U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Queen]

It's official. Cruz wins with 28%. Trump comes in second at 24% and Rubio settles at 23%.

 

Honestly, I don't like Cruz. I don't agree with many of his stances, and his overall personality rubs me the same way as nails on a chalk board.

 

Ah well, it's still a long road ahead.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Queen

[Not A Nice Person]

So far Hillary is 49.8%

Bernie rose to 49.6%

Malley is at...

 

 

 

0.5%

 

EDIT:

Hillary: 50.2%

Bernie: 49.3%

Malley: .5%

Edited February 2, 2016 by Sayuri

[gooeyhole]

Iowa doesn't mean much. A New York City billionaire took 5 delegates. Huckabee won Iowa in 2008. McCain and Romney won New Hampshire so we will see. Was really hoping Clinton would get her ass kicked by Bernie tbh. I expected Iowa to lean towards Cruz or Rubio.

 

Another disappointing part of the Iowa caucus was Rand. Thought he'd surge. Benzo Carson did better than him. Damn.

[darthYENIK]

Iowa. You beauty. I can't wait to see how Trump handles this. My money is on him calling Iowa "losers", and never admitting that Cruz won Iowa.

[gooeyhole]

Iowa. You beauty. I can't wait to see how Trump handles this. My money is on him calling Iowa "losers", and never admitting that Cruz won Iowa.

Trump doesn't care about Iowa. It's New Hampshire he has to win.

[darthYENIK]

He still lost Iowa. He lost at something. Have you ever heard him admit to any failure? He'll spin Iowa so fast it's going to puke over Illinois and onto Indiana.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

Amazing how close it is between Bernie and Hillary. Months ago he was polling single digits and he's now in a virtual tie with her in the Iowa caucus.

[Flachbau]

Not to sound like a dick, but I hope now that Iowa is finished with, some of the Republican Candidates will realize they don't have such a great chance, forcing them to drop out. Maybe some of them are waiting until the New Hampshire primaries to really decide on what to do. I would like to see more condensed debates and public forums from now on.

[Svip]

How is that sounding like a dick, Android? If any of the non-Trump/Cruz Republican candidates care about their party, they should drop out and unite behind a candidate. This 12-horse race is just dividing the party further. Now I don't mind watching the carnage, but carnage isn't usually a good thing for the people involved.

 

So it appears it was a tie on the Democratic side (49.9% v. 49.6%, that's basically a tie), with Cruz (27.7%) beating Trump (24.3%) on the Republican side, while Rubio had a strong third showing (23.1%).

 

Now I know a lot will point out that Iowa haven't accurately predicted the nominee for a long time. But Iowa is unfortunately important, because it shapes the campaign, even if it doesn't predict the nominee.

 

For instance, Sanders' strong showing in Iowa (more than anyone expected) will make him appear a far more viable candidate to those who doubted he could beat Clinton. Otherwise the story would just have been that he won New Hampshire because he is from Vermont. Effectively ensuring that Sanders' campaign lives on (at least a few weeks yet).

 

On the Republican side, it would be an indicator for whom the party elite should unite behind: Rubio. They are scared of Trump and terrified of Cruz. And since New Hampshire is a better playground for establishment candidate, Iowa is a decent indicator of how their candidatures do in more non-establishment territory. And Rubio did well. The fact that Trump didn't win probably doesn't mean much for the media narrative about Trump. Maybe the fact that his numbers may have been overblown.

 

In short; I'd argue that the Iowa results have prolonged the fight on Democratic side and perhaps been a slight breath of relief for the Republicans (with a strong Rubio showing).

 

I first expect Republicans to drop like flies after New Hampshire. Kasich, Christie and Bush are basically betting their campaigns on New Hampshire. But it might be time for Santorum to go. Huckabee did it, considering it was a state they should have an easy time in and they did pretty bad.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Svip

[Flachbau]

Not entirely sure, just didn't want to create any distress here as I don't normally voice opinions here. I agree with you, the party would be better off without a major influx of candidates. The polls and the results from the Iowa Caucus show that there are only three main people in this race, maybe four, if you want to count Carson.. I assume some of them still hold very high expectations of themselves, and believe they'll get better results in other states, but then that just leaves them hanging on a very thin thread. Iowa's results have practically narrowed it down enough for us to know what people want. I feel a bit empathetic towards Rand Paul, because he seems to be the most level headed and formal candidate in the bunch. Tonight must've really hurt for him, considering his father polled 21% I believe in 2012.

