Slashdot Mirror


Perfect Coin-Toss Record Broke 6 Clinton-Sanders Deadlocks In Iowa (marketwatch.com)

schwit1 writes: While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it's easy to say who was luckier. The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.

17 of 634 comments (clear)

  1. Did they spin when they landed? by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...

    I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.

    1. Re:Did they spin when they landed? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates.

      Isn't that process up to the democratic party?

    2. Re:Did they spin when they landed? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as both candidates had a representative present, and neither objected, the tosses were fair enough, particularly for government work.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    3. Re:Did they spin when they landed? by drnb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.

      Odd, changing the counting rules retroactively is an option when the democratic establishment dislikes the "winner".

  2. Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Low probability things do happen.

  3. Re:97% odds against either winning all flips fairl by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm reminded of Bush-Gore. Where the sole R representative in the ballot counting room had been a D 3 years earlier. They tried to close the doors and were barely stopped from flat stealing the election.

    It's easy to cheat on a coin toss, if the people aren't really who they say they are.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why on Earth would anyone ever actually vote for Hillary Clinton? She is a horrid shitstain of a human being who belongs in prison. She is power-mad and worse, part of a dynasty. We don't need that shit in America. So, who are you people who support her? More importantly, WHY do you support her? How can you possibly reward her lawbreaking with an election to the highest office in the land? The arguments I've seen so far are that she's a woman so women should vote for her, and voting Hillary is a kind of protest vote against Trump. Look, there's already Sanders for people who want to throw their votes away, you don't need two protest candidates. I am really geniunely curious how so many of you out there can support her.

    Oh, and for anyone who doesn't think it was a big deal: what if Senator Ted Cruz kept his own private email server that was promptly rooted by several foreign countries, and routed classified emails through there? Kind of puts the right perspective on Hillary's crimes, don't you think?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? by entropy01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not a Clinton supporter but my 2 cents: Her supporters like progressivism and are willing to turn a blind eye to the shenanigans. They aren't principled. At least not in a moral sense.
      The most common answer that I hear: "It's time for a woman to be president."
      I didn't know that genitals were a qualification for any job other than porn.

    2. Re: Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? by rworne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easy enough:
      I'm not a supporter, but I can see the reason.

      1. She is what the democrat establishment wants as a nominee. She seems inevitable, so why not toss your support behind the supposed winner?

      I do not think she would be that big of a deal if there were another viable "mainstream" candidate in the ring on the D side. Sanders may appear viable now, but he might not have that appeal in a general election. I do not think Sanders appeals to the bulk of rank and file moderate democrats. It's the radical left wing carrying him at this point.

      2. She has a "D" next to her name. No matter how bad the candidate, party loyalists would rather hold their nose than to pick a candidate (even a possibly better one) in the opposite party. Not that I am claiming it exists here, but it can.

      3. She's untouchable. It's pretty much assumed she'll walk away with at most a fine from this, if not a full, possibly preemptive pardon. it does not matter if she looks dirty, it comes with being a Clinton. It's expected of them.

      4. Nothing will pull the democrats together more than the prospect of losing the White House for the next 4-8 years with all those aging Supreme Court justices waiting to keel over.

      It's not just the Democrats going through this now. The Republican Party wants its chosen candidates and they get Trump and Cruz instead. Both parties are having to fight popular sentiment to get their candidates in the general election.

      Watching both parties try to thwart popular opinion is proving to be quite entertaining, but not nearly as entertaining as a Trump vs Sanders in the general election will be.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    3. Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hillary is patting herself of the back for running her own server.

      Think of the alternatives. On the one hand she's under investigation for the server, on the other she's under indictment because she is unable to hide her email trail of malfeasance.

      The investigation is much better then letting anybody actually get her emails.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  5. Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure Obama puts that kind of stain on his record for someone he doesn't like or trust.

    The push point will come when a FBI agent recommends indictment. Which should be soon.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Re: Hah! by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    3-3 is 20 times as likely as 6-Hillary. This sub-1% result is possible, but it sure seems fishy. Personally I think the fix is in, and Hillary wins no matter what at the convention, but it will be fun to see how it plays out.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 by drnb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The supreme court selected Republican Establishment George Bush instead of the people's popular vote?

    No. The US Supreme Court said that the Florida government officials empowered before the election to make decisions regarding counts and recounts and submission deadlines would have their decisions stand.

    Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.

    Plus there is that other pesky detail that the "popular vote" was never the agreed upon criteria for selecting a President. It was always the electoral college and both sides designed their campaigns with that in mind, not the popular vote. If the popular vote was the goal then both sides would have run very different campaigns.

