Jump to content

Who Votes!!??


falconchef
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 Here are some interesting numbers from the Iowa Caucuses.

If you listened to the Main PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL 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.

THERE WERE ALMOST 9 TIMES THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES VERSES THE DEMOCRAT CAUCUSES.

Democrats Republicans

Obama

4688

Huckabee

40841

Edwards

4194

Romney

29949

Clinton

4089

Thompson

15904

Richardson

298

McCain

15559

Biden

147

Paul

11817

Dodd

4

Guiliani

4097

Kucinich

0

Hunter

524

Gravel

0

Tancredo

5

Total Votes

13420

 

118696

WHY DIDN'T THE MAIN PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL MEDIA REPORT THESE NUMBERS? THEY WOULDN'T BE BIASED WOULD THEY? THEY WOULDN'T BE AFRAID THIS WOULD MAKE DEMOCRATS LOOK BAD WOULD THEY?

Looks like it is time to change a popular phrase.

New version: "There are Lies, **** Lies, and Main Steam Media Reports."

Here is a link to the numbers:

(copy and paste url into your browser)

 

 The answer?  REPUBLICANS!!  The rest of you can continue to sit on your couch and let the INFORMED run the country!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your numbers are flat wrong. Not sure where you got them, but here are some actual numbers:

Pottawattamie County: 5500 votes

Harrison County: 1000 votes

Woodbury County: 6800 votes

There are dozens of counties in Iowa. Those three counties alone represent nearly as many votes as you have listed for the total number of Iowa votes.

Then there is Polk county, where 35,800 voters cast ballots on the Democratic side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

falconchef (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide.../states/IA.html

You're missing something. Not sure what, but your source is skewed.

How is MY source wrong, while YOUR source is accurate?

Because the NY Times is the most trust worthy lib rag in the nation. It would never report misinformation, not with an impeccable track record like they have. :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
falconchef (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide.../states/IA.html

You're missing something. Not sure what, but your source is skewed.

How is MY source wrong, while YOUR source is accurate?

Because the NY Times is the most trust worthy lib rag in the nation. It would never report misinformation, not with an impeccable track record like they have. :crazy:

Do you want to defend this guy's claim that only 13k citizens voted in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa? :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
and I don't claim to know which numbers are accurate, I have not looked, but you cite the NY Times?? Next time just link the Huffington Post so we can see some real journalism.

SB, I knew the times had the numbers so I posted it first. Then I checked CNN and posted a link.

I was on my way to fox news' page when I saw the crap about black panthers as the top headline so I got distracted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramen (3/20/2008)
Your numbers are flat wrong. Not sure where you got them, but here are some actual numbers:

Pottawattamie County: 5500 votes

Harrison County: 1000 votes

Woodbury County: 6800 votes

There are dozens of counties in Iowa. Those three counties alone represent nearly as many votes as you have listed for the total number of Iowa votes.

Then there is Polk county, where 35,800 voters cast ballots on the Democratic side.

My post has a link.  Is yours just hyperbole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
and I don't claim to know which numbers are accurate, I have not looked, but you cite the NY Times?? Next time just link the Huffington Post so we can see some real journalism.

SB, I knew the times had the numbers so I posted it first. Then I checked CNN and posted a link.

I was on my way to fox news' page when I saw the crap about black panthers as the top headline so I got distracted.

I saw the other link, I just cannot pass up a shot at the NY Times, its almost a sickness with me....they really are just that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

falconchef (3/20/2008)
Ramen (3/20/2008)
Your numbers are flat wrong. Not sure where you got them, but here are some actual numbers:

Pottawattamie County: 5500 votes

Harrison County: 1000 votes

Woodbury County: 6800 votes

There are dozens of counties in Iowa. Those three counties alone represent nearly as many votes as you have listed for the total number of Iowa votes.

Then there is Polk county, where 35,800 voters cast ballots on the Democratic side.

My post has a link. Is yours just hyperbole?

I was posting from HM's link. The numbers I gave are also the same numbers you will find on FOX News website and every other credible news site on the internet.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Democratic turnout has far surprised GOP turnout all year. The facts just don't support your view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (3/20/2008)
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide.../states/IA.html

You're missing something. Not sure what, but your source is skewed.

I think it has something to do with how the two parties run their Caucus. It's not run the same way by both parties. It's very confusing on the Dem side. That is where the numbers get screwed up I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
and I don't claim to know which numbers are accurate, I have not looked, but you cite the NY Times?? Next time just link the Huffington Post so we can see some real journalism.

SB, I knew the times had the numbers so I posted it first. Then I checked CNN and posted a link.

I was on my way to fox news' page when I saw the crap about black panthers as the top headline so I got distracted.

I saw the other link, I just cannot pass up a shot at the NY Times, its almost a sickness with me....they really are just that bad.

I'm still trying to figure out that whole McCain slander piece. It made NO sense as presented. There MUST be another shoe to drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (3/20/2008)
http://elections.foxnews.com/iowa/

Well, there is a dissenting view after all.

