caulfield12

Unless Montas really upgrades his conditioning, he will end up in the bullpen. He and Semien are the biggest losses so far. That still has a lot of value these days with all the emphasis on the back end of games and pitchers only seeing a lineup twice, there's no guarantee he puts up a 6 war for the Dodgers like Frazier will likely do for the Sox...and every year a new starting pitcher seems to emerge out of relative obscurity in our system to compensate, like a Jordan Stephens or Guerrero.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 07:22 PM) Could have just summed it up like with: "headcase". Too intense for baseball really. Probably could have channeled his energy on the football field more. He was too cerebral and intense for his own good. Great player but IMO he was probably a guy that was using PEDs and he had the type of injury (plantar facsia) that can be caused by getting too bulky too fast. Too bad about his torn labrum that's a major injury. I'd cut Avi some slack as well last year because of it. Obviously this year he needs to step it up but a torn labrum is a major injury, pitcher or not. That's one possible cause of a plantar problem, but I got it twice and don't weigh over 185 pounds and 6 feet. Once, from hitting the 1b bag will all my weight on the back of the heel playing softball...the other time, from playing badminton and landing awkwardly again...but, in general, overuse because I was playing 1-2 hours 3-4 days per week at that time. I haven't seen any pictures from his Stanford or DBacks' days where he looked remarkably smaller...say, compared to Thome when he first came into the Indians' organization as a part-time SS.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) In 2000, nobody paid any attention to the small states. They are rarely if ever in play, and when they are, it's still much more effective to spend your money on states like Florida or Ohio. Point to some actual historical examples of people bothering to campaign in low population states. edit: for that matter, why is it so important that we try to design a system that has different states specifically campaigned for rather than ensuring that every single eligible citizen has exactly the same voting power? The House also overrepresents small population states. Just because they designed it a certain way doesn't mean it's a good design, either. The bottom 20 states get 40 Senate seats and still don't have the population of California. It maybe made sense as a compromise when states were still quasi-nations and forming the Constitution, but it doesn't make much sense in 2016. And as I said, it also skews the Presidential voting powers of each state. It's silly that someone living in Wyoming has roughly 5x more say in who is President than someone in California or New York. There's zero incentive to campaign there now, and there's no incentive to campaign to 10 million people living in metro Chicago, or the tens of millions living in and around NYC, LA, SF.* If we had a popular vote and someone came along and proposed the EC, everybody would wonder why you'd ever do something like that. *not entirely true, lots of campaigning for donations, but not so much campaigning for votes like you see in contested states. Still leaves rural areas high and dry. Obama did it in 2008 to pick up some EC votes that historically haven't gone Democrat in a number of years. I'd have to look it up...it seems he either went to West Virginia or Montana or both. Obviously he campaigned for North Carolina and Indiana, but that depends if you consider Indiana a small state or not. Obama spent a lot of time back in Iowa in 2012, for example. I'd have to check about Wisconsin, New Hampshire and New Mexico.

Let's go back to the idea of Rubio pulling this off (by the way, the Iowa Electronic Market is a great way to track the race day to day as opposed to the polls, because the candidates are tracked like stocks)... Who would you consider for his VP? I proposed a woman, to balance out the Hillary advantage. So you start out with Nikki Haley (Indian-American side makes both her and Rubio perfect "American Dream Team" candidates but still too young?), Susana Martinez (NM) and Carly Fiorina. Fiorina just doesn't seem like a good pairing or the right chemistry. Others: Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA) Pam Bondi-AG (FL) Kristi Noem-(SD) Susan Collins (ME) Condoleeza Rice (probably too controversial, ties to Bush and foreign policy debacle) Since the GOP gave her the chance to rebut Obama, that's a pretty good measure of her standing. She did much better than Bobby Jindal in the spotlight. If it's not Rubio/Haley, then I would like to see Rubio's relative inexperience (one of the main left attacks will be comparing him to Obama, obviously) is rounding that out with someone like John Kasich. Plus, the Republicans desperately need to take Ohio back. In terms of personality and temperament, Kasish is very optimistic and reasonable...so they are pretty similar. Kasich is like a lovable uncle/university professor and that plays off against the youth/hype surrounding Rubio. Plus, he's even more moderate and doesn't have the Tea Party connection to attack, so they would work well together as a team. Christie's just too much of a loose cannon and not perceived to be a team player, although I'm sure he would agree to be on the ticket. Rand Paul would be another interesting choice...more from a practical sense of taking back more and more independents, but the contrasts on military intervention/strategy would seem to be too great. (Note: I say all these things only from the standpoint of what I would do trying to form the team to beat Hillary, as I'm a lifelong Democrat but not particularly enamored with the idea of the Clintons being back in the White House...and, I believe that somehow Rubio might just be the best person to take on the immigration issue once and for all...and, finally, electing a Cuban-American and Indian-American to the two highest offices in the most powerful democracy in the world sends a strong signal of hope out there regarding what made America great and is to be most admired about our country.)

