10

Your Predictions on Democrat Conspiracies and Possible Implosion over Iowa

Posted by Eudaimonia 4 years, 8 months ago to Politics
46 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

So, last night, six different Iowa precincts were decided for the Democrats by coin toss. And Hillary Clinton won every single toss.

The odds of winning six consecutive coin tosses is 1 in (2^6), or 1 in 64.

Any novice gambler who ever thought that a Martingale betting strategy was a great system and then subsequently lost his shirt (and then subsequently learned himself up a bit to find that Martingale betting strategies are a dumb idea) will tell you that 1 in 64 is not out of the realm of real world possibilities. So, Clinton could have feasibly really won each coin toss.

Add to the mix that I believe each coin toss was held in a different location, at a different time, by different people, was conducted before public witnesses, and was caught on video. Regardless, to some, and probably justifiably, none of this will detract from the inescapable fact that the winner was a Clinton.

So, in your opinion,

1) were all/any of the coin tosses rigged?
2) regardless of possible rigging, how will the Sanders supporters react?
3) if you believe that Sanders supporters will react in a conspiratorial fashion, what does this mean for the Democrat party?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Susanne 4 years, 8 months ago
    Anyone who does coin tosses knows that the odds are skewed by whatever side is up before the flip... that's why "call it in the air" is done...

    I liked the one I saw last night on TV... the woman looks at the coin that just landed, and with a look of.. what, disdain? Disgust? Disillusionment? which is reflected in her voice, and says "Clinton".

    My feeling was if you have an even number of precincts that are dead even ties, then half goes to each side. In this case, if there were 6, then 3 goes to one side, three to the other. If it's an odd number - then a random coin toss for that one odd district (and it doesn't matter which one)...

    Then again... it IS the Democrat Party, so while "fair" is in their PR vocabulary, it's missing from their ops orders...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 8 months ago
      S... call it in the air isn't any worse at tipping the odds if the 'choosing side' can see the coin before it's flipped!
      What we need is a computerized coin flipper that, for example, takes a random number, computes it to X decimal places and then spits out something like the Xth digit of Pi. or sqrt(2) or whatever...
      :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 8 months ago
    Anyone ever notice that every generation or so, the young skulls full of mush think they are the first ones to discover the mysticism of socialism? "young people" broke something like 74-18 for Bernie in Iowa.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 8 months ago
    The coin toss for six precincts is immaterial next to the fact that when Sanders asked for the raw vote count, he was informed those results were "missing" for 90 precincts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 4 years, 8 months ago
    Considering that it is common knowledge that it is indeed "dangerous" to know the Clintons, in terms of they have had a very oddly large number of inner circle friends & business associates die under odd circumstances - do I think she is 'capable' of cheating... Really? You have to ask that question? She lost the Rose Law Firm billing records related to Whitewater for 7 years, and they 'mysteriously' turned up in her night stand when cleaning out the White House on the day she was moving out.

    Of course she is capable of cheating.

    Look at the email scandal... everyone is focused on whether or not each individual email was 'classified at the time it was sent'. Why has no one in the media asked the obvious question... "You were the f'ing Secretary of State and the nation's top diplomat... at what point did you think having your own little $300 Linksys server appliance thing stuffed in the towel closet of your guest bathroom was 'ok'?"

    - That's not an exaggeration, my understanding is that it was some little cube-server type thing, literally stuffed in the spare guest bath closet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 8 months ago
      Cheating? What cheating? There are several Democrat members of the Coin family in Iowa: Henry Coin, Jane Coin, and more. Six of the Coins are in different precincts. They are all for Bernie, but the rules say the result can be determined by flipping a Coin. All six of the were flipped by Clinton cash. All in accordance with the rules.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 4 years, 8 months ago
    I once saw a "heads I win tails you lose" prank coin. It had two heads and no tails.
    Last night I was channel surfing when I found Bill O'Riley smirking at some kinda female Dimocrat (my hit misspelling) strategist and telling her there was no way her party would allow Bolshevik Bernie (my name-calling) to win the nomination.
    Bill did not say that Lady Killary (oops, tee-hee) of the Teflon Royal House of Clinton is due her criminal coronation, but I knew what he was driving at. .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 8 months ago
    Of course the game is rigged. On the Democratic side it is institutionally rigged. See http://cowboybyte.com/42548/how-a-cau... for an explanation. Of course what is also interesting is that there were still a large number of precincts whose votes still hadn't been tallied by the time the "winner" was declared. There's more to this than just the coin flip.