 

On the Democratic side, it's going to be a very bumpy road from here on out. Clinton and Sanders are neck and neck, and I'm sure Clinton is a bit nervous at this point, assuming she thought she would have a larger lead. I think Sanders has enough momentum to pull through with very similar results in New Hampshire, if not greater. Does he have enough momentum to really wow the rest of the country + Clinton supporters? Maybe.. but he'll have to pull off better performances in future debates and public forums. Clinton is most likely going to try and throw a few punches, but I don't think it will affect Sanders much.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Android

[Svip]

Since a lot of the candidates are betting their chances on New Hampshire, we won't see a lot more drop outs before next week. I assume Santorum is waiting for a Southern state. And as far as I know, Bush ought to be rather popular in South Carolina, considering how popular his brother is. Unfortunately, polling data does not show the same thing (he is polling at 9% in South Carolina). Even so, I think Bush will definitely stay on until after Super Tuesday.

 

What happens after New Hampshire depends a lot on the result. But I do suspect at least some dropping out.

 

On the Democratic side of things, Sanders is almost certain to win New Hampshire. And it makes good sense too. New Hampshire shares a brotherly connection with Vermont as they are neighbours, so Sanders is basically competing on home turf here. This is also while that if Sanders had only won New Hampshire and no other states, the narrative would have been straightforward. But with a tie in Iowa, there may be more to Sanders than meets the eye.

 

Clinton's 'victory speech' (although she didn't actually declare victory) may come back to haunt her. Her defence will be that it wasn't a victory speech, even though it may have sounded like one. In my view (and perhaps others') it makes her seem slightly out of touch.

 

Moreover, if Clinton starts throwing punches at Sanders, that would be unwise. So far the Democratic campaigns have benefited from being largely positive (particularly compared to the Republican primaries), which shows in the debates. Sanders have no reason to go negative, because that would distract his campaign from being issue orientated. The candidates have so far only attacked each other on the issues, and only superficially so. Clinton attacking Sanders make her seem desperate, and that's not a description that fits her.

 

After New Hampshire comes Nevada for the Democrats (a state that gets ridiculously little attention), and then South Carolina which Clinton is currently incredibly likely to win. But who knows what happens after Iowa and New Hampshire? Even if Sanders doesn't win South Carolina, but has a strong showing there, it could maintain his momentum.

 

All in all, it looks like it is shaping up to be one of the most interesting US elections in a long time.

[Not A Nice Person]

Was really hoping Clinton would get her ass kicked by Bernie tbh.

Yeah me too but she's going to jail anyway so she's getting her ass kicked either way regardless of Bernie.

[am30]

He still lost Iowa. He lost at something. Have you ever heard him admit to any failure? He'll spin Iowa so fast it's going to puke over Illinois and onto Indiana.

 

He's lost at plenty in his time. Just twists it into a win. I mean, I wish I failed so hard that those I borrowed from couldn't afford for me to go bankrupt so they had to get me to succeed. Also, I wish my Dad would give me $1 million (rather have £1 million as it would go further) but he doesn't have that kind of cash.

 

I don't care who wins. As long as it's not Trump.

[860]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/267586-microsoft-on-the-hot-seat-in-iowa

 

 

Microsoft volunteered to provide the technology to help tally up the results of Iowa's caucuses, free of charge. Now it will be put to the test Monday night.

 

Pete D’Alessandro, who runs the Sanders operation in Iowa, last week questioned the tech giant’s motivations. However, the campaign declined to expand on its concerns after multiple requests for clarification.

 

Other aides to Sanders noted that Microsoft employees have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton campaign, according to MSNBC.

