Iowa Caucus Tonight: Predictions?

Captain Trips wrote: And yet, if you go by your biased “judge” of bias and trustworthyness, that is exactly what you will find. There is a rather large finger on the scale on the left side. It’s not even debatable. The majority of media openly admits a left bias.

Just curious, but how do you know the majority of media is left leaning? When and how did they admit it? You have stated that you don't trust the main stream media, so if they say they are left leaning, aren't they lying?

What media do you trust?

Are you seriously going to argue that there is no left bias??

www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bi...d-to-hillary-clinton

Captain Trips wrote: Are you seriously going to argue that there is no left bias??

www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-media-bi...d-to-hillary-clinton

No. Not sure how you got that from what I wrote. My point is, that if you believe someone is a liar, and then they tell you they are a liar, how can you trust them? If the main stream media, which you believe to have a liberal bias, tells you they have a liberal bias, how can you believe them if they are not trustworthy?

What sources do you trust?

Seems that we back to the who do you trust, rely on, etc as a source.
More to the point let's look in depth at the Iowa primary which is the title of the thread. The results as of 4 PM MST where again being revised. Seems that Deval Patrick, who didn't campaign in Iowa a substantial amount of votes, later to find that they were actually for Sanders.
Shadow, Inc. (gotta love that name) refused to have the DHS's aid in determining that their software was secure and accurate. Shadow's major donor is George Soros. Robbie Mook is a principal in Shadow, Inc. Mook was Clinton's campaign head in 2016. nothing to see here folks, just move along. Gotta wonder why it is that the telephones worked for the Republican primary but not the democrat primary, must be a conspiracy. Let's have a betting pool as to when the final results of the Iowa primary will be released.. I bet on, after the NH primary.
They were able to hit Sanders, whether it was effective remains to be seen, keep Biden in the field at 15% and change. If below 15% he would be toast.
This is not a conspiracy theory this is fact.
Perhaps Mitt Romney can be recruited to run for President on the democrat side. Why not? Candy Crowley call your office.

ScienceChic wrote: Yes, FH sources matter and they are not useless. Our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution protections for the free press, and while they've never been perfect (even historically), ordinary citizens getting jobs as journalists and fact-checking government officials, writing about things that happened and issues affecting us without fear of reprisal is how we find out what's going on and make informed decisions moving forward. It's the basis of our democratic republic. There are sources that hold themselves to higher standards than others, and sources that are straight up propaganda - they should not be weighted equally, or we end up with an uneducated, sheeple society easily deceived and manipulated. Do any of you think that's a good idea? I sure don't.

But they really are useless if they refuse to vet one side the same way they vet the other side.
A prime example is Barack Obama and how he was treated by the majority of the media. Obama had a whole lot of sketchy tings in is past and unanswered questions that were never or rarely asked by any of his media support groups (every news network except for FOX). During his presidency he was never subjected to the scrutiny a Republican would have been.

I remember as a kid that journalists were supposed to be unbiased. I realize that journalists are just flawed and biased like the rest of us, but they never let that bias show. Now their biases seem to be a badge of honor for them as they pat each other on the backs as if on the same team, which they are.

The proof is in all the narratives they've wanted us to believe over the last three years that have been proven wrong. They had to have known the truth because they had the same information we all had, yet instead they chose to focus on anything they could be spun to damage the president, If you can show me one of your trusted sources that got the majority of the many anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-conservative stories right over the last three years I'd love to look into their performance and see how they actually did. I just don't think you can show me any that told the whole story without leaving out significant significant facts that would counter the desired narrative of the left.

I'd love to find a source that treated all political ideologies equally and let me decide for myself instead of them giving me selective facts and narratives they want me to believe, but that source seems to not be available today.

So, instead of just questioning my sources, please explain what is happening right now in Iowa and why we don’t have results yet. Ple Explain why so many are questioning the reported results.

Michael Bennet has so far received 8 votes. However, all the precincts have not reported and the results are not yet certified. There is still hope.

Great points made here. So often the bias of the press is revealed not by the stories they cover but the stories they refuse to cover. Example, there were more people who attended the March For Life than attended the Woman's March. The Woman's March was covered and the March For Life was ignored.

Rick wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: Yes, FH sources matter and they are not useless. Our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution protections for the free press, and while they've never been perfect (even historically), ordinary citizens getting jobs as journalists and fact-checking government officials, writing about things that happened and issues affecting us without fear of reprisal is how we find out what's going on and make informed decisions moving forward. It's the basis of our democratic republic. There are sources that hold themselves to higher standards than others, and sources that are straight up propaganda - they should not be weighted equally, or we end up with an uneducated, sheeple society easily deceived and manipulated. Do any of you think that's a good idea? I sure don't.

But they really are useless if they refuse to vet one side the same way they vet the other side.
A prime example is Barack Obama and how he was treated by the majority of the media. Obama had a whole lot of sketchy tings in is past and unanswered questions that were never or rarely asked by any of his media support groups (every news network except for FOX). During his presidency he was never subjected to the scrutiny a Republican would have been.

I remember as a kid that journalists were supposed to be unbiased. I realize that journalists are just flawed and biased like the rest of us, but they never let that bias show. Now their biases seem to be a badge of honor for them as they pat each other on the backs as if on the same team, which they are.

The proof is in all the narratives they've wanted us to believe over the last three years that have been proven wrong. They had to have known the truth because they had the same information we all had, yet instead they chose to focus on anything they could be spun to damage the president, If you can show me one of your trusted sources that got the majority of the many anti-Trump, anti-Kavanaugh, anti-conservative stories right over the last three years I'd love to look into their performance and see how they actually did. I just don't think you can show me any that told the whole story without leaving out significant significant facts that would counter the desired narrative of the left.

I'd love to find a source that treated all political ideologies equally and let me decide for myself instead of them giving me selective facts and narratives they want me to believe, but that source seems to not be available today.

With 96.9% of precincts reporting:
CANDIDATES SDE * VOTES VOTE %
Sanders 547 44,753
26.5%
Buttigieg 550 42,235
25.0%
Warren 381 34,312
20.3%
Biden 331 23,051
13.7%
All Others 289 24,334
14.4%
1,711 of 1,765 precincts reporting (96.9%)
*Winner called based on State Delegate Equivalent totals. SDE are the estimated number of state convention delegates the candidates would receive based on caucus results.

Appears that Buttigieg is benefiting from not winning the popular vote. He may want to reconsider his support for a national popular vote.