Geee Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Fox News: Iowa's Democratic Party said early Tuesday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had gained an insurmountable lead over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the state's caucuses, but stopped short of officially declaring her the winner — while Texas Sen. Ted Cruz scored a decisive win over Donald Trump in the Republican caucuses, with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio a close third. Early Tuesday, the Iowa Democratic Party said Clinton had been awarded 699.57 state delegate equivalents while Sanders had received 695.49 state delegate equivalents with one precinct outstanding. That precinct was worth 2.28 state delegate equivalents — not enough for Sanders to make up the deficit. The Clinton campaign quickly issued a statement declaring victory, saying, "Statistically, there is no outstanding information that could change the results and no way that Senator Sanders can overcome Secretary Clinton's advantage." However, a number of news outlets, including Fox News, did not immediately call the contest for the former secretary of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Has me breathing easier this morning! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righteousmomma Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The amazing surprise was how close Rubio came to Trump. There is a pretty decisive difference between Cruz and Trump. All the pundits say Cruz has no chance in New Hampshire and so we'll see how the 3 do. Of course we all know the past histories of who won and lost Iowa. Still with well over 100,000 showing up on the Republican side I think it sends a clear message to the GOP. To repeat myself "never in my lifetime did I think I would see an avowed Socialist" ............ The Demorat party reminds me so much of our old quote here: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righteousmomma Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Rush has been driving us nuts the last month or so with his ramblings but he finally sounded like the Rush we know (and love) yesterday (and he does not endorse anyone in the primaries ever) : Finally, the Day We've Been Waiting ForFebruary 01, 2016 All the promises to stop Obamacare, all the promises to Obama, period. None of it's happened. And the anger is profound, the rage is profound. And so people, in order to demonstrate their anger in the best way they know how, have flocked to Donald Trump. Because that, as far as they're concerned, is the single best way to show the establishment what you think of 'em, is to go out and support somebody that has nothing to do with them, that would throw them all out if he wins. The theory goes that those people, when it comes time to actually caucus, are not going to select Trump.The theory says that they're going to be gripped by a moment of seriousness and that they won't realize that they have demonstrated their rage sufficiently so that everybody knows -- and when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, many in the Trump camp will vote for Cruz or Rubio or somebody else because this time it matters. It's not a poll. It's not a pollster calling. It's not a computer for a polling company calling. It's not a focus group. It's the real thing. And they will get in there and they will caucus and they will figure out, "Okay, we've sent our message."Now, for this theory to have any weight or validity, this theory requires that Trump's support is soft. You have to be the judge of whether or not you think Trump's support is soft. Trump's unfavorables are through the roof. Trump's unfavorables are up north of 50% nationwide. And the people that have these theories say, "People are gonna realize that if they nominate Trump, there's no way he can win. Over half the country doesn't like the guy. There's no way. They're not sure that stupid." Others say, "Oh, yes! It's not that they're stupid. People have a lot of hope invested in the outcome here. People have a lot of... In some cases, their careers are invested in the outcome here. For the rest of us, it's all about the country and the future of the country and many people believing that this is it, that if the Democrats win the White House in this upcoming election, that we've lost the nation for a generation at least. If the next president's a Democrat, it's a bare minimum of four Supreme Court nominations, because the aging leftists on the court -- many of whom want to retire now, are not doing so until they are sure there is going to be a Democrat president next time around. And even if they're not eager to retire their age is such that in the next four years, they will. The point is, whoever the next president is is going to have a large number of Supreme Court vacancies to fill. And if the Democrats own those four, coupled with everything else they've been able to jury-rig in the judicial system nationwide at all the various different levels -- federal and district courts and so forth -- that it's a nightmare scenario. If a Democrat's elected to continue the transformation of this country begun by Barack Obama, we're in deep doo-doo. And it is. I agree with people who think that it's that serious. That is what we are up against. By the same token, I hear all these Republicans -- and you know who they are; you've heard them yourself -- run around talking about the era of Reagan is over. And we need to get past this "Reagan fetish" that we all have. You take a look at the Republican candidates here, and even some who haven't made it this far, but they're all...I could give you Cruz. I could give you Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker before he got out. Those are all people in their forties to early fifties who are Reaganites. They all came of age and were influenced by Reagan. The future of the Republican Party is represented by candidates in the primary who are all Reaganites, to one degree or another. Meaning: There's no way the era of Reagan is over. This election is an opportunity to continue it. It's an opportunity to build on it. It's an opportunity to actually elect a Republican president who is a Reaganite. Now, there are Republicans running who aren't Reaganites, either. They are more establishment types. But the point is, the era of Reagan being over is a wish that is held onto tightly by many in the Republican establishment. There's a tremendous opportunity that awaits everybody, and it all starts today and tonight in the Iowa caucus. Donald Trump is not predicting a win in Iowa. A lot of people are looking at it and say, "Oh, wait a minute! I mean, if he's not, there must be some doubt in the Trump camp." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Meanwhile back at the ranch! Hillary 'ya can't prove a thing' Clinton 49.9% 22 Delegates Bernie 'the real deal' Sanders 49.6% 21Delegates Someone may be in trouble. I won't mention who, but she may look like this.................... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Democracy In Action: Hillary Wins Caucus Delegates Due to A Coin FlipChristine RousselleFeb 02, 2016 Heading into late Monday night, the Democratic Iowa caucus was still in a statistical dead heat, with no official winner declared yet. In at least two precincts, however, Hillary Clinton was able to snag two delegates due to coin flips that landed favorably. Iowa caucus rules state that if a vote is tied, a coin flip can be used to determine the winner. In West Davenport and in Polk County, a tiebreaker was needed after an equal number of votes were cast for Bernie Sanders and Clinton. (Snip) Pretty spectacular that a former Secretary of State with an absurd amount of name recognition isn't able to pull out a win over an independent senator from Vermont, isn't it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Democratic Party Iowa Vote Total: under 1,500 votes -- 1,500 votes -- 1,500 votes: Did the Democratic Party Just Implode in Iowa?Feb. 1 2016It is 10:15 pm in Iowa.94% of the precincts have reported (for the Democrats). The Democratic Party vote is ... 660 votes for Clinton, and 649 votes for Sanders, with each candidate getting around 50% of the Democratic Party vote, and 21 convention delegates.Between Sanders and Clinton, there are fewer than 1,500 votes.1,500 votes.1,500 votes.1,500 votes.By contrast, on the Republican side, (former) Senator Rick Santorum came in 10th, with 1% of the Republican field, and 1,666 votes -- more than Sanders and Clinton combined. (Snip) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geee Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Democratic Party Iowa Vote Total: under 1,500 votes -- 1,500 votes -- 1,500 votes: Did the Democratic Party Just Implode in Iowa? Feb. 1 2016 It is 10:15 pm in Iowa. 94% of the precincts have reported (for the Democrats). The Democratic Party vote is ... 660 votes for Clinton, and 649 votes for Sanders, with each candidate getting around 50% of the Democratic Party vote, and 21 convention delegates. Between Sanders and Clinton, there are fewer than 1,500 votes. 1,500 votes. 1,500 votes. 1,500 votes. By contrast, on the Republican side, (former) Senator Rick Santorum came in 10th, with 1% of the Republican field, and 1,666 votes -- more than Sanders and Clinton combined. (Snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Democratic Party Iowa Vote Total: under 1,500 votes -- 1,500 votes -- 1,500 votes: Did the Democratic Party Just Implode in Iowa? Feb. 1 2016 It is 10:15 pm in Iowa. 94% of the precincts have reported (for the Democrats). The Democratic Party vote is ... 660 votes for Clinton, and 649 votes for Sanders, with each candidate getting around 50% of the Democratic Party vote, and 21 convention delegates. Between Sanders and Clinton, there are fewer than 1,500 votes. 1,500 votes. 1,500 votes. 1,500 votes. By contrast, on the Republican side, (former) Senator Rick Santorum came in 10th, with 1% of the Republican field, and 1,666 votes -- more than Sanders and Clinton combined. (Snip) @Valin @Geee I just got a Top Secret photo pulled from the DNC via Hillary's private server and posted by WikiLeaks.... It shows the entire Iowa Dem caucus population in a single photo event. (BTW... she wiped the server clean with some liquid Pledge in the early morning hours.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Doesn't show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearvision Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 So 8,7,7 delegates to the leaders, 3 to Carson, 1 to Paul and 1 to Bush. WooHoo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevindavis Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Here is how I see it, if it wasn't for the Dems crossing over to vote for you know who, I don't think he would have been in second place. However, after Clinton eeked out a victory in Iowa, I don't think they will be crossing over. The last thing the Dem establishment wants is a person like Bernie as their nominee (even though they agree with him). 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Democracy In Action: Hillary Wins Caucus Delegates Due to A Coin Flip Christine Rousselle Feb 02, 2016 Heading into late Monday night, the Democratic Iowa caucus was still in a statistical dead heat, with no official winner declared yet. In at least two precincts, however, Hillary Clinton was able to snag two delegates due to coin flips that landed favorably. Iowa caucus rules state that if a vote is tied, a coin flip can be used to determine the winner. In West Davenport and in Polk County, a tiebreaker was needed after an equal number of votes were cast for Bernie Sanders and Clinton. (Snip) Pretty spectacular that a former Secretary of State with an absurd amount of name recognition isn't able to pull out a win over an independent senator from Vermont, isn't it? And who is a “Devout Socialist" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 2/2/2016 A Tale of Two Candidates Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:18 am Ted Cruz has won a historic victory in Iowa. Now he, Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio head to New Hampshire, a goofy sort of state where “Live Free or Die” has largely given way to the gritty Northeast ethic of “Gimme Stuff for Free or Die.” Cruz will no doubt get a bump from his Iowa win, but few people expect him to win or even do particularly well in the rather bizarre state of New Hampshire. Trump seems like a lock there, with a crowded field of non-entities jockeying for second place — although now that Trump is a Verified Loser, polls could change. So I’m not going to get wound up over New Hampshire. Big Media will do its best to construct a narrative where Cruz has LOST ALL HIS MOMENTUM and CAN’T POSSIBLY WIN GOING FORWARD and it will all be rank B.S. When the SEC primary is over, the lay of the land will be much clearer. In the meantime, however, I’d like to contrast two revealing pieces: one about Ted Cruz and one about Donald Trump. First, there is this extensive profile of Ted Cruz in the Texas Monthly, titled The Field Guide to Ted Cruz. As someone who grew up in Texas I can tell you that the Texas Monthly is not a publication that is generally favorable to Republicans. But this piece by Erica Greider is worth quoting at length, because it is consistent with what I have learned about Ted Cruz from watching him for several months, reading his book (which he wrote himself), and closely following his positions and statements on various issues. http://patterico.com/2016/02/02/a-tale-of-two-candidates/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickydog Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Has me breathing easier this morning! Yes. Only 49 states left to go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Move Over Pajama Boy. . .Steven Hayward February 2, 2016 Forget Pajama Boy. Democrats have a new icon for the the 2016 race, and he’s already being called “Sticker Boy.” Watch over Hillary’s right shoulder as she drones on in her Iowa “victory” speech last night (it’s a bonus, as we see how dreadful she is speaking on the stump)........................(Snip) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zL2d9348Oc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Thursday, February 4, 2016 ...and they tied.... heh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now