https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GIjhf8eEoo

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:00:46 AM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GIjhf8eEoo

Errr... Jon, are you going to correct yourself on the "tie" part of the Sanders Hillary Iowa caucus results? The "tie" that occurred was only briefly during the wee hours of the morning. Saying that a tie is still there isn't even spin, its outright lying. The final numbers of the Hillary win are he

Hillary won with... 701 49.9%
Sanders came in second with... 697 49.6%
O'Malley was third with... 8 .06%

-- http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-iowa-results/

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:44:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:00:46 AM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GIjhf8eEoo

Errr... Jon, are you going to correct yourself on the "tie" part of the Sanders Hillary Iowa caucus results? The "tie" that occurred was only briefly during the wee hours of the morning. Saying that a tie is still there isn't even spin, its outright lying. The final numbers of the Hillary win are he

Hillary won with... 701 49.9%
Sanders came in second with... 697 49.6%
O'Malley was third with... 8 .06%

-- http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-iowa-results/
A "virtual" tie. A difference of only 4 - or 0.3%

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 5:21:39 PM UTC-5, Clare wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:44:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:00:46 AM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GIjhf8eEoo

Errr... Jon, are you going to correct yourself on the "tie" part of the Sanders Hillary Iowa caucus results? The "tie" that occurred was only briefly during the wee hours of the morning. Saying that a tie is still there isn't even spin, its outright lying. The final numbers of the Hillary win are he

Hillary won with... 701 49.9%
Sanders came in second with... 697 49.6%
O'Malley was third with... 8 .06%

-- http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-iowa-results/
A "virtual" tie. A difference of only 4 - or 0.3%

You Hate-Hillary-first folk just can't get it straight can you?
Here's the definition of a tie:

"a : an equality in number (as of votes or scores) b : equality in a contest; "

-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tie
====================================

That doesn't say a "near" equality

On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:00:46 AM UTC-5, jon_banquer wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GIjhf8eEoo

Errr... Jon, are you going to correct yourself on the "tie" part of the Sanders Hillary Iowa caucus results? The "tie" that occurred was only briefly during the wee hours of the morning. Saying that a tie is still there isn't even spin, its outright lying. The final numbers of the Hillary win are he

Hillary won with... 701 49.9%
Sanders came in second with... 697 49.6%
O'Malley was third with... 8 .06%

-- http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-iowa-results/

Nope. See my new post for why.