    What should be a real shocker to the Clinton campaign is how close it actually was. She should have won by 20 points or more. This doesn't bode well for her chances in New Hampshire.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 4 years, 8 months ago
    Here is how we do it in Washington state...

    Toss #1 - Sanders
    Toss #2 - Sanders
    Toss #3 - Clinton...Clinton wins!

    Why not...that's how a previous Gubernatorial race, between Democratic and Republican candidates was handled.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 8 months ago
    The odds of either winning all six or loosing all six is 1 in 32.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 8 months ago
      No, you're using a combination - not a permutation. The odds are 1 in 64.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 8 months ago
        I am not. I'm saying the odds of suspicious outcome of Clinton winning all the tosses plus the odds of the suspicious outcome of Sanders winning all the tosses equals 1 in 32.

        If there are any other outcomes that would be viewed as suspicious, the odds could be even more likely.

        This happens all the time in random processes. The human mind seeks to find order in random processes and says "the chances of this particular pattern appearing at random are very low. It likely is not random." We should be asking "what are the chances of any pattern that we would recognize as feeling 'non-random' would occur?" The chances are actually very high. We imagine random distributions as being spread out, but in reality they're "clumpy" like the stars in the sky, and they form recognizable constellations.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 8 months ago
          Two things...
          First, since Clinton is involved, I'd venture that the odds of something shady happening are more like 1:1.
          Second, a statistician expert where I worked calculated how likely the first Viet Nam Draft Number pick (remember the ping-pong balls?) was actually random.... something like 1:67,000.
          Trust no one.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 8 months ago
          You are using "either" in an inclusive manner which equates to the statement the combined odds of Clinton winning (1/64) PLUS the odds of Sanders winning (1/64) = 2/64 = 1/32. Your statement is implying the chance of future shenanigans are equivalent on either side.

          The actual question, however, is applicable only to the one candidate - in this case Clinton - since what we are describing was the actual outcome - not the aggregate possibility of two future outcomes.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 8 months ago
            "not the aggregate possibility of two future outcomes."

            This is a logical fallacy. If we're using the apparent odd coincidence as possible evidence the toss was not random, we must consider all possible odd coincidences*. Post hoc anomalies (I think that's the right phrase for this) like this crop up everywhere. They make people believe in things like ESP. "What are the chances that I would dream a car accident and then have a car accident shortly after?" they ask. But they need to ask what are the chances there would be any possible dream followed up by any possible similar occurence. If you go hunting for any anomalies in the past, you will find them, but they don't serve as evidence for anything.

            BTW, this does not mean the coin toss was fair. You may have other arguments based on Clinton's past behavior to suggest she would be willing and capable of rigging a coin toss. My claim is the anomaly itself is not evidence for anything.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 8 months ago
              I'm doing a mathematical/logical analysis on how you came up with your 1/32 claim. I don't what else you're going off on and I'm not dealing with or incorporating statistical anomalies at all.

              The strict probability of the outcome of six straight beneficial binary decisions is 1/2^6 = 1/64. You are arguing that the probability is only 1/32. The only way you could come to that answer was by twisting the original problem statement to apply to either of two candidates and aggregating/summing the individual odds and then presenting that as the real odds of the outcome - or just by being bad at permutations. I'm pointing out that your answer is to a different question than the one originally asked, which is explicitly "What are the odds that Hillary Clinton was benefited from the outcome of six straight binary decisions (coin tosses)." It's a straight math problem.

              Now if you want to argue that despite it being a statistical anomaly it isn't prima facie evidence of fraud, you can make that argument. You have a 1/64 chance of being right, but you can make the argument. I'm looking at it and going - with those odds, Hillary should be down at the track.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 8 months ago
                “The strict probability of the outcome of six straight beneficial binary decisions is 1/2^6 = 1/64. You are arguing that the probability is only 1/32”
                First, I’m very sorry for sounding like I’m going off. I’m just interested in this type of thing b/c this issue comes up so often, and I think I see it through the weird lens of electronic communications theory.