 

“You’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free,” D’Alessandro said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/31/one-marco-rubios-biggest-financial-backers-tally-iowa-caucuses/

 

 

Microsoft, founded by leading H-1B/amnesty cheerleader Bill Gates, has been [Marco] Rubio’s No. 2 corporate donor the past five years.

 

Microsoft founder Bill Gates is a member of Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration lobbying firm FWD.us and former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is a co-chair of the immigration lobbying firm the Partnership for a New American Economy—along with Fox News’s founder Rupert Murdoch.

Both immigration lobbying firms have endorsed and lobbied for Marco Rubio’s 2015 immigration expansion bill—known as the Immigration Innovation Act, or I-Sqaured—which would have tripled the issuances of low-wage H-1B guest worker visas.

According to USCIS data analyzed by ComputerWorld’s Patrick Thibodeau, Microsoft is the 12th biggest user of the H-1B program—having brought in 1,048 foreign workers on H-1Bs in 2013.

-Marco Rubio supports H-1B visas.

-Microsoft wants cheap IT workers on H-1B visas

-Microsoft donates to Rubio.

-Rubio hasn't risen above 12% in the polls.

-Microsoft counts the votes in Iowa.

-Rubio is all of the sudden 1% behind Trump.

 

I'm not saying this is 100% confirmation that they diddled with the votes, but it smells real fishy.

 

Also, Ted Cruz's campaign staff spread rumours in Iowa and on social media that Carson was dropping out and that Carson supporters should vote for Cruz instead. Afterwards they tried to blame it on Trump. The guy is supposedly ex-CIA (according to himself) and is part of a company called Applied Memetics LCC. Paid internet shills. I don't think he's been in the CIA if he makes these kinds of mistakes. What an amateur.

 

 

 

 

And here's the same thing in an email.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by 860

[Stephan90]

Money DOES win elections: How Hillary won at least six Iowa precincts by coin toss

• State rules say a coin-toss is the way to settle a dead heat in Iowa caucus
• Six precincts tossed to decide between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton
• Clinton won all six coin tosses. The odds of that are 64-to-1, or 1.5 per cent
• Her supporters called heads for two of them, and tails for another two, it is not clear what they called for the other two successful coin tosses

 

yes sure, at six locations they had exactly the same number of votes and Hillary was lucky six times with the coin tosses, and I have tamed a unicorn, that sh*ts coins, yesterday.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427637/Money-DOES-win-elections-Hillary-won-two-Iowa-precincts-coin-toss.html

[KyleKeeling]

Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have had a 43% success rate at predicting which Democratic candidate for president and a 50% success rate at predicting which Republican candidate for president will go on to win the nomination of their political party

Edited February 2, 2016 by KyleKeeling

[darthYENIK]

Coin toss? Ties?

 

It's ridiculous. I really don't blame any conspiracy theorists out there that believe this is a fix. Just count the ballots, and if it's a tie, it's a tie. One precinct is not going to decide who becomes the nominee. And even then if it does, there could be ways to decide a winner, without a game of chance involved. Instead of going to the delegates, count how many states voted one way or the other, if there's a tie there, go to districts, if there's a tie there, go to individual precincts. If there's a tie there, by all means, flip a f*cking coin.

 

Why is it, when we get down to government, we have to never change anything. This "presidents have been decided this way for two hundred years" bullsh*t needs to stop. It's the 21st century. I'm sure there is a thousand less corruptible* ways to do it. And if you're going to flip a coin, invite every bit of press to watch it to keep it honest. Not to say this was dishonest, but there's definitely a shadow of doubt.

 

*by corruptible I don't necessarily mean purposefully corruptible, just a general f*ck up.

[860]

As a person from a country with direct democracy, the U.S. election system is really confusing. Here's an interesting concept for a corruption-resistant voting system.

 

 

[Svip]

Err... the primary elections in presidential elections are actually a newer thing.

The first US presidential election with a primary election was in 1912, and only fourteen of the forty-eight states had primaries, and it was only for the Republican party. But despite attempts to increase voter participation over the years, it wouldn't be until the chaotic Democratic Party convention in 1968, that people called for reform. The result was the McGovern-Fraser reforms, which greatly increased voter importance in the primary elections. Remember, before 1972, most states didn't have primary elections. It was still the party leadership in these states deciding their candidates.