Does fox and the thread originator have it right?

FOX and CNN show the number of precinct delegates selected to vote in the statewide caucus/convention. You have to read the footnotes such as this one from the New York Times:

The vote totals for the Iowa Democratic Party are State Delegate Equivalents, which represent the estimated number of state convention delegates that the candidates would have, based on the caucus results.

Edit: In other words, the columns show the precinct delegates but if you highlight the county results they will show the total number of individuals casting votes for that party in that county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
and I don't claim to know which numbers are accurate, I have not looked, but you cite the NY Times?? Next time just link the Huffington Post so we can see some real journalism.

SB, I knew the times had the numbers so I posted it first. Then I checked CNN and posted a link.

I was on my way to fox news' page when I saw the crap about black panthers as the top headline so I got distracted.

I saw the other link, I just cannot pass up a shot at the NY Times, its almost a sickness with me....they really are just that bad.

I'm still trying to figure out that whole McCain slander piece. It made NO sense as presented. There MUST be another shoe to drop.

Not to get anything started, this is about the NY Times. That piece on McCain which fell apart almost immediately was page 1, it was bs from the beginning unless as you say they have more dirt yet to be released, the stuff about Obama when it was breaking news was buried in the middle.....Does this make any sense to anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
and I don't claim to know which numbers are accurate, I have not looked, but you cite the NY Times?? Next time just link the Huffington Post so we can see some real journalism.

SB, I knew the times had the numbers so I posted it first. Then I checked CNN and posted a link.

I was on my way to fox news' page when I saw the crap about black panthers as the top headline so I got distracted.

I saw the other link, I just cannot pass up a shot at the NY Times, its almost a sickness with me....they really are just that bad.

I'm still trying to figure out that whole McCain slander piece. It made NO sense as presented. There MUST be another shoe to drop.

I know . . . I had scrolled on the counties but forgot to post that instruction.

But I actually had not seen the totals on fox. I was being ironic with that post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
and I don't claim to know which numbers are accurate, I have not looked, but you cite the NY Times?? Next time just link the Huffington Post so we can see some real journalism.

SB, I knew the times had the numbers so I posted it first. Then I checked CNN and posted a link.

I was on my way to fox news' page when I saw the crap about black panthers as the top headline so I got distracted.

I saw the other link, I just cannot pass up a shot at the NY Times, its almost a sickness with me....they really are just that bad.

I'm still trying to figure out that whole McCain slander piece. It made NO sense as presented. There MUST be another shoe to drop.

Not to get anything started, this is about the NY Times. That piece on McCain which fell apart almost immediately was page 1, it was bs from the beginning unless as you say they have more dirt yet to be released, the stuff about Obama when it was breaking news was buried in the middle.....Does this make any sense to anyone?

Makes sense to me...The media is 90% liberal Democrat...which is why it's been so much fun watching them try to spin the negativity coming from both camps (Clinton and Obama) into something positive for both of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

falconchef (3/20/2008)
xnex (3/20/2008)
This link might be easier to understand. Looks like someone has serious egg on their face.

http://www.gazetteonline.com/section/iowacaucus06

Can't help but notice that your link has only percentages, but no actual numbers reported.

 

You need to spend more time investigating. It has raw numbers for every candidate in both parties. All you have to do is scroll to the bottom of the file and you can total them yourself. Dems far outnumbered Reps in Iowa. It's not remotely close at all.

 

Try following this link at the top of the page.

 

Statewide totals can be viewed in table format by clicking here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
holymoses (3/20/2008)
silentbob1272 (3/20/2008)
and I don't claim to know which numbers are accurate, I have not looked, but you cite the NY Times?? Next time just link the Huffington Post so we can see some real journalism.

SB, I knew the times had the numbers so I posted it first. Then I checked CNN and posted a link.

I was on my way to fox news' page when I saw the crap about black panthers as the top headline so I got distracted.

I saw the other link, I just cannot pass up a shot at the NY Times, its almost a sickness with me....they really are just that bad.

I'm still trying to figure out that whole McCain slander piece. It made NO sense as presented. There MUST be another shoe to drop.

Not to get anything started, this is about the NY Times. That piece on McCain which fell apart almost immediately was page 1, it was bs from the beginning unless as you say they have more dirt yet to be released, the stuff about Obama when it was breaking news was buried in the middle.....Does this make any sense to anyone?

I think the NYT is biased to the left, I also think FOX news is just as biased if not more to the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

falconchef (3/20/2008)
xnex (3/20/2008)
This link might be easier to understand. Looks like someone has serious egg on their face.

http://www.gazetteonline.com/section/iowacaucus06

Can't help but notice that your link has only percentages, but no actual numbers reported.

falconchef (3/20/2008)
WHO VOTES!!??The answer? REPUBLICANS!! The rest of you can continue to sit on your couch and let the INFORMED run the country!!!

Here are the actual PHYSICAL votes for all those couch potatoes in IOWA.

® 118,344

(D) 249,660

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...