Coin-Toss Fact Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton

[truthisfreedom]

Source: NPR

It's been reported that there were as many as six sites where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent. What's more, that gave her just slightly more than her margin of victory over Sanders — four delegates. Things that make you go hmm. Indeed.
....

Except that doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, there were at least a dozen tiebreakers — and "Sen. Sanders won at least a handful," an Iowa Democratic Party official told NPR.

Gone unmentioned so far is that even if Clinton won that Miracle Six — and there were no other coin tosses — it would make little difference in the outcome. That is, in part, because of the complicated way Iowa Democrats allocate their delegates — and what was being reported on election night and what wasn't.

Let's step back and explain that for a second; and this is tricky, so stay with us.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

---

Interesting take.

[pnwmom]

1. Thank you. They split the coin tosses -- and these involved county delegates,

not state delegates, and state delegates are the ones that are being reported now.

The changes of the county delegates that were decided by coin tosses wouldn't have affected the state delegate count.

[GusBob]

2. Truth is freedom indeed

Now if we could only help with reading, thinking and understanding

Caps lock might be the key

[TwilightGardener]

3. Is this the same Iowa Democratic Party that doesn't know where some

caucus-goers went, or who reported results in some precincts?

[brooklynite]

28. 100% of Caucus results were reported earlier yesterday...before your comment.

[TwilightGardener]

33. What was the delay?

Is there a way to verify the numbers? Because the whole thing seemed incompetent and clusterfucky.

[brooklynite]

34. This has been the way Iowa has tallied votes since the 70s.

There are no ballots (they do a head count), and there's only the report of the Precinct Captain, which presumably was confirmed by the Candidate Chairs.

[TwilightGardener]

35. No, there were problems reported this time around.

The Republicans were able to process results in a timely manner with MORE voters. Sorry, unless the results are able to be verified in a race that close, I don't have much faith that the IDP hasn't fucked it up.

[brooklynite]

36. The Republicans have a simpler process...

...They have a candidate ballot, count them and report. Democrats do a two round delegate allocation process which is more time consuming.

[TwilightGardener]

37. They didn't seem to have a handle on the process. They used an app that some

precincts weren't able to make work. There were reports that some caucusgoers left, some people went home without reporting the results. How do you square these fuckups and irregularities with having confidence that the results were correct--in a race so close it would normally go to a recount in a ballot election?

[brooklynite]

39. There was a Sanders and Clinton Precinct Captain in each location

If Sanders believes any of the results were inaccurate, let them provide specifics.

[TwilightGardener]

40. Well, I think he's trying to find out what happened.

I don't think all the facts about each precinct and how it conducted the count--and reported it--are known. For example, first there were six coin tosses, then seven, now a bunch and supposedly Bernie won some, but no specifics are being provided. No responsible candidate would just shrug and accept what he's told in these particular circumstances.

[brooklynite]

41. except that the coin tosses were irrelevant...

...those applied only to State Convention delegates, not the Presidential delegate equivalent.

[TwilightGardener]

42. I am skeptical. I read Skinner's post, and I watched one of the videos

of the coin toss, and I can't be convinced that it didn't matter in a race that close. Sorry.

[George II]

4. So says....

....the corporatist M$M.........

OOOPS, NPR!

[Nitram]

29. So NPR is now corporatist, too, because it clarified the coin toss meme?

How low are you Bernie supporters willing to go?

[George II]

30. It was sarcasm.

[Nitram]

31. And excellent sarcasm it was, George. Pardon my being slow on the uptake.

You said it with such a straight face!

[onehandle]

5. Skinner: About those coin flips...

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

[tarheelsunc]

6. The coin toss meme is all BS supporters have left to hold on to.

We were told for weeks how the polls were skewed and the media was lying and Bernie would shock the world and win Iowa. He didn't, and his supporters refuse to acknowledge that so they latch on to some story about coin tosses without actually knowing how the caucus process works, or acknowledging that Bernie himself won coin tosses.

But I guess the NPR are now establishment shills for pointing this out.

[rpannier]

8. Let's not pretend that it only applies to one group

I was on with a Clinton supporter last night who thought the same thing. That she got 5 delegates from the different coin tosses

[murielm99]

14. Now some of them are yelling about

inaccurate counts and demanding a recount. We knew they would find something to blow up into a conspiracy.

