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.
THERE WERE ALMOST 9 TIMES THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES VERSES THE DEMOCRAT CAUCUSES.
Democrats
Obama -- 4,688
Edwards -- 4,194
Clinton -- 4,089
Richardson -- 298
Biden -- 147
Dodd -- 4
Kucinich -- 0
Gravel -- 0
Republicans
Huckabee -- 40,841
Romney -- 29,949
Thompson -- 15,904
McCain -- 15,559
Paul -- 11,817
Guiliani -- 4,097
Hunter -- 524
Tancredo -- 5
WHY DIDN'T THE MAIN STREAM 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, Damn Lies, and Main Steam Media Reports.'
Here is a link to the numbers
Hat tip to my friend Lee who this to me.
The Gunslinger
I'm far too lazy to check, but I think the numbers for the Democrats are precinct results, while the results for the Republicans are for individual voters. Republicans and Democrats had different procedures for counting caucus votes in Iowa. So the 147 Biden votes don't show that 147 people voted for Biden, but rather that he won 147 precincts.
ReplyDeleteBut Steve, there are only 1781 precincts. If they are counting precincts, the number could not be more than that.
ReplyDeleteBut if you add the tallies, they total 13,420.
(I'm assuming that Google's numbers are correct, of course.)
Good point about the number of precincts and votes. I said I was too lazy to check what was going on.
ReplyDelete:>
I just did some more checking. According to Wikipedia, the reported numbers for the Democrats were for delegates won, rather than individual voters or precincts.
OK, that makes sense. I checked the Google page before printing it, but it never occurred to me it was anything but individual votes.
ReplyDeleteThey were pretty low (which was the whole snarky point of the post), but that probably should have sent up a red flag.
That it didn't is my bias showing...and I apologize for that.
Opinion is one thing. Misrepresenting facts is quite entirely another. And I never want to do that.
Thanks, Steve, for the correction.