Something fishy in Nevada results??

[Carole]

Something fishy in Nevada results??

I was just reading about how caucus works in Louisiana.

Suddenly it all made sense to me why both Hillary and Romney got exactly 51% of the straw poll vote in Nevada last Saturday.

If a candidate has fifty percent of that vote in a state, then the delegates are bound to vote the first vote to that candidate.

There is no way that both those candidates got exactly 51% of the vote without some help. The odds simply are not in favor of that. Yet another probable fraud perpetrated upon the people.

 

[steph3n]

Something fishy in Nevada results??

I was just reading about how caucus works in Louisiana.

Suddenly it all made sense to me why both Hillary and Romney got exactly 51% of the straw poll vote in Nevada last Saturday.

If a candidate has fifty percent of that vote in a state, then the delegates are bound to vote the first vote to that candidate.

There is no way that both those candidates got exactly 51% of the vote without some help. The odds simply are not in favor of that. Yet another probable fraud perpetrated upon the people.

na that is incorrect LA and NV are different rules.

 

[swarehouse]

steph3n is right. NV and LA have different caucus rules. The straw poll in NV was only a preference poll. No delegates in NV were bound to the results of the straw poll.

 

[gerryb]

steph3n is right. NV and LA have different caucus rules. The straw poll in NV was only a preference poll. No delegates in NV were bound to the results of the straw poll.

And fro mwhat I hear this worked to RP's advantage as well =).. Sounds like RP actually has 40%+ of the delegates in NV, and in some locations it was a total sweep.