10

Your Predictions on Democrat Conspiracies and Possible Implosion over Iowa

Posted by Eudaimonia 9 years, 3 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?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is exactly what I was thinking! But actually, that is Clarke's Third Law - LL was quoting it, I believe.

    Clarke's first law
    When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
    Clarke's second law
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
    Clarke's third law
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robert Heinlein (Lazarus Long): Any technology,
    sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.
    -- memorized that a looooooooong time ago. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChuckyBob 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 2 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 9 years, 2 months ago
    they probably used that two-headed counterfiet coin...democrats on one side and republicans on the other...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 2 months ago
    It does seem suspicious that this would happen in Hillarys favor. I'm guessing they cheated somehow. Bernie has a clear lead in New Hampshire but latest polling shows his support has slipped. My guess is the Democrats will support the better cheater.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
    The odds of either winning all six or loosing all six is 1 in 32.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo