How do Demoscats pick a winner? (Not a typo)

[bambino]

Flip a fuckin coin!!!!! LMAO

[IIFFOFRDB]

Most of the time they just vote for the communist that says "Raise taxes on the Rich"...

http://clashdaily.com/2016/02/misinf...t-liberals-do/

Misinforming Voters About ‘The Rich’ and Taxes — It’s What Liberals Do

It is often said that the rich tend to be Republicans – while the poor tend to be Democrats. This has statistically been proven wrong. Clinton, Roosevelt, Kennedy. Carter, etc. were extremely wealthy Democrats. Many wealthy entertainers, athletes, investors are Democrats. Conversely, Republicans’ Reagan, Nixon, Bush, etc. were relatively low on the wealth scale.

The facts are that there are as many rich Democrats as rich Republicans. However, there are more poor Democrats than poor Republicans. Why is that? The Democrat Party tends to focus primarily on societal development – societal change – societal entitlements – versus traditional character development. This emphasis requires a strong, powerful, all-controlling central government. Thus Democrats tend to be more focused on politics and politicians and government programs and regulations – than Republicans.

Republicans on the other hand, tend to focus on the individual – via traditional character development – to which much of America’s historical prosperity is attributed. Accordingly, Republicans tend to advocate a strong work ethic, high productivity, entrepreneurialism, investment, and meeting the needs, wants and expectations of the public at large. Thus, Republicans favor smaller government and minimal political power.

So the next time you hear that the rich are Republicans and the poor are Democrats – don’t be fooled. That’s nonsense. That’s a myth promoted by Leftist ideologues in an effort to attract Democrat voters. And the Left is counting on the people to stay uninformed, so they can pass the rest of their agenda.

For instance, Democrats’ tax policy: In a free society, all taxes are eventually paid by consumers – in the prices they pay for goods and services.

Taxation is a cost of living, and a cost of doing business in America – like heat, electricity, rent, employees, healthcare, pensions, invested capital, interest payments, materials, etc. These costs are inevitably passed along to consumers in the price of products and services provided.

There is no way of escaping this reality. Unfortunately, too many under-informed people think stuff from the government is free. That’s what leftist politicians want you to think. That’s never the case. Even those totally on the dole pay hidden taxes captured in the goods and services they purchase with their “free government” money.

Capital gains taxes have nearly doubled under Obama. By discouraging capital investment, economic growth will decline as businesses, inventors and entrepreneurs withdraw their investment of time and money in the American economy. Clearly more and more dollars are being invested overseas these days – and profits earned overseas are retained and invested overseas rather than brought back to the USA for the benefit of the American worker.



Obama also wants to raise the maximum, personal income tax to almost 40%. That’s $.40 out of every dollar earned. Again this will discourage personal investment and career commitments of the best and brightest in America. Many companies have relocated and are relocating to reasonable tax-haven countries. Higher taxes will only accelerate this trend. As businessmen and investors devote more and more of their working time overseas, they avoid the outrageous US taxes on their foreign unemployment.

See the attached IRS summary of Obama’s tax strategy. If you get it, write your congressman and senators to file your opposition to the excessive tax-and-spend philosophy depicted in Obama’s budget and promoted by candidates Hillary and Bernie. If money is needed for new programs, the government should get it by diminishing or ending old and outdated government programs of which there are many.

See the attached IRS summary of Obama’s tax strategy.

[lustylad]

Thàt coin toss thing surprised me. Didn't any GOP caucuses wind up tied? Are the tie-breaker rules different for each party?

[JD Barleycorn]

I recommend that we do away with elections and campaigning. Lets have a series of coin tosses around the country to choose our candidates and then to find the winner. We could end all this mud slinging tomorrow and maybe the Green Party would win something.

[beguilingvoice]

It can make sense to use a coin flip in rare cases. For example; if 10 people are divided in to 2 groups of 5 and after a hour of political debate. With an odd number of delgates, the uneven delagate is given to one canidate by an 50%/50% random chance.

