2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumImagine Ron Paul had lost Iowa by a half dozen coin tosses
This is not an endorsement of Ron Paul, who is nuttier than a squirrel's birthday cake, but rather a thought experiment.
Imagine how we, as the opposition to the GOP, would view Paul's showing. Would he still be dismissed as merely a fringe candidate or would we all suddenly, simultaneously sit bolt upright at the clarion call that he was now a legitimate threat to be contended with?
Would Paul's supporters say to themselves, "Well, we fought our hardest, I guess we should just pack it in, though" or would they see their goals within reach and redouble their efforts making them even more of a threat to their opponents?
Would the claims he was not a viable candidate still ring with the undecideds or those who originally sought safe haven among more acceptable candidates or would that showing allow him to draw in more support?
Would the halls of the Establishment, with its promises of safe haven from the enemy, seem as unshakeable as they once did?
Now imagine -- what if it wasn't nutty Ron Paul but rather someone who actually has consistently argued for the Democratic party's core values for decades.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In this story, do Ron Paul supporters pretend that the coin tosses decided the election even though everyone knowledgeable has pointed out that they weren't enough to swing it? Or are they smarter/more honest than that?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)its foundation crumbles beneath the weight of its own excesses.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)by coin toss were county delegates, not state delegate equivalents, right?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)She did, and those individual county delegate selections at a handful of precincts count for a tiny fraction of the ultimate result. Hillary won 49.9 percent and Bernie won 49.5 percent.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)The coin tosses were irrelevant to the outcome of the caucus.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)They didn't add up to even a single one of her state delegates.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)if they weren;t there would be an actual scandal here instead of this embarrassment of confusion. the six is also disputed, but .....6/11065- do the math.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)not "state delegates."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/
As a result of the coin toss, Clinton was awarded an additional delegate, meaning she took five of the precincts eight, while Sanders received three.
Similar situations played out at various precincts across the state, but had an extremely small effect on the overall outcome, in which Clinton won 49.9 percent of statewide delegate equivalents, while Sanders won 49.5 percent. The delegates that were decided by coin flips were delegates to the party's county conventions, of which there are thousands selected across the state from 1,681 separate precincts. They were not the statewide delegate equivalents that are reported in the final results.
The statewide delegate equivalents that determine the outcome on caucus night are derived from the county-level delegates, but are aggregated across the state and weighted in a manner that makes individual county delegate selections at a handful of precincts count for a tiny fraction of the ultimate result.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He wasn't familiar with the rules of the caucus. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Since most of us don't understand the rules and they ARE crazy. But that's not Hillary's fault.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)His supporters deserted him for Sanders. I think it was a smart move on Sanders part to have his volunteers showing up at Paul events.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Ignorance of the actual process is no longer an excuse.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)because he was a fringe candidate.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)There has to be some closure. There is no such thing as ties in political races. In the absence of a winner and a loser you would have chaos.
BTW. I would say that regardless of the candidates. It's just common sense.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)You are not understanding what happened.