinton supporters in another. Once everyone is separated, there is a first count of how many supporters each candidate has.
To be viable in each precinct, a candidate usually needs to receive the support of 15% of those who attend, although in some small rural precincts, the threshold is higher.
If a candidate’s support is under that threshold, his or her supporters need to induce others to join their group in order to reach 15%. If they are unsuccessful in doing so, their candidate is not considered viable and they can either go home or support a candidate who is viable instead. There is then a second count of supporters for each candidate and, from those totals, delegates are assigned.
This means that if Democratic candidates are polling under 15% statewide on caucus night, they could significantly underperform compared to their polling.
`````````````````````
RW's are too dumb to process that protocol, they should applaud a coin toss.
And Washermen Shultz flipped the coin. (-:A coin toss??
WTF??
Yep.. Only dems could invent that as an election process.. Actually this morning -- it was up to SIX coin tosses and the Hilldebeast won them all.
Coin had an image of Debby Wasserman Shultz (Sgt Shultz) on both sides..
You dumbfucks are ALWAYS bitching about the GOP trying to make the election process too difficult for the public and now you're going to defend this bullshit?Democratic caucuses are quite undemocratic. Each precinct is apportioned a number of delegates based on Democratic turnout in the past two elections. It’s like an electoral college at a micro level.
This means turnout doesn’t matter. If a precinct is supposed to have five delegates to the county convention, it doesn’t matter if eight people show up to the Democratic caucus or 800. The precinct is still only getting five delegates. (Precincts elect people to the county convention, which elects people to the district convention, which elects people to the state convention.)
After attendees show up to a Democratic caucus, they are divided into preference groups based on candidates whom they support. Bernie Sanders supporters will stand in one area, Hillary Clinton supporters in another. Once everyone is separated, there is a first count of how many supporters each candidate has.
To be viable in each precinct, a candidate usually needs to receive the support of 15% of those who attend, although in some small rural precincts, the threshold is higher.
If a candidate’s support is under that threshold, his or her supporters need to induce others to join their group in order to reach 15%. If they are unsuccessful in doing so, their candidate is not considered viable and they can either go home or support a candidate who is viable instead. There is then a second count of supporters for each candidate and, from those totals, delegates are assigned.
This means that if Democratic candidates are polling under 15% statewide on caucus night, they could significantly underperform compared to their polling.
`````````````````````
RW's are too dumb to process that protocol, they should applaud a coin toss.
GTFO
Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
No I mean to allege that the DNC wanted to make sure Hillary could claim victory. Think of it like a football season. You look at or talk about or brag about the win/loss ratio. This absurd conclusion to the Iowa caucus gives Hillary the ability to claim victory in her propaganda campaign. While the actual delegate count is rather meaningless the public perception of a victory is not.Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
So, you really mean to allege that Clinton operatives kidnapped dozens of people across three precincts, then secretly manipulated a fabricated coin toss, all just to effect a virtual tie?
Clinton needed to win big. Period. There's nothing especially victorious about this for Clinton. Squeaking by Sanders is as good as a loss. Don't you think if she were going to cheat she would go big?
No I mean to allege that the DNC wanted to make sure Hillary could claim victory. Think of it like a football season. You look at or talk about or brag about the win/loss ratio. This absurd conclusion to the Iowa caucus gives Hillary the ability to claim victory in her propaganda campaign. While the actual delegate count is rather meaningless the public perception of a victory is not.Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
So, you really mean to allege that Clinton operatives kidnapped dozens of people across three precincts, then secretly manipulated a fabricated coin toss, all just to effect a virtual tie?
Clinton needed to win big. Period. There's nothing especially victorious about this for Clinton. Squeaking by Sanders is as good as a loss. Don't you think if she were going to cheat she would go big?
Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
I think the coin was required to land & stay on its edge in order for Sanders to winHmmm....
'HEADS' - The lying, corrupt, incompetent Ex Sect of State who sacrificed 4 American lives and who is currently under investigations of Corruption and crimes under the Espionage Act who endangered the mission, lives, and the way the US collects Intel....
OR
'TAILS' - The old self-Professed Socialist Party Member who isn't even a member of the Democratic Party, only using them as a political platform!
WHAT A DEAL!
There's no question that it's a little goofy that anything like this is determined by coin flip. But it doesn't actually mean anything - the flips were for the state convention, not the actual convention, and in the end Hillary and Sanders will almost certainly split Iowa's 44 delegates right down the middle.
Sanders campaign was actually complaining last night idiot. 90 pricincts That they were strong in were not staffed properly.No I mean to allege that the DNC wanted to make sure Hillary could claim victory. Think of it like a football season. You look at or talk about or brag about the win/loss ratio. This absurd conclusion to the Iowa caucus gives Hillary the ability to claim victory in her propaganda campaign. While the actual delegate count is rather meaningless the public perception of a victory is not.Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
So, you really mean to allege that Clinton operatives kidnapped dozens of people across three precincts, then secretly manipulated a fabricated coin toss, all just to effect a virtual tie?
Clinton needed to win big. Period. There's nothing especially victorious about this for Clinton. Squeaking by Sanders is as good as a loss. Don't you think if she were going to cheat she would go big?
or you could think of it, if you could think.
Bernie doesn't seem to have much to say either way, and he's the one it should matter to not you.
think about that.
You will provide proof of that right?Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
dude, I think it was 5.
and they were televised.
and Bernie's people were there at the time.
you guys really need to stop making stuff up. seriously. i'm embarrassed for you
Sanders campaign was actually complaining last night idiot. 90 pricincts That they were strong in were not staffed properly.No I mean to allege that the DNC wanted to make sure Hillary could claim victory. Think of it like a football season. You look at or talk about or brag about the win/loss ratio. This absurd conclusion to the Iowa caucus gives Hillary the ability to claim victory in her propaganda campaign. While the actual delegate count is rather meaningless the public perception of a victory is not.Omfg. 3 coin tosses and Hillary won all 3!
I smell a rat!
So, you really mean to allege that Clinton operatives kidnapped dozens of people across three precincts, then secretly manipulated a fabricated coin toss, all just to effect a virtual tie?
Clinton needed to win big. Period. There's nothing especially victorious about this for Clinton. Squeaking by Sanders is as good as a loss. Don't you think if she were going to cheat she would go big?
or you could think of it, if you could think.
Bernie doesn't seem to have much to say either way, and he's the one it should matter to not you.
think about that.