                It’s a straightforward math problem if someone asks before an experiment “what’s the chance of getting six heads from six tosses.”: 1 in 64. My claim is that if we’re looking for a non-random element to the tosses (e.g. cheating) in the data, we have to consider all the cases we might consider anomalous. I consider either candidate winning all the tosses to be equally anomalous. These two cases make us wonder, “What are the chances that candidate X won all six tosses?” The probability of getting a result that makes us wonder that is 2 in 64, or 1 in 32.

                I think the fancy name for this is post hoc anomaly hunting. People can take it to an extreme and find post hoc anomalies in any permutation of outcomes. They could check to see if the tosses lined up with who was mayor in those areas, who was county executive, who was the Congressman, whether they were more urban or rural, until they come upon an anomaly. Then they ask, “What are the chances that in every area that had a Democrat county executive the toss went for Clinton, and it went for Sanders in all the others? It’s straight math: 1 in 64.” Obviously you and I are not doing that; it’s just an extreme example of anomaly hunting.

                I would think either candidate winning all the tosses sounds anomalous, so when asking myself “what are chances” I have to consider both scenarios.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 4 years, 8 months ago
                  I understand what you're saying, but it is a complete distraction from the original question - which ignored Bernie Sanders' role entirely. No one was concerned about Bernie Sanders cheating. No one really thought Hillary would need to cheat before the fact. What we are analyzing is one simple question: what are the odds Hillary - and only Hillary - cheated?

                  Anomaly hunting is done by those attempting to justify that an outcome - while being unusual - has enough precedent to be considered legitimate. If you want to try to apologize for Hillary's cheating (which is what this is seen as) you can certainly go down that road if you choose. I find it unlikely, however, that - in light of Hillary's past behavior - you are likely to find many on this forum willing to join you.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 8 months ago
                    I'm not defending Clinton in this discussion. I would have the same analysis if we were talking about Trump. It would be the same if we were saying getting a credit card number ending in 2222 2222 is probably not random because the chances are 1 in 100 million. I would have to point out that any eight digits of the same number would look suspicious, e.g. 3333 3333. So would 1234 5678 or 8765 4321. We have to add up the probabilities of all the cases that would appear anomalous.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 8 months ago
                    Given my knowledge of government from the inside....slim to none. For starters others around her the enabling aide for example were in on it. but the attitude is prevalent especialy in DC
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 8 months ago
    the odds were exactly the same each time. the odds only change when something changes the staring value. Two sides= 50 50 six sides take away one each time is 1:6, 1:5, 1:4, 1:3 1:2 and 1:1

    Int he end the odds are we will get a socialist President regardless of left right, up down . That's the point of rigged elections. One party one outcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 8 months ago
    The only way evil, the inept and perverse can win is by cheating, lying and bearing false witness, (it's an apt phrase in this circumstance). So the chance be equal I suspect that the opposition might try the same; although, I'm not sure that the opposition is up to the task...they have quite a mental handicap to overcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 8 months ago
    In any competition with the Clintons, there will be neither honesty, nor fairness.
    Sanders supporters will learn what it's like to compete against the cheaters who not only doctor the odds, but doctor the judges as well. And, don't forget the fear factor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChuckyBob 4 years, 8 months ago
    I doubt that Bernie will get serious about a challenge to the results. Since Iowa is not a winner take all state the amount of work to get one, or two more delegates is not worth it. Even a socialist should be able to figure that out.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 8 months ago
      As i recall recently reading the Democrats ruled the states having primaries before the man event super primary season would have a choice the one's after would be winner take all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 8 months ago
    For literary inspiration, I turn here, not to Rand, but to Ian Fleming:

    Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it's enemy action. Or, as in this case, cheating. Six coin-toss wins in six coins tossed, violates the Law of Large Numbers (Law of Averages). It also exceeds the threshold of statistical significance, which one declares when the odds in favor of any given series of outcomes fall below one to nineteen (p < 0.05). We see here the vastness of the Clinton Machine.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo