Help me understand. I can not wrap my head around the fact that the Head of the Free World is

[Hiraeth]

being determined by coin toss. Someone please, explain this to me.

[tazkcmo]

1. Relax.

It doesn't decide anything really. A small handful of delegates was decided, not the Presidential office holder.

[Hiraeth]

3. What happened to run offs?

[tazkcmo]

7. It's a caucus.

Not an election. That's it. Keep this in perspective. Look at the history of Iowa Caucus results and you'll see a few eventual Democratic nominees but more also also ran's. It's the first of 50 contests and it was a tie so on to the next one.

[Hiraeth]

9. going forward. On to New Hampshire.

I get that part of it ...

[tazkcmo]

12. There you go.

Personally, I enjoyed the caucus as it was covered so closely and gave insights into the actual workings of it. I loved the messiness of it all! Anyway, it's just a small drop in a large pool. Just like a football game (though this is no game), a fumble, penalty or some other "miscue" in the opening drive does not determine the outcome of the while contest.

[Hiraeth]

14. yeah, I got hung up on the THIS IS NO GAME part of it all.

I keep thinking of that proverb:



For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

[tazkcmo]

17. I hope you're feeling better.

It isn't a game at all. It IS serious but it's just starting and the Sanders' campaign did very well going up against the most well known woman in America, all her money and the Democratic leadership that values corporate contributions to their campaign over the well being of the People.

[Hiraeth]

19. I am feeling better, thanks

[JDPriestly]

38. In a democracy, nothing should be decided by a coin toss.

That's just crazy. I know it did not affect the outcome that much, but it is the principle of the thing. They should just say 1/2 a delegate and let the delegates work it out somehow. Maybe each delegate should be replaced by two delegates so that ties can be fairly resolved. Instead of one delegate there should be two in that district. Am I making myself clear?

Ties should be respected. Each vote should have its due credit. Other wise it is not democratic.

[Human101948]

4. Don't worry, Iowa is pretty much a joke anyway...

It's the most excitement they ever get in Iowa. The economy is boosted by the political spending. And the caucus system is cockamamie just to increase the fun factor.

[Hiraeth]

6. okie dokie then.

really.

Those Iowans such jokesters. Who knew?

Live and learn.

cray cray

[Art_from_Ark]

21. These Iowans certainly weren't jokesters

https://www.facebook.com/moveon/videos/10153238567205493/

[Hiraeth]

22. That was WONDERFUL. Thank you!

[hopemountain]

37. your opinion. not bernies.

bernie likes the caucus process. he believes it is democratic. he is not worried about the difference of 2 delegates from the caucus results at this time. the results are 24 v. 22 delegates when the end count will total 2500. although, i'm sure they are watching to see what the iowa democratic party decides from the pressure put on them by iowan democrats and bernie supporters in that state.

[aintitfunny]

5. County Delegates, not Convention Delegates

were decided by the coin tosses. I would prefer that they had not been forced to do that, the rules are a bit odd, but the race was a virtual tie, and it was a first in the State of Iowa Caucuses.

But those coin flips resolved the tie in a precinct, and, as I understand it, gained the winner a county delegate, not a convention pledged delegate.

[Hiraeth]

8. I guess.

[appalachiablue]

10. Yesterday Skinner posted info. about it in GD-P. Here it is,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1123143

[Hiraeth]

11. Thanks for the link.

[appalachiablue]

13. For sure! It's a complex and rather antiquated caucus system that many want reformed.

[Hiraeth]

15. I think it needs updating, yes. This is the 21st century after all

[PotatoChip]

16. Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if it is customary

for a primary presidential candidate to be asked to concede a caucus or primary loss in every state, or just Iowa?

And are concessions commonly demanded on a state by state basis? If so, what happens on super Tuesday?

Has this always been 'a thing' in past state primaries/caucuses?

If so, I guess I've just forgotten...

[Hiraeth]

18. good question as I don't recall it, either. Thanks

[PotatoChip]

20. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I feel kind of silly asking, but I honestly don't remember. It was a thread in GD-P that made me try to recall past Iowa concession speeches and I couldn't think of one. That does not mean they did not happen, but I'm drawing a blank.

[aintitfunny]

23. Here is What Media Matters Has to say

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/02/media-falsely-attribute-clinton-iowa-caucuses-w/208330

I trust them more than others, but nothing is absolute. I think this is true, however.

[Hiraeth]

24. Thank you for the link.

Iowa Democratic Party: Clinton Won The Iowa Caucuses By Capturing The Most State Delegate Equivalents. Following the February 1 Iowa caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party announced that Clinton won 700.59 SDEs. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) finished in a close second with 696.82 SDEs, while Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley received 7.61 SDEs:

According to the final results announced by the Iowa Democratic Party, Mrs. Clinton was awarded 700.59 state delegate equivalents, the terminology used in Iowa to represent candidates' share of the total caucus vote. Mr. Sanders was awarded 696.82 delegates, and former Gov. Martin O'Malley received 7.61 delegates. Iowa Democrats usually do not release raw vote counts from each of the state's 1,681 caucus precincts.