However, 1972 and 1976 are often omitted when comparing primary elections, because the field of candidates didn't yet fully understand the rules. George McGovern, who had help write the rules exploited his knowledge to gain the upper hand and win the nomination. This despite the fact that he was completely unelectable all things considered. Hence why Nixon won so big. In 1976, Jimmy Carter exploited winning in Iowa to gain a huge media attention to gain momentum and eventually the nomination and the presidency.

Despite the reforms actually being intended for the Democratic party (there is nothing in the US constitution or other legal framework that requires political parties to have primary elections to nominate a candidate), the Republicans adopted similar rules to increase their own voter participation. This resulted in the brokered convention in 1976, because Ronald Reagan was doing too well with the voters, that the leadership practically stepped in and ensured Gerald Ford's nomination instead. Reagan would have his chance again 4 years later.

This system isn't two hundred years old, it's like forty years old. And I am not even sure it made sense then.

As a person from a country with direct democracy

And what country would that be? I was unaware of any country with direct democracy. Even Switzerland and Liechtenstein technically only have semi-direct democracies.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Svip

[Zook]

Money DOES win elections: How Hillary won at least six Iowa precincts by coin toss

 

Is gravity bought and paid for by the big corporations now? I think your criticism should be directed towards the stupid system that uses coin tosses to decide something this important.

[Stephan90]

 

Money DOES win elections: How Hillary won at least six Iowa precincts by coin toss

 

Is gravity bought and paid for by the big corporations now? I think your criticism should be directed towards the stupid system that uses coin tosses to decide something this important.

 

 

1. this is the copied headline of article

2. I do critizise coin tosses in general, even if two candidates have the same amount of votes

3. Have you video proof of all 6 coin tosses at each location, that proves there was no trick behind it like using a coin with two identical motives, multiple coin tosses until the result fits etc....?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Stephan90

[Flachbau]

So how is this coin toss process even done? I'm hearing mixed comments all over the internet. People saying whatever candidate wins the coin toss actually loses a delegate or something like that. Heard the opposite of that as well. I wasn't even aware that a coin toss was possible in a situation like this.

[am30]

 

Money DOES win elections: How Hillary won at least six Iowa precincts by coin toss

 

Is gravity bought and paid for by the big corporations now?

 

 

What do you mean "now"? It always has been. Only exists to stop us from escaping this planet. If we're stuck on this planet, we spend money on this planet thus making various large corporations even more money.

[darthYENIK]

If you think a coin toss is a fair way to determine a winner of an election, then you're insane. It's not biased, it's a quick solution, but this is not a game. We are not deciding who gets to sit shotgun in your car. I'd put more stock in the candidates playing a game of rock, paper, scissors than a coin toss.

[Stephan90]

I wonder if Clinton still had won if all 6 coin tosses ended in favour for Sanders, because the end result is close.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Stephan90

[El Dildo]

she didn't really 'win' anything in Iowa and she didn't really indicate herself as the big winner in her speech, either... not that Iowa determines anything to begin with

[Flachbau]

I went digging and found the following .pdf file that says this (fyi, right after page 9):

 

 

So at this point, I'm just wondering if people at the coin tosses were misled or not.. I really wonder if the guidelines were read and voiced loud and clear to the crowd before the toss. It just all seems ridiculous. A damn coin toss..

Edited February 2, 2016 by Android

[Tchuck]

Beyond the coin toss, this is at best a Pyrrhic victory for Hillary, showing that she's not the unstoppable juggernaut her party tried to make her out to be. She was expecting and hoping to win by a landslide, which didn't happen. Next up is New Hampshire, right? Bernie should win that one with a bit of a distance to Hillary, showing people he's a real candidate.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

^True, but I don't think he's polling nearly as well in other upcoming states. I have a feeling he's going to get slaughtered after NH.

[universetwisters]

What kind of coin will they toss? Will it be a quarter or a nickel or a dime? Maybe even a penny.