The caucus is a tool for each party to grow. Choosing a canidate is just how they get new people to meet and hopefully join in the cult each party has become

[Guest042616-1]

If anyone wants to educate themselves on how this actually works.

In short, there are 1681 state delegates, we don't know how many were determined by a coin flip (to put in perspective, the reports of 6 would be only 0.4%), but there are conflicting reports on who fared better.

Why not just split them 50/50 throughout the state? I don't know. Seems like the better way. But a coin flip, if done many times, is going to end up being pretty close to 50/50, and small deviations from 50/50 are only going to influence the outcome on the scale of around 0.4%, which is to say, not very much if at all.

[The_Waco_Kid]

those coins were rigged! lol. what are the odds you'd win 6 coin tosses in a row ..

http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-...6-coin-tosses/

1.6 %

The Iowa Democratic caucus vote count was so close last night that at least 6 precincts were decided by flipping a coin — an obscure procedure in the Iowa caucus bylaws. And in all 6 instances, the last remaining county delegate went to Hillary Clinton. Winning 6 coin tosses in a row is extraordinarily rare, and only has a 1.6 percent probability of occurring. As journalist Ben Norton explained, that’s broken down by calculating (1/2)^6, which is 1/64 — or 1.6 percent.

If Bernie Sanders had won half of the coin flips and split the six county delegates three and three with Clinton, he would have finished at 698.49 delegates to Clinton’s 696.57, effectively giving him an Iowa victory. According to a live map of all Iowa precincts, Clinton has a razor-thin 0.3 percent lead over the Vermont U.S. Senator with 99.9 percent of precincts reporting.

what a lucky cunt!

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

those coins were rigged! lol. what are the odds you'd win 6 coin tosses in a row ..

http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-...6-coin-tosses/

1.6 %

The Iowa Democratic caucus vote count was so close last night that at least 6 precincts were decided by flipping a coin — an obscure procedure in the Iowa caucus bylaws. And in all 6 instances, the last remaining county delegate went to Hillary Clinton. Winning 6 coin tosses in a row is extraordinarily rare, and only has a 1.6 percent probability of occurring. As journalist Ben Norton explained, that’s broken down by calculating (1/2)^6, which is 1/64 — or 1.6 percent.

If Bernie Sanders had won half of the coin flips and split the six county delegates three and three with Clinton, he would have finished at 698.49 delegates to Clinton’s 696.57, effectively giving him an Iowa victory. According to a live map of all Iowa precincts, Clinton has a razor-thin 0.3 percent lead over the Vermont U.S. Senator with 99.9 percent of precincts reporting.

what a lucky cunt!

Was Steve Harvey doing the coin flip ?

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

those coins were rigged! lol. what are the odds you'd win 6 coin tosses in a row ..

http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-...6-coin-tosses/

1.6 %

The Iowa Democratic caucus vote count was so close last night that at least 6 precincts were decided by flipping a coin — an obscure procedure in the Iowa caucus bylaws. And in all 6 instances, the last remaining county delegate went to Hillary Clinton. Winning 6 coin tosses in a row is extraordinarily rare, and only has a 1.6 percent probability of occurring. As journalist Ben Norton explained, that’s broken down by calculating (1/2)^6, which is 1/64 — or 1.6 percent.

If Bernie Sanders had won half of the coin flips and split the six county delegates three and three with Clinton, he would have finished at 698.49 delegates to Clinton’s 696.57, effectively giving him an Iowa victory. According to a live map of all Iowa precincts, Clinton has a razor-thin 0.3 percent lead over the Vermont U.S. Senator with 99.9 percent of precincts reporting.

what a lucky cunt!

Except if you bothered to read my link, you would see that "6 in a row" number is highly questionable.

If one thing is for sure, they need to do this much more transparently and with a much better paper trail.