Based on these results, Mrs. Clinton is set to receive 23 of Iowa's delegates and Mr. Sanders will earn 21 delegates. There are 4,763 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, so it will require 2,382 delegates to win the nomination. [The New York Times, 2/2/16]

[hedda_foil]

25. I'm afraid media matters might not be as pure as we have thought. David Brock is its founder.

[aintitfunny]

32. Sadly, I have noticed their specific Hillary favorable bent

But, still what is in the link is likely true, as the important delegate count was pretty must split down the middle, as was the race. I wasn't aware of David Brock being the founder, thanks for that.

[blackspade]

26. Not that big of a deal.

They didn't alter the ultimate outcome because of the convoluted caucus process.
There were other more troubling issues involved though.

[Hiraeth]

27. It just -sounds- so .... game-y. It just sounds so Last Century.

[blackspade]

28. It is, but that's the way they seem to like it!

[Hiraeth]

29. heh ... made myself a little joke ...

Hey Coin Toss, 2000 called. Wants it hanging chad back ....

[blackspade]

30. nice.

[delrem]

31. "the Head of the Free World"??

You're talking about a primary for choosing the Dem candidate for POTUS.
Nobody except US citizens get to vote.

[Hiraeth]

33. I am not the only one ...

1310 Ticket Radio · 18 hours ago
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the leader of the free world potentially being decided by coin flips. #RAGONK

See more on Twitter

Recent usage
Although the "Free World" had its origins in the Cold War, the phrase is still occasionally used after the end of the Cold War.[3] According to Samuel P. Huntington the term has been replaced by the concept of the World community, which, he argues, "has become the euphemistic collective noun (replacing "the Free World&quot to give global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the United States and other Western powers."[4]


"Leader of the Free World"
The "Leader of the Free World" is a colloquialism, first used during the Cold War, to describe either the United States or, more commonly, the President of the United States of America. The term when used in this context suggests that the United States is the principal democratic superpower, and the U.S. President is by extension the leader of the world's democratic states, i.e. the "Free World". The phrase had its origin in the late 1940s, and has become more widely used since the early 1950s. It was heavily referenced in American foreign policy up until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, and has since fallen out of use, in part due to its usage in anti-American rhetoric.[5]

The use of the phrase is not exclusive to American leaders. Upon her winning the 2015 Time Person of the Year, Time proclaimed German Chancellor Angela Merkel to be the "Chancellor of the Free World."[6]

more at link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_World

[appalachiablue]

34. Good info., that has been the customary expression for POTUS since post WWII for sure.

[delrem]

35. Everyone knows that!!

It's a cornerstone of the US imperialist myth, that the US is GOOD in a very post-enlightenment way, and LEADS the world in promoting FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

It's a myth, Hiraeth. But not just any myth, it's a myth custom built for the most intense war profiteers getting away with mass slaugher, infrastructure destroying, in the most open manner as could be imagined. Think of Iraq, of no bid gov't contracts for "rebuilding" let out to subsidiaries of oil companies who themselves get custom built laws, and think of the fact that the top US politicians all know what is going on, esp. former Secretaries of State. So think of this:

"And I believe that at the same time that we have to make clear to the Iraqis that they have been given the greatest gift that a human being can give another human being – the gift of freedom. And it is up to them to decide how they will use that precious gift that has been paid for with the blood and sacrifice and treasure of the United States of America."

I think that if there is to be a revolution, our language has to be taken back.
It is proven that the USA has overthrown vigorous and positively moving democracies, within the lifetimes of currently living Secretaries of State.

The only way that the USA can "lead" a "free world" is through example, and it isn't offering one.

[Hiraeth]

36. I disagree for a lot of reasons that I am not willing to debate here or now.

[delrem]

39. Disagree or not, the truth is that the US doesn't "lead the free world"

except in a mythological language that doesn't serve freedom's interest.

The USA overthrew democracy in Iran.
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the (democratically elected) Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot&quot and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).

It was all about oil, and be damned with "democracy and freedom".
Just be damned with those purple-pony words and all that they mean.

The USA overthrew democracy in Chile.
The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a watershed event in both the history of Chile and the Cold War. Following an extended period of social and political unrest between the center-right dominated Congress of Chile and the elected socialist President Salvador Allende, as well as economic warfare ordered by US President Richard Nixon,[2] Allende was overthrown by the armed forces and national police.

And how smooth Henry Kissinger was! Henry Kissinger, Hillary Rodham Clinton's mentor and hero.

The problem with those myths is that those who live in their bubble haven't a clue. That's what the myths are designed for: to substitute for reality.

[Hiraeth]

40. You mention a very select couple of countries. I told you

I am not intersted in discussing this here or now. Now, please leave me alone.

[delrem]

41. Yes, I mention countries whose democracies and freedoms the USA destroyed!

It's been interesting engaging with you on this topic.

(eta: Because this is the Bernie Sanders group and the information is ESSENTIAL, I think I ought to add the MOTIVE for this destruction of freedom and democracy. It was because those countries had elected governments which were taking a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST path. Proof:
Henry Kissinger being quoted.
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."
Meeting of the "40 Committee" on covert action in Chile (27 June 1970) quoted in The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (1974); the quotation was censored prior to publication due to legal action by the government. See New York Times (11 September 1974) "Censored Matter in Book About C.I.A. Said to Have Related Chile Activities; Damage Feared" by Seymour Hersh)