Caucuses can't be recounted.

[silvershadow]

21. Certainly the process and the results can be audited. nt

[trillion]

16. Wrong. And you do realize your corporate candidate ony won by a fraction of a percent right?

Any disparity could change the outcome so double checking is prudent for the Sanders campaign.

When I start supporting Hillary I'll make my first donation to Goldman Sachs - where she's a regular speaker. I know they'll get it to her through their super pac with her. So don't you worry about Hillary. They got her covered.

Why are you so mad that people would want to look closer at a vote that has less than a 1/2 a person between who won anyway?

[trillion]

17. Goldman Sachs - We dems ought to keep track of them

Goldman Sachs Is a Top Donor to Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/20/goldman-sachs-is-a-top-donor-to-hillary-jeb-and-rubio/

Make No Mistake: Clinton and Cruz Are Goldman Sachs' Candidates (Cruz's wife works at Goldman Sachs)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-irvine/make-no-mistake-clinton-a_b_9103096.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

Donald Trump is owned by every bank on Wall Street (Including Goldman Sachs)
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/01/22/every-bank-wall-street-owns-donald-trump/

The person Goldman Sachs isn't tied to - Bernie. (And he also refuses to let his Secretary of State be from Goldman Sachs.)
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/01/top-hillary-clinton-pac-donation-amounts-to-222000-bernie-sanders-donations/

[restorefreedom]

38. apparently calling attention to hillary's wall street ties is not popular with some....jury results

On Wed Feb 3, 2016, 09:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Goldman Sachs - We dems ought to keep track of them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1335445

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster is using two right-wing sources to discredit Clinton and compare her to Rubio and Bush.

Might as well be Free Republic.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 3, 2016, 10:02 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Argue it out in the thread.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm a Bernie supporter but Breibart, redstate, intercept. You can do better or don't do this at all.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If we can't communicate about money in politics, we ain't Democrats.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are they freaking kidding with this? Refute the point. And if you can't, then that is a problem which won't be solved by hiding unpalatable comments.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[trillion]

43. I didn't know any of them were right wing sources, I just posted what google came up first with.

I didn't look at the source and I don't hang on right wing sites to know them.

[restorefreedom]

53. don't worry about it. like i said in my jury comment,

if they can't refute and can only criticize the source, there's a bigger issue there.

[George II]

45. You use Breitbart and Redstate to make your point?

[Midnight Writer]

18. And do you realize it doesn't matter who "won" here except for bragging rights

Each candidate got a share of the delegates. The last count I saw was Clinton 21 and Sanders 20. This is just one small state contest out of fifty. To win the whole she-bang a candidate needs over two thousand delegates. Nobody won anything here, they are just racking up a very few votes towards the total. Clinton got one more delegate here. Big Whoop.

Sanders will get more delegates in NH. Then Clinton will get more in SC. And so on across the nation.

To me, the important story here is that both of these Democrats got about twice as many votes as the top Republicans.

Now that is a victory.

[trillion]

44. No, Hillary got over 300 delegates and Bernie got something like 21.

I posted the actual numbers yesterday. They divided only the hard delegates and not the soft/super delegates. Hillary got all of those.

[George II]

46. Clinton got 300 delegates in the caucuses on Monday? WOW!

[trillion]

48. Clinto got 370 delegates. Sanders got 34.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Wikipedia:

Iowa
Clinton total hard 23 (1%) soft/super 347 (49%) total delegates 370 (8%)
Sanders total hard 21 (1%) soft/super 13 (2%) total delegates 34 (1%)

[George II]

49. Not in Iowa.

[trillion]

50. Ah, you are right. I was really tired yesterday after saying up Caucus night nearly all night and

going to work yesterday. Awesome. I see you are right!

Still catching up on sleep here. I am worried about the delegates chart on that wiki though if you go down half the page and see Clintons 370.

[Midnight Writer]

55. If Iowa's weird caucus rules give you heartburn, the super delegate system will floor you

Super delegates are the Democratic Party's unelected delegates. Even if a candidate wins comfortably in the primary elections and caucuses, the super delegates, appointed by the Democratic National Committee, have votes that may overturn the primary election results. These are the "establishment" folks, and they are unlikely to vote en masse for any candidate that will upset their apple cart.

My opinion: Unless Sanders wins overwhelmingly in the primaries, the super delegates will vote overwhelmingly against him. Clinton had a major lead in the 2008 election among the super delegates, but once Obama caught fire, many of the super delegates jumped to his side.

Clinton again has the lead among the super delegates, but they can change their votes at any time. However, with Sanders being an outsider (he just "became" a Democrat less than a year ago) and Clinton being a Democratic activist since the 1970's, I would bet Sanders has a tough row to hoe with the super delegates.

[demwing]

23. 1. The average of polls had Hillary up by 4%

some polls had her in the double digits, and yet Bernie won the popular vote. Either the polls were skewed, or Bernie kicked ass, or both.

2. NPR went corporate a long time ago. Catch up.

3. All Bernie's supporters ever had to hold on to was the integrity, honesty, and caring nature of our candidate. I don't expect you to understand, never having had that to begin with, you don't know what you've lost.

[George II]

47. Where did you see the popular vote counts?

Regardless, state-wide vote count in the Iowa caucuses is irrelevant.

[Nitram]

32. The sad thing is that Bernie supporters never cease trying to find reasons to accuse...

...Clinton of cheating. They just can't fathom that St. Bernie could lose all on his own.

[rpannier]

7. Kick

[pandr32]

9. Many people here have no idea how our elections or government really work

...but sure have plenty of opinions.

[ham_actor]

10. The coin tosses are irrelevant

Taking on the Clinton machine that had all the advantages in terms of money, organization, endorsements and support from the Democratic Party and achieving a statistical tie was a major victory for an insurgent campaign funded by small donations and a candidate who was virtually unknown and 50 points behind only months ago. No one thought this possible even a few weeks ago and yet here it is.

[femmedem]

27. Good post and welcome to DU! n/t

[wordpix]

51. I agree---Bernie won based on his great showing in IA

against the Clinton machine, as you put it so succinctly

[happynewyear]

52. Welcome to the Democratic Underground ham_actor!!

& welcome! Great post!!

[hopemountain]

11. a check fact report from npr?

[d_legendary1]

12. This story confuses more than it clarifies

The first thing is the source:

"an Iowa Democratic Party official told NPR."

Really? And what exactly is a handful? I thought this was a fact check. Then there's their explanation of the caucus system:

"Let's step back and explain that for a second; and this is tricky, so stay with us."

Rather than explain how many delegates were decided by a coin toss, they much rather go on a tirade about a system NO OTHER STATE uses. How is that clearing up the coin toss issue that they started off with? And then there's:

"What was that about 60 missing caucusgoers and a coin flip?"

The Des Moines Register only reported how they went about resolving the issue. There are still 60 caucusgoers missing. Waaay too many to make that kind of mistake. To me this reads more like smoke and mirrors pretending to be a legitimate news story. No actual facts were presented to discredit the coin toss theory.

[James48]

13. Except Hillary kept calling "HEADS"

and won every time.

How'd she do that?

[Thinkingabout]

26. What happened on the coin tosses Sanders won, was ut the same coin?

[truthisfreedom]

15. I love the responses to this. Man, I wish Bernie won IA.

I really do.

[MariaThinks]

19. i'm not surprised, but disappointed that the anti-Hillary crowd continues to make up lies and

slander against her. I guess they are probability challenged in trying to say that half her delegates were selected by a coin toss (2% odds) and poor Bernie.

[leftynyc]

20. Forget trying to reason with these people

who refuse to face reality. They think everyone feels the same way they do and will accept nothing but conspiracies and talk about cheating. They're behaving like ill behaved children.

[GreydeeThos]

22. History will forever record that Hillary won the 2016 Iowa caucus

No amount of spin from the Bernie camp will change that.

[demwing]

24. Just as history records that George W Bush won FL in 2000

I know better. Do you?

[liberal N proud]

25. But that's not how propaganda works

You only pick the part of the story you want to tell so that is sounds either bad for the group you don't like or good for the group you do like.

Thanks for putting some facts back in DU!

[Flying Squirrel]

54. Here's the problem

It's too late. The reporting has already happened, just like the reporting of Hillary winning has already happened. People believe it happened and perception is reality - plus this news cycle has a built-in expiration date six days from now. That's not gonna be enough time for ya.