State parties run their own primaries and caucuses.

Originally shared by Shelenn Ayres

State parties run their own primaries and caucuses. When there is a dispute, they consult both the caucus goers and the DNC when necessary. All candidates know the rules for each state up front and plan their strategies accordingly. All candidates agree to the authority of the state and national parties. While the popular vote does factor in, the delegates are what matters for the nomination. Now that the results for IA are in, let’s examine them:

IA gets 44 national pledged delegates and 8 national unpledged delegates.

IDP Rules on State Delegate Math:

First each precinct has a viability number to be awarded delegates

Caucuses that elect 1 delegate -> majority rule

Caucuses that elect 2 delegates -> eligible attendees times 0.25 and round up

Caucuses that elect 3 delegates -> eligible attendees divided by 6 and round up

Caucuses that elect 4 or more delegates -> eligible attendees times 0.15 and round up

Second, except for single delegate precincts, a formula is applied to each viable candidate group to award state delegates

(group members times delegates available)/attendees = delegates group elects

The official state delegate results are:

Clinton Caucus: 700.59  state delegate equivalents

Sanders Caucus: 696.82 state delegate equivalents

O’Malley Caucus: 7.61 state delegate equivalents

Uncommitted Caucus: 0.46 state delegate equivalents

15% minimum per DNC rules is required for pledged national delegates to be awarded and pledged national delegates are awarded proportionally. The official results as of Feb 2, 2016 are:

Clinton: 23

Sanders: 21

For the unpledged delegates, the current standing is:

Clinton: 7

Sanders: 0

Uncommitted: 1

Combined delegate count for IA’s 52 convention delegates:

Clinton:30

Sanders: 21

Uncommitted: 1

Final analysis:

Clinton won the popular vote

Clinton won the state delegate vote

Clinton won the pledged delegate vote

Clinton won the unpledged delegate vote

Clinton won the combined delegate vote

Clinton won Iowa

http://iowademocrats.org/statement-from-idp-chair-on-tonights-historically-close-caucus-results/

To the inevitable claims of a conspiracy involving the Clintons, the NYT, AP, and the “corporate media” in general,…

To the inevitable claims of a conspiracy involving the Clintons, the NYT, AP, and the “corporate media” in general, I offer this quote: “The fact is, conspiracies are made of people, and people are kind of incompetent.” ( https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/the-conspiracy-conspiracy-92b744226448#.u6c3c2aoc)

Originally shared by The New York Times

Hillary Clinton Has Won Iowa Caucuses, Associated Press Says

   #berniesanders 

http://nyti.ms/23Hkzlz

http://nyti.ms/23Hkzlz

I’ve been under the impression for some time that Sanders supporters produce more negative material about Hillary…

I’ve been under the impression for some time that Sanders supporters produce more negative material about Hillary Clinton than vice versa.  In an attempt to quantify this, I looked at the first 100 posts in the  Bernie Sanders for President 2016 community and the first 100 posts in the Hillary Clinton for President 2016 community, and counted the negative posts about the competitor.

The Sanders group had 13 posts that cast Clinton in a definite negative light; the Clinton group had 4 posts that cast Sanders in a negative light.  In general, the Clinton group seldom mentioned Sanders, and mostly posts positive messages about their candidate — new endorsements and so on.  The Sanders group, in contrast, had, in addition to negative posts about Clinton,  negative posts about the “establishment”, the “mainstream press”, and “political conspiracies against Sanders”.  Posts mentioning Clinton, in general, are much more common in the Sanders group than posts mentioning Sanders in the Clinton group.

There is nothing scientific about this — the posts in both groups change frequently, and I was just using my own interpretation of what was negative.  The relative mentions of the competing candidate are pretty objective, though.  

Perspective view in Noctis Labyrinthus

Originally shared by Pierre Markuse

Perspective view in Noctis Labyrinthus

In this image taken on 15 July 2015 by the High-Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) aboard ESA’s Mars Express you can see a perspective view in Noctis Labyrinthus on Mars. Visible are details of landslides in the steep-sided walls of the flat-topped graben (https://goo.gl/Rma96b) in the foreground, and in the valley walls in the background. Image resolution is about 16 meters per pixel.

Read more on Noctis Labyrinthus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctis_Labyrinthus

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/01/Perspective_view_in_Noctis_Labyrinthus

More on the Mars Express orbiter and the High Resolution Stereo Camera:

http://sci.esa.int/mars-express/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Express

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Resolution_Stereo_Camera

Image credit: Title Perspective view in Noctis Labyrinthus ESA/DLR/FU Berlin http://goo.gl/AN7tsu CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO https://goo.gl/YgMSmb

 #mars  #NoctisLabyrinthus      

This is an xcellent article…

Originally shared by Kris Nelson

This is an xcellent article…

https://medium.com/@MichaelSLinden/the-four-policy-reasons-why-i-support-hillary-clinton-in-the-democratic-primary-71a3a7a0f3a7#.48wq7gujg