Once a primary event is over and the results are tallied,

[MineralMan]

smart candidates move on to the next upcoming event and stop paying much attention to the previous one. Complaints and accusations are not going to change the numbers, nor will any of these events occur again. The numbers are what they are.

It's a mistake for any candidate to dwell on what is in the past. There's too much at stake in the future. The results will not change, so both Bernie and Hillary should simply move on and try to get the best possible result in the next event.

That's my opinion, of course, and my opinion only.

[Armstead]

1. They both are

[MineralMan]

2. They both are what?

I provided two scenarios. To which of them do you refer. Have they both moved on or are they both complaining about the Iowa results?

[NCTraveler]

3. Complaining after the first woman won the Iowa Caucus looks lower than petty.

I truly hope he uses resources to fight for a recount. I would love to see Sanders fight to expand Clintons lead with a recount. That would simply be one of the funniest things. I have no issue with it.

This is political bluster from Sanders. He knows his base very well. While we see it for what it is, they eat it up. He is a politician first.

Red Meat.

[MineralMan]

4. Well, I see the Iowa results as a statistical tie, really.

Both candidates did about as well. They split the delegate count almost evenly.

I wouldn't make much of winning, nor of losing. In the grand scheme of things, Iowa was a wash and won't actually affect the nomination much at all. I'm sure both candidates would have liked to do better than they did.

Time to look forward, it seems to me.

[MoonRiver]

8. Well, apparently Sanders does not agree with you.

He wants to be able to claim a "win."

[NCTraveler]

10. You are correct in how close the percentages were.

I do think the delegate count is bigger than you think for appearance purposes. It shows a victor.

[MineralMan]

13. I have all of the numbers entered in my delegate count

spreadsheet. I'm even including superdelegates from each state who have declared their support for one or the other candidate.

I'm also doing a comparison between actual results and Charlie Cook's table of target results for a tie. It will be interesting.

[NurseJackie]

5. It's a mistake. (Good!) Please continue, Senator! :-P

[Wilms]

6. What seems petty is dragging gender into the discussion.

And it's getting a bit old as the youth vote in Iowa demonstrates.

[NCTraveler]

11. There is nothinbg petty about a historical moment for women in politics.

That's on you and your thoughts, not mine.

[Wilms]

15. OK, then.

She's the first woman to blow a 30 point lead. How's that for the record book?

[NCTraveler]

16. However you want to dismiss the first woman to win the Iowa Caucus....

Have at it.

[Wilms]

18. Gender is not an issue.

Men and women are equals. You need to get with the times and stop reinforcing outdated patriarchal notions. It's insulting and demeaning to women.

[NCTraveler]

22. "Men and women are equals."

I'm pretty shocked to read this on this board. It is laughable that you are telling me I am being demeaning to women.

"Men and women are equals."

Not in the eyes of the government. Not in the eyes of religion. Not in the eyes of so many Americans. I have no clue how someone can even say that.

Men and women should be treated as equal, they are not.

How many women have won the Iowa Caucus?

You are contorting yourself to new levels in order to dismiss it.

[Wilms]

24. You make my point. And you have "no clue" because that is your preference.

A woman winning a caucus isn't going to free-up reproductive rights or correct gender pay-gaps.

And you are not treating women as equals by making a stink about Iowa. If it's so special and rare, then equal pay, etc. should be special and rare.

Do you cite women for special recognition for learning how to drive a stick-shift?

Feed the repukes with that.

[NCTraveler]

26. Could be some of the most horrid things I have read here.

"Do you cite women for special recognition for learning how to drive a stick-shift? " Wilms

Wilms

24. You make my point. And you have "no clue" because that is your preference.

View profile


A woman winning a caucus isn't going to free-up reproductive rights or correct gender pay-gaps.

And you are not treating women as equals by making a stink about Iowa. If it's so special and rare, then equal pay, etc. should be special and rare.

Do you cite women for special recognition for learning how to drive a stick-shift?

Feed the repukes with that.

[uponit7771]

23. Men and women are equal?! Are you serious?! The equal pay numbers disagree with you on this

[Wilms]

25. So you are saying they aren't equal.

That is shameful. PEOPLE should be paid fairly. Plenty of men make less than other men and women for a given job.

[NCTraveler]

27. Wow. I have never seen the argument that men make less than women. Never.

I don't even think I have seen repukes make that argument.

[Wilms]

28. You think that doesn't happen?

PEOPLE are underpaid ALL the time. GREED does that. Ya know, that Wall Street mantra.

But look at the bright side. No need to use any unequal pay to donate to Clinton. The boss already took care of that!

[NCTraveler]

30. I haven't made my final determination yet, but I think you are being serious. nt.

[Deny and Shred]

32. So when there are voting tally discrepancies

it is misogynistic to question them?

[NCTraveler]

33. I never said such a thing.

One always wants to question voting discrepancies. One also want to show a modicum of class on such a historic night and concede. This is a calculated political move on Sanders part. Red meat to his base.

[Deny and Shred]

35. So normally he should question discrepancies

but not his time because his opponent is a woman?

Do I have that right?

[firebrand80]

7. Bernie has learned the value of faux outrage

to his fundraising bottom line.

[thereismore]

9. Uhm. That's why I see people around here calling Bernie to concede Iowa. Two days after. Uhm. nt

[whatchamacallit]

12. Ah... typical passive-aggressive slam wrapped in a friendly PSA

[MineralMan]

14. Thank you for visiting and reading my post.

I count on you for that, along with your replies.

[whatchamacallit]

17. And I count on your "folksy wisdom" to make me

do this

[MineralMan]

19. Well, I must be doing something right, then.

A facepalm of the sudden realization of truth, I presume.

[ViseGrip]

20. Bernie gave a very humble, gracious speech for tying the race, for coming so far.

He just wanted to see the totals....and every candidate I have EVER worked for, that is what we do after election day. We look where we were strong, or thought we were, and where we lost and we look over everything that was, OUR RACE. Get it?

[MineralMan]

21. While counts are made of the groups at caucuses,

they aren't always reported, since it is the delegates elected by those groups that are the real result of the caucus.

I understand people wanting actual counts of voters, but that isn't really how Iowa caucuses are done. There have been some reports of counts of groups, but I don't know if every precinct reported those numbers. I don't think they're required to. The relevant information is how many delegates each candidate got.

Since the actual numbers aren't an official part of the caucus reporting, it's unlikely that any accurate count will ever be available.

In Minnesota, our primary caucuses include a written ballot for the presidential primary preferences. Those numbers are what are reported up the chain. After our caucus, there will be a count of votes available, statewide, and by precinct. We also elect delegates to the next level, which is the senate district convention, but those delegates are not selected according to their presidential preference.

Our system works differently than the Iowa one.

[Vinca]

29. I think they are moving on.

But, keep in mind, in 2012 Mitt Romney was named the winner of the Iowa caucus. Until he wasn't. They subsequently named Santorum the winner. Until he wasn't. Eventually they named Ron Paul, but nobody cared by then. Iowa does not have its act together.

[MineralMan]

34. Iowa's numbers are always likely to change as

they work through their convention process. That often happens. As you say, by the time that happens, everyone's attention is elsewhere.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

31. And given it is not winner take all, and it was this close, I dont see why both campaigns dont

celebrate and move on to the next.

[workinclasszero]

36. Yup nobody like a sore loser....

Bernie.