    It is a false urban myth that Gore would have won the recount. The election was "stolen" from Gore not by the Florida Governor nor the Florida Secretary of State nor the Florida Supreme Court nor the US Supreme Court. It was "stolen" by the Democratic Party officials who designed and deployed the butterfly ballot that confused Democratic voters into accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Gore lost due to his party's error. Painful but true. To say otherwise is denial.

    1. Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Gore had demanded a statewide recount then he would likely have won (there would have been less of a reason for the courts to step in)

      Demanding a state-wide recount would not have changed the fact that Gore was trying to override the process already in place and agreed to, determined by the people who had the authority to determine the process, and would have pushed the second Florida vote certification past the date of the Electoral College. That would have disenfranchised every Florida voter.

      The fact remains, SCOTUS did not "pick a winner", they told the loser that he had already had his recount and they could not overturn the constitutionally recognized authority of the Florida legislature to determine the process for selecting electors for the Electoral College in the state of Florida.

    2. Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it could have gone either way depending on the counting standard.

      Well, d'oh. If you change the electoral process you can get different results. Like "let's count as votes for Gore ballots that aren't marked in any way as a vote for any presidential candidate" would probably result in a different answer. This isn't much different than the "let's look at every butterfly ballot and see if there is even the slightest dimple or depression or mark on any chad that hasn't been dislodged" standard that was applied in Dade County. "Poke hole in piece of paper which has pre-scored holes you just punch out" is way too hard.

      Or the "let's throw out every absentee ballot from someone who registered using a form with a pre-filled-in voter id." Yes, that was one of the legal challenges. The Republican election official for one county had filled in the voter id number for people registering for absentee ballots, the Democrat had not. That should invalidate someone's vote, shouldn't it?

      Or "let's throw out every military absentee where the military didn't properly postmark the ballot". People on active duty military service don't deserve to vote, do they?

      Yes, changing the counting rules after the ballots are cast is a good way of changing the results. Not very honest, not very ethical, but it works -- if you can get the courts to go along with it.

  8. Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In terms of "classified" documents being found on it, so far, no one has said if any of them were ever "classified" at the time they were sent.

    Yes, they have. Items sitting on the server in her house were from SAP material (above-top-secret stuff) that by its very definition is classified. We're talking about actual, current, operational intelligence - the sort of stuff that involves moles in foreign governments, satellite imagery from NRO systems, that sort of thing. The State Department has just said that there are over 20 emails just in this latest small batch that can't even be released in any sort of redacted form because the classified material in them is so sensitive. When she got the SoS gig, she signed the usual federal paperwork that says that if she becomes aware of classified material existing in channels that aren't appropriate (as in, government-controlled secure access systems) regardless of whether or not it is so "marked," that she is criminally liable for its mishandling if she doesn't immediately involve security personnel to secure it. She completely blew off that requirement.

    She also didn't release any of them to the public, without them going through the proper channels

    No, what she did was have her own personal staff (people without clearances!) go through 60,000-some emails and decide BEFORE ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT GOT A LOOK AT THEM which were or weren't "work related." Which means that even among the emails they eventually passed along, her non-cleared personal employees at her foundation were pawing through what we now know were SAP-level documents. Further, she took everything and burned it to some USB drives, and gave at least one to her NON-CLEARED lawyer, who then put it in his own personal safe. Crimes, again, at several points along the way.

    In other words, all the steps have been followed.

    No, they haven't. She explicitly went about conducting official government business, including the handling of Special Access Program material, on a non-secured private server in her home - all for her personal convenience and so that she could avoid FOIA requests looking at her government correspondence. So the very first step that should have been followed never was, right there. She never even had State set her up with a secure mail account in the first place. You understand that, right? She never even COULD have followed the rules because she chose to avoid even the very first step of following the rules. Then she failed the next requirement, which was to turn over ALL of her government-related records at the time she left office - again, something she chose not to do, and she had to get subpoenaed for the information and dragged the process out for years after she left office before delivering the information after she'd had her own staff handle it, destroying over half of it. That's another violation of the required process. The archivists at State are the ones who are supposed to decide what is, and isn't relevant from a record-keeping point of view. She deliberately prevented that step. She then stripped off all of the meta data and other header information from all of the emails she DID deliver, and provided them as context-less printouts, on 50,000 pieces of paper. And that's just her getting started on doing it all wrong.

    Until someone comes out and says that document so and so was classified at the time it was sent and was known or should have been known to be classified by the person sending it and/or receiving it, nothing wrong has occurred that crosses into any type of criminal offence of state secrecy laws.

    This has already been established. You're not paying attention. Inspectors General from multiple intelligence agencies have said that there was at-the-time classified material (including the holy grail, SAP-level material) running around on a non-secure computer in her house.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  9. That's Odd by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder where this video of Sanders winning a coin toss came from then.

    --
    I stole this Sig