• Clinton's margin of victory shrinks to 0.25 after Iowa audit
    17 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Hillary Clinton still has defeated Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic caucus, but an internal party review released Sunday found new errors in the original count that further narrowed her margin of victory. [B]The audit by the Iowa Democratic Party discovered errors in five of 14 precincts across the state from Monday’s caucuses that shrink Clinton’s overall advantage in the key delegate results to a 0.25 percent lead over Sanders. [/B] Errors were found that affect the outcome in multiple directions for all three Democrats who participated in the caucus. Sanders picked up small additional totals of state delegate equivalents because of precinct mistakes in Marion, Woodbury and Poweshiek counties. Clinton netted a small increase because of a problem in a precinct in Story County. And Martin O’Malley, who withdrew from the race after his poor showing Monday, also came out with additional delegate support because of errors in Osceola County.[/QUOTE] Read more: [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/iowa-sanders-clinton-audit-218905#ixzz3zVgaWXT5[/url]
Not surprised, if you ever been part of one of these you'll soon realize the way they handle everything is terrible.
To be fair I don't think 0.27 - 0.25 is that unreasonable.
But its still a win!! Because calling probably the closest caucus in decades a tie would be defeatist
[QUOTE=Sableye;49691836]But its still a win!! Because calling probably the closest caucus in decades a tie would be defeatist[/QUOTE] A tie is a tie. Saying she won by a tiny margin is still the most precise way to put it. Then again it really doesn't matter much since the vote is forwarded proportionally (and I don't know whether there's a tie on the next higher level due to this).
[QUOTE=Tamschi;49693900]A tie is a tie. Saying she won by a tiny margin is still the most precise way to put it. [B]Then again it really doesn't matter much since the vote is forwarded proportionally[/B] (and I don't know whether there's a tie on the next higher level due to this).[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, the public doesn't see it that way and the media doesn't publicize it that way. The public thinks "oh, she won, I should vote for her in the future because Bernie lost once so he'll lose again" At least, these have been my observations from the news, which I try to avoid.
I have no idea what any of this means, aside from the two Democratic sides in this forum going at it with each other proclaiming this is Bernie's ultimate victory for the white house. Not that I hate Bernie, but the bias here can be obvious at times.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;49693900]A tie is a tie. Saying she won by a tiny margin is still the most precise way to put it[/QUOTE] I get the feeling a quarter of a percent is well within the margin of error of counting, besides that it's getting pedantic to report such a small margin. Call it a tie and leave it at that.
One of the important points from Iowa that people seem to miss is that not many people were expecting Bernie to run Hilary so close. Sure, supporters were looking at this as a potential win, but for the rest of the Democratic base and indeed the country there were still doubts as to Bernie being a legitimate challenger. Those doubts are gone now, and with a near certain win in NH coming up we could pick up some real momentum here.
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49697272][...] momentum [...][/QUOTE] Someone else most likely said this before, but to me this is one of the strangest concepts overall about this. Over here any one vote (in terms of what's decided) takes place simultaneously to avoid this, and no results from the vote or exit polls may be made public at all before the vote ends completely.
The US electoral system seems weird as hell in general.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49699454]The US electoral system seems weird as hell in general.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, the more you learn about it, the weirder it gets.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49699454]The US electoral system seems weird as hell in general.[/QUOTE] Much like Britain, the Americans are fond of retaining bizarre and often useless traditions in their political systems. We have bishops sitting in the house of lords, they have the electoral college. Not to mention that you only need to care about like half a dozen provinces to win an election in America anyways.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49699526] Not to mention that you only need to care about like half a dozen[B] provinces[/B] to win an election in America anyways.[/QUOTE] :nope:
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49699749]:nope:[/QUOTE] I can use prefectures or districts if you prefer.
[QUOTE=_Axel;49699454]The US electoral system seems weird as hell in general.[/QUOTE] Nothing 'seems' about it. It is wierd as hell. And a complete circus at that.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49699526]Much like Britain, the Americans are fond of retaining bizarre and often useless traditions in their political systems. We have bishops sitting in the house of lords, they have the electoral college. Not to mention that you only need to care about like half a dozen provinces to win an election in America anyways.[/QUOTE] its not quite that bad, you can't take the presidency without winning at least 1 urban state, and the increasingly urban population distribution means that the center states have less and less power to determine the outcome, like the republicans will pick up most of the midwest easily, but while geographically its impressive, its only a fraction of the electoral votes they need to win, where its an issue is when you have states like illinois where most of the population is in chicago and is blue while the rest of the state is red, or pennsylvania where most of the democrat votes are clustered on one side of the state [editline]8th February 2016[/editline] what is a circus is how we essentially start campaigning for the next election on november 5th because we have no limits on campaign advertising like pretty much everybody else has thats why the primaries started in may of last year, ludicrously early, and we still have 9 months to go before its all done
[QUOTE=Sableye;49700850]its not quite that bad, you can't take the presidency without winning at least 1 urban state, and the increasingly urban population distribution means that the center states have less and less power to determine the outcome, like the republicans will pick up most of the midwest easily, but while geographically its impressive, its only a fraction of the electoral votes they need to win, where its an issue is when you have states like illinois where most of the population is in chicago and is blue while the rest of the state is red, or pennsylvania where most of the democrat votes are clustered on one side of the state [editline]8th February 2016[/editline] what is a circus is how we essentially start campaigning for the next election on november 5th because we have no limits on campaign advertising like pretty much everybody else has thats why the primaries started in may of last year, ludicrously early, and we still have 9 months to go before its all done[/QUOTE] It's still a strange archaic leftover. When the subjects of the President go out to vote, it would seem logical that they ought to vote directly for the presidential candidate, rather than a group of several hundred politicians whose existence is not only completely unnecessary, but detrimental as well. The provinces of Texas and California ought to be important considering their population - yet a small number of them receive all of the attention and lavish praise for the fact they happen to determine the outcome of the election. One ought to abolish all of the cumbersome crap.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.