Hillary Clinton is Done

[Dog Town]

He also notes the interesting fact that the State Department did not even have an Inspector General, who would have been monitoring this kind of (alleged) misconduct, during Clinton's

I read that a few days ago, and found that odd! But it was in the post, so...

 

[Bob001]

I read that a few days ago, and found that odd! But it was in the post, so...

Sure, it's the NY Post, but the story quotes a specific former official by name. It's not just vague innuendo.

 

[Dog Town]

Sure, it's the NY Post, but the story quotes a specific former official by name. It's not just vague innuendo.

True! It was a busy day in DT land, I must have forgotten to bring it up.

 

[fuelair]

The punchline:



This kind of thinking is why we ended up with president Bush instead of Gore. It not only sounds childish, it is childish.

Yes, yes indeed. Sane thing for all the Democrats who let the republicker voting old fogies and idiot lower class racists put tools like Rubio, cruz anf orange guy in the Congress of thieves because they choose not to go to the polls in mid-terms..

 

[fuelair]

Sanders couldn't win one of the states that favors him demographically the most, and is still trailing by 14 points nationally, and you're declaring victory?

My wife is doing the same thing. Bernie may well be a better president but it is very likely if he is the pick the slimesuckers will own all of the government.

 

[Trakar]

Best I can determine, there is still an investigation happening. They are interviewing people.

I wouldn't want to win the Democratic nomination because a witch-hunt found a witch. I'd much rather focus on a battle of ideas and win because there are more progressives in the Democratic party than there are corporatist establishment blue-dogs.

Looking at last nights caucus, in a state that Hillary has invested tens of millions of dollars in over the last year trying to dominate. I can live with the results, we just can't let future primaries be close enough that establishment games can easily make a difference.

1400 x .498 = 697.2
1400 x .496 = 694.4
= 2.8

so if sanders had won 3/6 of the coin flips (instead of losing all six) he would have edged out Clinton.

How many people believe that if the circumstances had been reversed, Clinton wouldn't have called for a recount?

Personally, I can live with this result.
The Super delegate issue will resolve itself as the voters express themselves and super delegates realign with the voters' choices. In the regular delegate count, it is currently HRC=23 Sanders = 21

In up coming primaries the delegates at stake are:

New Hampshire = 24
Nevada = 35
S. Carolina = 53

But March is the first month with big delegate numbers at stake, ...we shall see.

 

[Fudbucker]

Maybe the South Carolinians will think it was bad form to interrupt a winner's speech (even someone as odious as Cruz) and declare victory before the results are in? Sanders called it a virtual tie in his speech, which was the classy thing to do.

We may not like Cruz, but the election HAD been called for him, and he was the clear winner of the night. Let the man take his victory lap before you cut in, Hillary. You couldn't even beat an old white socialist without the help of a coin toss.

Hillary may still win SC, but it will be a lot closer then everyone thinks. And who knows what else might be dredged up out of the cesspool of Hillary's private server, or who else might take the 5th (HUMA ABEDIN)?

 

[varwoche]

... so if sanders had won 3/6 of the coin flips (instead of losing all six) he would have edged out Clinton.

How many people believe that if the circumstances had been reversed, Clinton wouldn't have called for a recount?

As it turns out, this is false.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/46526...in-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

 

[Dog Town]

As it turns out, this is false.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/46526...in-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

Thanks for the link, interesting info.

What does anyone make of this though?

That means, for Clinton to have picked up the four delegates, she would have had to have won not six in a row, but more like 47.

Yes, Iowa — and it's not alone — uses coin tosses to break ties in precincts that award an odd number of delegates.

For example: Let's say five delegates are set to be awarded in Precinct 1. There are 30 people for Clinton and 30 people for Sanders — and no one on either side can be swayed.

The result: Clinton and Sanders get two delegates apiece. What happens to the final delegate? The caucuses revert to, you guessed, it, a coin toss.

Why would she need to win 47? The explanation makes it seem like to pick up 4, she would need to win four.
What am I missing?

 

[Trakar]

As it turns out, this is false.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/46526...in-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

Your story argues against, a simple analogy, but it doesn't factually refute or prove false anything. Especially as it uses no independent evaluation or arbiter of objective analysis to support its argument.

You are free to believe as you will, but you still did not answer the question I asked and you quoted.

"How many people believe that if the circumstances had been reversed, Clinton wouldn't have called for a recount?"

 

[BenBurch]

Thanks for the link, interesting info.

What does anyone make of this though?


Why would she need to win 47? The explanation makes it seem like to pick up 4, she would need to win four.
What am I missing?

That it is not one delegate per precinct.

 

[Dog Town]

That it is not one delegate per precinct.

Don't get what you mean. The coin flip is always for one, when it occurs. At least according to my understanding.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As it turns out, this is false.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/46526...in-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

Well, and you didn't even have to counter the nonsense that six wins is improbable*. (Hint, no it isn't, not at all, that would be the Gambler's fallacy.)

Interesting how long this stuff takes to come out.


*The article repeats this fallacy:

The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent.

Each of those coin tosses had a 50:50 chance regardless of any of the other coin tosses. Probability is funny like that.

It's an illusion confusing probability with actual outcome. The more times you flip the coin, as you approach very large numbers of trials your distribution curve gets closer and closer to the probability curve, but only when you have an infinite number does your distribution curve match probability precisely.

And with only six coin tosses, getting all heads or all tails or the Clinton delegate calling it six different times is not the least bit improbable.

But what about the odds? Yes the odds are are 1 in 64, but the odds of Bernie winning all six was also 1 in 64, the odds of 50:50 was also 1 in 64, the odds of 60:40 was also 1 in 64 and so on. All outcomes had equal odds.

 

[logger]

My wife is doing the same thing. Bernie may well be a better president but it is very likely if he is the pick the slimesuckers will own all of the government.

Better for who? The lazy losers who live on hand-outs?

 

[Noztradamus]

Well, and you didn't even have to counter the nonsense that six wins is improbable*. (Hint, no it isn't, not at all, that would be the Gambler's fallacy.)

Interesting how long this stuff takes to come out.


*The article repeats this fallacy:

Each of those coin tosses had a 50:50 chance regardless of any of the other coin tosses. Probability is funny like that.

It's an illusion confusing probability with actual outcome. The more times you flip the coin, as you approach very large numbers of trials your distribution curve gets closer and closer to the probability curve, but only when you have an infinite number does your distribution curve match probability precisely.

And with only six coin tosses, getting all heads or all tails or the Clinton delegate calling it six different times is not the least bit improbable.

But what about the odds? Yes the odds are are 1 in 64, but the odds of Bernie winning all six was also 1 in 64, the odds of 50:50 was also 1 in 64, the odds of 60:40 was also 1 in 64 and so on. All outcomes had equal odds.

No they don't . The expectation is a Gaussian curve peaking at 50:50

Consider just two flips H for Hillary, Tails for Sanders (or vice versa). Expectation both H is 25%, both T is 25%, one of each is 50%

 

[fuelair]

Better for who? The lazy losers who live on hand-outs?

I am going to do you the courtesy of assuming you have never lost a job to poor planning/sales by a company or to lost overseas sales due to countries where workers are paid near starvation wage or to systems (Disney per-ex) where foreign workers are brought in under false conditions to replace American workers or, or, or, or... A rather high percentage of those "lazy losers" would welcome a job THAT PAID A LIVING WAGE.

 

[fuelair]

Well, and you didn't even have to counter the nonsense that six wins is improbable*. (Hint, no it isn't, not at all, that would be the Gambler's fallacy.)

Interesting how long this stuff takes to come out.


*The article repeats this fallacy:

Each of those coin tosses had a 50:50 chance regardless of any of the other coin tosses. Probability is funny like that.

It's an illusion confusing probability with actual outcome. The more times you flip the coin, as you approach very large numbers of trials your distribution curve gets closer and closer to the probability curve, but only when you have an infinite number does your distribution curve match probability precisely.

And with only six coin tosses, getting all heads or all tails or the Clinton delegate calling it six different times is not the least bit improbable.

But what about the odds? Yes the odds are are 1 in 64, but the odds of Bernie winning all six was also 1 in 64, the odds of 50:50 was also 1 in 64, the odds of 60:40 was also 1 in 64 and so on. All outcomes had equal odds.

Most people who play with probabilities are big losers and have no idea why. That is because they actually have no idea how to correctly calculate probabilities.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No they don't . The expectation is a Gaussian curve peaking at 50:50

Consider just two flips H for Hillary, Tails for Sanders (or vice versa). Expectation both H is 25%, both T is 25%, one of each is 50%

While I don't claim to be the math expert here, each of those flips were at separate events with different people calling the toss. None of them affected the other, each was a single event.

It's the same fallacy as thinking because the roulette wheel came up black 6 times in a row it is due to fall on red. No, it isn't.

 

[varwoche]

Your story argues against, a simple analogy, but it doesn't factually refute or prove false anything. Especially as it uses no independent evaluation or arbiter of objective analysis to support its argument.

Not so:

for Clinton to have picked up the four delegates, she would have had to have won not six in a row, but more like 47

And it explains in detail.

You are free to believe as you will, but you still did not answer the question I asked and you quoted.

"How many people believe that if the circumstances had been reversed, Clinton wouldn't have called for a recount?"

I'm not particularly interested in this sort of vapid speculation.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

While I don't claim to be the math expert here, each of those flips were at separate events with different people calling the toss. None of them affected the other, each was a single event.

It's the same fallacy as thinking because the roulette wheel came up black 6 times in a row it is due to fall on red. No, it isn't.

This is exactly why you can use the geometric distribution and get a 1/64 odds - each is a so-called independent Bernoulli trial. You can also use the Binomial distribution to find the odds of any particular amount of each outcome for a set of 6 coin tosses; you will find that 3 is the expected value.

Here is why: consider using 6 different coins for clarity's sake. You like them up in a set order and write out the outcome, e.g. HTHHTT.

Now, by combinatorics, there are 2^6 = 64 possible combinations. But not all of these represent different outcomes in terms of number of heads. For example, HHHHHT and HTHHHH both give the outcome "5 heads, 1 tails."

The probability of any outcome then, is the number of unique combinations representing that outcome, over the total number of unique combinations (the binomial distribution calculates exactly this.) For example, for the above 5 Heads, 1 Tails outcome, we may represent it with six different combinations (the single tails can occur in any one of six places), and so the probability of that is 6/64 or 3/32 ~ 1/11.

For all heads, or all tails however, we are in the unique position of having only one possible combination representing each: HHHHHH and TTTTTT. Thus, either of those has only a 1/64 chance of occurring. By comparison, there are 32 different ways to get 3 heads, 3 tails.

I hope this is clear enough. This is really just an elaboration on the principle of multiplication, a basic statistical law easily derived through the definition of independent events.