And THIS MINORITY is selecting the next Dem POTUS candidate?

I hope the rest of the people in the US have at least a chance of voicing their own views at the ballot box this fall, and NOT a rabid few in the hinterlands!

Here are some interesting numbers from the Iowa Caucuses:

If you listened to the Main Stream Media, there was a TERRIFIC TURNOUT for
Democrats at the Iowa Caucuses AND MAJOR CHANGE is in the wind.

All FOUR of the TOP Republican Candidates EACH exceeded the TOTAL NUMBER OF
VOTES CAST for ALL Democrats.

In fact, it appears that NO Democrats even bothered to show up in Nine of
the 1781 Iowa Precincts. All 1781 Precincts reported Republican votes.


Democrats Republicans

Obama4688 Huckabee40841

Edwards4194 Romney29949

Clinton4089 Thompson15904

Richardson298 McCain15559

Biden147 Paul11817

Dodd4 Guiliani4097

Kucinich0 Hunter524

Gravel0 Tancredo5

Total Votes:
13420 118696


Looks like it is time to change a popular phrase.

New version: "There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Main Steam Media Reports."
TIFN, The above was sent too me as an email. I didn't just dream it up on my own! Didn't have to!! The big long answer below wasn't authored by me either!! It came from an article on Pajamas Media and was posted by them from an author at The New Republic magazine. Don't know his name and cannot find the post on PJM anymore!


Sam said...

Oh, easy to explain, Everett. The Democratic Party didn't want Michigan to have a primary scheduled so early, and penalized the local Michigan party for doing so:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the only major Democratic candidate whose name was on the ballot in Michigan, was the winner on the Democratic side. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina withdrew their names at the request of the national Democratic Party, which penalized Michigan with the loss of its convention delegates because the early date of its primary violated party rules." (International Herald News)


Anonymous said...

Part of the reason the democratic nominations are given so much focus may lie in the value of a story. This is the first time in the history of our country where a white woman and an African-American are running for the highest elected office in the land. The Republican primary is about which older white man is going to land the party nomination. So, in one sense not a great deal of earth shattering news there--barring the possibility of a Mormon carrying the nomination.
There is the possibility that the democratic primary will result in a candidate who might break through some of the traditional biases for leadership--- so, the story does appeal to our national imagination.
So, while the news has neglected the importance of numbers, it also lacks an effective analysis or, in some cases, reporting of the candidate's political platform.

So, this may be more a problem of "lite news" rather than a determination to ignore the Republican count.
Just a thought.

Everett said...

Anon, I wasn't so much concerned with the ignoring of the Republican numbers who did turn out, so much as I was with the SO VERY FEW dyed in the wool Dems that did show up to vote. And to listen/watch the MSM coverage, you are lead to believe that practically every Dem in the state was there and gave unbridled, lavish, love and kisses to the two major players, and were ushering one of them thru the White House doors already!!!

Sam said...

Well it is remarkable that Republican primaries in three states voted for three different candidates. To me that means no single one really has any traction.

I know you a little, Everett, you would love a moderate New England Republican in the old tradition, and all of today's candidates are real scary. Not a single one is any good, IMHO.

That's because people will not be really voting FOR a candidate as much as voting Bush out of office. Anybody but that clown, please, and quicker the better. The least painful one wins. -sam

Everett said...

The guy doesn't have to come from NE. He just has to be frickin' honest and not have been standing in the shit up too his knees for all of his political career. I DO NOT like GWB for a lot of the crap that proceeded his tenure. He is just as big a political whore as the rest of the group of candidates. The ONLY thing I am in full agreement with him on, is the business of taking on this war with the Jihadist/Sharia minded assholes out there who would like to take over this country either by outright physical war, or by the way they are doing it now, with outfits like CAIR and the rest of their ilk. We are so PC now that we let them advocate treason and anarchy without fear of retribution! Don't you dare say the "beaver" now, or make jokes about calling it the Black/Brown House after Obama gets elected. I am sick to friggin death of all the people who want to and are giving this country away tiny bit by tiny bit! Sold out from under the feet of the millions who gave their time, money, and lives to make it what it is today. I really do realize that this government, and the last one is in total disarray, and why they have incurred the enmity of millions of the people. But it just goes up my ass a mile that so many of the left side of the aisle are just giving up and handing it over to what will be something a thousand times worse than what we contend with today!! If they cannot see what will come from looking at the past and the present, Then I fear for all of us and our descendants! The middle east will have truly come to these shores with all it's thousands of years of baggage in tow! I'm going to go shoot myself!!!!!

Old NFO said...

Interesting Ev, I didn't know that... Hmmm... a point to ponder (again) about the MSM and their reporting (which sucks)

Sam said...

Hah, you folks made my day!

I think you're safe on the global cause against terror, Ev. Nobody is going to disagree there except that maybe we should be pounding and protecting Afghanistan, not Iraq. And watch "Pack-o-Stinky" next door, where Osama is probably chuckling right now.

How about the economy though? Wow, that's a big issue for me. How about youse guys? /sammie

Anonymous said...

Wow, no one will challenge these numbers. Everett, someone sent you an e-mail so it must be true.
The Iowa Dem party reported 236,000
attendees, the Iowa Repub party reported 120,000 attendees.
Figures for Dems are are reported as "state delegate equivalents".
The real numbers are Obama 940, Edwards 744, Clinton 737, Richardson 53, Biden 23, Dodd 1 and uncommitted 3. These are percentage totals of the 236K attendees (twice the repubs)
The sender of the e-mail is confused, the vote totals are being compared as apples and clams.
The repub vote totals are attendees.
Now WE are not confused.
Don't believe everything you think.

Everett said...

The Email was from A person who is usually right about a lot of the political bull that goes on. But don't believe him if you wish. Take the time to read the below article and you'll see that a lot of folks have no clue just what goes on in the Iowa caucus'
January 3, 2008, 4:49 pm
Iowa’s Caucus Math

Mystified by the Iowa caucus system? Chances are you’re not alone. But math can help explain arcana such as “state delegate equivalents” and the ability to register a second vote — and for understanding their relative importance in the overall election.

election box

Iowa’s system works like this: In 1,784 precincts around the state, registered Republicans and Democrats gather and declare their preferred candidate in various ways, including voice votes or physical clustering. Republicans stop there, and each precinct reports the tally of its straw vote. But Democratic backers of candidates who get less than 15% of support in a given precinct are allowed to realign themselves. (The rules get more complicated; for instance, “Non-viable groups have up to 30 minutes to realign, if they fail to do so in that time, they can ask the for more time, which is voted on by the caucus as a whole.”) Therefore, Democrats do not report raw votes, but use the precincts’ results to assign “state delegate equivalents” to candidates.

Delegates chosen tonight go on to county conventions, where state delegates are chosen for yet another convention, to choose national delegates to attend the party conventions in late August and early September. So tonight’s results, which will be based on the number of delegates won by each candidate, will reflect only an estimate of actual delegates toward winning the national primary.

This system gives rise to several numerical quirks. In states with primaries, each vote counts equally. But in Iowa, each precinct is assigned a number of delegates in advance based on turnout last time around. An unusually large proportion of first-time caucus goers expect to show up tonight, according to one respected poll, which could bode well for Democratic candidate Barack Obama, believed to be galvanizing many first-time voters. But “supporters can go to waste,” The New Republic’s Michael Crowley points out. “If Barack Obama needs 100 backers to sweep all 10 delegates in one precinct, it doesn’t matter if 1,000 people show up.” Same thing goes for candidates who get enough support in a precinct to get one delegate but have extra supporters that can’t bring them a second delegate. Smart precinct captains for leading candidates do make some use of extra supporters by sending them to candidates not considered serious rivals, to boost them to 15% and deprive top rivals of those caucus-goers.

In part because of such quirks, “basically, pollsters don’t have a clue,” the Pollster.com bloggers write on Slate, noting that in the last two Iowa presidential caucuses, the latest surveys all missed key results by substantial margins.

Another potential confounding factor is survey-taker fatigue. Each poll must reach enough likely caucus-goers to achieve statistical significance, and pollsters have bombarded Iowa residents because of the outsize importance of the state’s first-in-nation caucus. “As a ratio of voters polled to expected turnout, this must be something of a record,” Washington Post polling director Jon Cohen wrote.

That ratio also reflects the relatively low turnout of the Iowa caucus, which can demand a bigger commitment from attendees than a secret-ballot primary election. The record turnout came in 1988, with a reported 125,000 Democrats and 109,000 Republicans (the numbers aren’t exact to preserve the unusual nature of the delegate-focused caucus, and to allow both the Iowa caucus and next Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary to claim some measure of first-in-nation status). In 2004, Democratic turnout was less than 17% of the state’s eventual vote total for John Kerry in the general election, compared with 64.5% for New Hampshire. The pattern was similar for other states with caucuses, which had much lower turnouts than primaries.

In recent presidential elections, the Iowa caucus-goers have represented barely one-tenth of 1% of the nation’s voting-eligible population. And tonight they’ll assign delegates worth fewer than 2% of the total needed to win either party’s nomination.

So why all the attention paid to Iowa and its small, quirky, unpredictable numbers? Because non-numerical factors, such as the perception of momentum, predominate. Among these is the calendar. As the Journal pointed out in a page-one article last fall, Democrats are pouring “unprecedented millions” into Iowa because Hillary Clinton’s challengers see a weakness there. And an Iowa win can carry sway for at least a month, during which time New Hampshire and a few other relatively small states will vote in party-sanctioned primaries (Michigan and Florida were punished by the parties for moving their primaries to January, particularly by the Democrats, which stripped the states of their national

Anonymous said...

It's not that I don't believe your
e-mail sender, it's that the Dem
figures are wrong. They represent neither delegate equivalents nor
raw votes. What do they represent?
They are not sourced.
That "there were almost 9 times the number of votes cast..." is
Your e-mail sender has an agenda and it sounds like a republican agenda.
Iowa's importance in the primary exists in Iowa and the beltway

Sam said...

In addition, it turns out that any and all votes and polls are really horrible science and prone to the worst of mistakes. I've been in the business for a long time and know better.

For example, a survey of attitude will usually be 2003 interviews with a +/- error of exactly 3 percent. What a bunch of hooey, which 2003 people did you get? The talkers, the bullshitters, and the political pimps? Everyone else hangs up the phone or walks past the stupid survey desk.

Now it turns out the voting machines don't even work, the conventions have some kind of "equivalents," and it doesn't matter because the Electoral College votes however they darn well please. Forgive me, you put way too much confidence in science that went to the bar and got drunk.

Everett said...

Oh BTW, I didn't write that answer above. It was copied from a Magazine of some national repute, err The New Republic I believe a left leaning missive!

Anonymous said...

And by reprinting that article you
have violated the fair use doctrine. It's called copyright infringement and you are subject to
financial liability.
A better thing to do is provide a link to the article.
Authors are touchy about this and can have you thrown off this host.

Everett said...

Well if I was the author, I'd be tickled pink that it had been passed on as long as there was no money changing hands! What's "Unfair" about it? I didn't see any disclaimers attached to it telling me to 'not reprint without the authors permission' What the hell do they put it out there for if they don't want it passed along? You must be a lawyer 'cause I can't imagine any lay person even wondering if they were going to be sued for furthering the authors own ends!

Everett said...

BTW, I'd do the link tricks but don't seem to be smart enough to get them to work. And how many times does anyone actually click on a presented link?

Anonymous said...

Not that it matters but you didn't credit the author in your post. You posted as your own work. The unfair part is authors are paid
to write, you took it and made it your own.
This is a strict no no in the blogosphere, your blog host will agree.
I'm not a lawyer. A link will prevent you from getting tangled up with one.

A link to The New Rebublic.
Note the last line, all the way down. Copyrighted 2007.
Being on the interweb does not mean it's in the public domain.

Anonymous said...

Here are a few things your blog host has to say about copyright infringement.
I'm just saying you need to protect yourself.

Everett said...

OK!! I got it and thanks for the heads up. Guess I'm going to have to get MY head out of my ass and figure out the link trick.

Sam said...

Naw, Everett, you're OK. There is a fairly strong law called Fair Use which does allow copyrighted info to be used for non-commercial purposes such as research and regular old gossip.

You're not making any money off this blog, are ya?

Just cite the story so somebody can find the original document. Note that it is still against the law to fully reprint a story without the author's permission.

Back to the Prez candidates, looks like Guiliani and Edwards are on their way out ... getting interesting! -sam

Anonymous said...

Fair use allows you to sample an article, what is too much sampling is fuzzy.
Criminal copyright infringement is when you make $$$ from someone else's work.
Regular copyright infringement is when you do not make $$$.

Anonymous said...

vote totals above from Time Magazine. Time is not a right of center publication. They claim so far 7 Dems have turned out for every 5 Repubs. In SC they claim
532K Dems to 431K Repubs.
I agree with Everett's e-mailer's claim that the MSM is biased, but I believe the bias tilts to the Repubs. These primary vote totals,
in my humble opinion (IMHO), should have Repubs very scared.
But no. Repubs spin it as a welcome challenge...good for democracy...blah blah blah...
Maybe we are coming out of our collective coma, maybe we will vote issues instead of personality.
Maybe we have stopped caring about which candidate we want to have a beer with. Maybe the MSM will focus on important things.
Maybe not.

Anonymous said...

I meant Time is not left of center.
No sireee, no Republican agenda for them, just straight shootin' fair
and balanced.

Everett said...

Man, you lost me there for a minute. When I saw Time Mag. I "saw" NY Times. Now they are about as far left of center as you can get. But did not Time Magazine put the face of Arafat on the cover once and proclaim him Man of the Year? That is totally warped no matter which side of the center you sit on!! I just flat assed don't "believe" anything thing I read in any MSM missle. They all have their own adgenda's and the hell with the truth as it actually happened!

Anonymous said...

I am with you on that last thought.
We need to pull the truth from betwen the lines.

Sam said...

It's good that Everett, who by his account is over 350 years old, can still learn a think or two!

Funny, I read foreign stuff on about the US on the Economist (England) and Spiegel (Germany) and their stories are totally different from the BS you get here. Some of the Singapore online news is pretty good too.

True, if there's a sentiment they all want Bush to take a hike, but they are fascinated with the very strange polls, mysterious delegates, and all that. -sammie