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 04:20 PM) ^^^Ding Ding frickin DING!!!^^^ Those bulls*** Scandanavian countries also only have like 10 million people. Total. That's not even New York City. And like dude said, they're all the same race and live in the same climate. Unbelievable when people suggest copying ANYTHING those people do. It's an insult to human brains. Like that s*** would fly here. Unbelievable. If you read in-depth about their teacher education system and just the amount of stress on education itself (speaking more specifically about Finland, and mathematics/science), it's a no-brainer for the US not to extrapolate some of their lessons to improve our own system for future generations. Having more equality of teacher performance will eventually lead to a more equal society...with the caveat that their funding structure is not through property taxes like the US, where the inequality is built-in already based on your parents' earning power and social status.

Quentin was wound tighter than a drum. He never seemed to really enjoy playing the game because he was always so analytical and tough on himself. He was the modern-day equivalent of Harold Baines in terms of discussing himself or giving great quotes to the media, even in 2008 when he was on top of the world and headed for the MVP. As a person/clubhouse guy, it was always "that's just Carlos being Carlos/rolled eyes" but pretty much everyone really liked the guy. It was also that they probably recognized the same struggle all young players fight through to prove they belong in the majors and then eventually they come out the other side and learn to develop a coping mechanism for dealing with the stress, like Konerko at the mid-point of his career.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:10 PM) The other thing that's weird is the Rangers being involved. Jon Daniels is one of Hahn's "best friends" as far as opposing GMs. The Rangers have no need for Fowler whatsoever. The Rangers have Gallo and Mazara ready to contribute as they've already shown they can hit AAA pitching. So assuming those two could only fit in the outfield, they have to get time from DeShields, Choo, Hamilton, Ruggiano and Moreland. Plus they have Fielder/Moreland at 1B/DH. The Rangers don't have any spot for Fowler. So basically, Sox leak that Rangers are in on Fowler and if Fowler's camp uses that as leverage, the Sox know it's bulls***. The counterpoint is nobody thought DeShields could be a full-time player...he was more like a Conor Gillaspie in terms of potential coming into last season. Choo, obviously they invested a ton of money into. Hamilton, they want to protect as much as possible in terms of favorable hitting match-ups and from an injury standpoint. Ruggiano, like DeShields, is more a 4th/5th type than any everyday player, at least on a contending team. If you're Daniels, out of that group, who are you 100% confident about entering 2016? If it was a one year deal, like the rumor on Upton, that would make perfect sense. Same with Fowler. Because Daniels is not really 100% sure about any of his outfielders (Choo has been pretty erratic/injured and has been inconsistent at best and is aging), then adding a much "sure/r thing" is/was logical enough. Now long-term, obviously they are loaded with prospects and they'd have to do something with Gallo/Mazaro/Profar (who has been considered for 2B/OF as well). It's not unlike the Cubs' situation with Baez/Soler, where they have or will have too many players for all the spots but they're also waiting for the highest possible return simultaneously (in that sense, Gallo's value has been dinged a bit). In the end, Upton for one year depending on the price was a no-brainer because they KNOW the QO will be rejected...with Fowler, it's likely, but not quite the same type of situation. Of course, the one year cost and risk of it blowing up overall will be much lower as well because they have so many prospects and potential replacements to make up for any mistakes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:12 PM) Thats strange in its own right. It's that argument that has been misinterpreted to extremes from the New Testament...if someone is actively doing something that goes against (your version of Christianity, the key) the Bible, then it's your responsibility to at least present evidence of their "sins" as not taking any action is tantamount to committing the same sin yourself. This is often argued about homosexuality/lesbianism, but it could be any issue, like taxes (the parable relating to those burying their treasure versus multiplying it justifying being rich and not taxed as highly) or the death penalty, which I've never understood from a conservative viewpoint since Christ in no way would be connected with that belief. It's only the Old Testament (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...), so it's nice to pick and choose what you like and don't like as if you're eating at a buffet but it doesn't work that way. At any rate, proselytizing to the point where others are made to feel uncomfortable is counterproductive. You see it directed at the LGBT community all the time (see Fred Phelps' church or "curing" gay people), but you very rarely see Christians actively seeking out the modern-day equivalent of sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes to minister to. In fact, they almost always seem to feel uncomfortable in those same communities Christ chose to make his "home," where he felt most comfortable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 01:29 PM) If this team fails this year, the 2016-17 off season will most likely be the ultimate sellers market when you look at how bad the free agent market is. The Sox will still have all of their pitching, plus a full year of Lawrie and Frazier they could sell on. Unless the Dodgers try to auction off all their pitching and extra assets at one time... But I jest. It will be interesting to speculate in the years ahead what trading Rodon or Q could have done (would the package coming back have allowed enough improvement offensively to make us more competitive?), but it seems we will never know. It's unfortunate we're even in that desperate a situation in the first place where being stuck with Adam LaRoche is creating something of a domino effect on the rest of the roster...whereas the common refrain last year is that none of the moves made would impact our long-term competitiveness when exactly the opposite seems to be occurring. It feels like we're one really good player (or two solid/complementary ones) away from being competitive with any team in the division to almost everyone on the board. It also feels like we're one major injury away from last place...and the odds of making the moves we all want diminish by the day. Suppose it's still a possibility we can wait out Desmond and Fowler until June and preserve the draft pick, but whether they will be able to make positive contributions this season is another matter altogether.

This is where the debate begins again on a "long-term sustainable window" versus a more abbreviated window requiring restocking of at least 4-5 positions simultaneously before 2018... We can handle 3, but anything above and beyond that's really pushing it without increasing our revenues...which means it makes sense based largely on the premise of getting extended contending runs and at least one playoff team over the next two seasons.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 08:53 AM) I say this as a Christian-Ted Cruz is a prime example of everything that is wrong with American Evangelical Christianity right now. Uh-oh, you just pushed Greg out of the Cruz camp... Actually, even though I'm a Democrat, why? You think he's hypocritical? Gay rights? About spending more money on military and cutting back on "social" programs? There are very few Christian/Catholic political leaders who can easily negotiate the Social Gospels (Jesus was pretty clearly anti-death penalty!) and come out looking good on the other side of it. There was the now famous example of the time he argued before the Supreme Court on a purely technical issue pushing for a shoplifter to get something like 12-13 years in prison, whereas 3-5 was pretty extreme at that time. http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/conserva...stian-behavior/ Articles like this must be what you had in mind... The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind. Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that. Actually the author is quoting David Brooks of the NY Times there within his article... Found the following from looking up "Cruz is un-Christian" Senator Ted Cruz, member of the GOP, who think they are the party of God...he (and the majority of Republicans) could not be more un-Christ like if they tried!! Forget bible passages. Go to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ, whom Christianity is based on. Jesus said, CARE FOR THE SICK AND THE POOR Care for the sick...in other words health care! But self righteous Republicans say we should "stop the affordable care act". (Just how much stock does Ted own in big insurance and big pharma?) Stop 30 million people from receiving health care? Such action is more like Satan. It's not as if you didn't have HALF A CENTURY to develop and implement a health care system!! But this would have upset the insurance and pharma scam. Not to mention anger your wealthy donors who are major stockholders in these companies. Why do evangelicals support this party??? Because they enjoy going against the fundamental teachings of Christ?? Perhaps all their time in church is just a charade? I dunno. But NOT wanting to see the sick and ill (or potentially sick and ill) have health care could not be more anti-Christ like. The same can be said of the GOP's actions against the poor. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251324654

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 08:31 AM) An outfielder coming off knee surgery is a gamble. Better off seeing how he does in ST. There is some indication Tampa added outfield depth because Jennings may struggle to regain his previous ability. But if he can be had for a B prospect, might be worth a shot. Obviously Span went through something similar...and came out the other side, but he wasn't injured two consecutive years, either. The Sox would need to see all of his medicals. He had knee problems both in 2014 and 2015, and missed almost the entire season last year with surgery and a tooth infection. http://www.draysbay.com/2015/2/10/8002787/...njury-rays-2015 Guyer would be yet another platoon option if you had a lefty-dominant player with dramatic splits like Ethier...or a part-time DH with LaRoche who would expected to have an OPS in the 800-825 range. Age 30, mostly a LFer, though.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 07:34 AM) I'd pull a greg and go bet the farm on trump then. He's way way ahead in the next three primaries and I'd fully expect him to win there. Not like iowa where polling was always close. Iowa is just weird for the GOP vote. Let's see how he responds to clearly "not winning" when that's been his brand all along. He has about a week to get serious about a ground game in NH, and all of the pressure's going to be on him to win. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/electi...ire-republican/ Trump is still favored, but Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Bush and Christie will pressure him...it's perfect for the GOP, in the sense they've got their top 4 "establishment" guys lined up behind Trump...and I'm going to assume Rubio is at least 2nd. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald...e-pat-buchanan/ Nate Silver is making the comparison with Trump and Pat Buchanan/Pat Robertson/Ron Paul all with a huge surge of interest and then quickly deflated after Iowa. 2016 ELECTION 6:31 AM FEB 2, 2016 Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan By NATE SILVER WHEN DECISION TO SUPPORT WAS MADE TRUMP CRUZ RUBIO Just today 15% 22% 28% In the last few days 13 27 31 Sometime last week 13 36 27 In the last month 23 32 27 Before that 39 26 13 SOURCE: IOWA REPUBLICAN ENTRANCE POLL Could this have been a reaction to Trump’s failure to show up for last week’s GOP debate? It’s plausible. Trump, who seemed uncharacteristically chastened in his brief concession speech on Monday, might think twice before skipping a debate again. But there was no decline in his polls in New Hampshire or nationally after the missed debate, which suggests that something else might have been at work in Iowa. Could it have been his lack of a ground game in Iowa? That’s possible, too. If so, it has interesting implications for the rest of Trump’s campaign. On the one hand, it’s hard to build a field operation on short notice, so if Trump had a poor one in Iowa he may face similar challenges in the remaining 49 states. On the other hand, a field operation potentially matters less in primary states than in caucus states like Iowa. But there’s good reason to think that the ground game wasn’t the only reason for Trump’s defeat. Republican turnout in Iowa was extremely high by historical standards and beat most projections. Furthermore, Trump won the plurality of first-time caucus-goers. There may have been a more basic reason for Trump’s loss: The dude just ain’t all that popular. Even among Republicans. The final Des Moines Register poll before Monday’s vote showed Trump with a favorability rating of only 50 percent favorable against an unfavorable rating of 47 percent among Republican voters. (By contrast, Cruz had a favorable rating of 65 percent, and Rubio was at 70 percent.) It’s almost unprecedented for a candidate to win a caucus or a primary when he has break-even favorables within his own party.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/new...-flip/79680342/ Clinton 6 for 6 in coin flips...1/64 odds of that happening http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/02...ts-are-missing/ John Wagner ‏@WPJohnWagner 4h4 hours ago Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing. CNN reported that the Iowa Democratic Party said it would need to “re-stage” the results of the caucuses in those 90 counties. The Sanders campaign said the Iowa Democratic Party had asked the campaigns to “help them out.” https://twitter.com/kylieatwood/status/694401330169819136 And per Iowa Democratic Party official: The reports of precincts without chairs are inaccurate. (Looks like the Democratic Party wanted to kill that story, which honestly might have been misunderstood/misconstrued by a Sanders staffer...) DP --> (h/t: @hannahfc) Embedded image permalink

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 2, 2016 -> 02:07 AM) This is just absurd, beyond belief. They want us to believe Hillary won all six coin flips. I mean I've heard of scandal, but this is scandal. Hopefully public reaction will make it worse than if Hillary and Bernie Sanders split the flips 3-3. I mean 6-0 Hillary on the coin flips?? Cmon America. Cmon Iowa. Fight a fair fight. Sanders got hosed. The DesMoines newspaper better be a watchdog on this one and get to the bottom of Hillary's domination of coin flips. If they had split 3-3, it would have been 698 for Sanders, 697 for Clinton. In a way, it works against her, this idea that a "sure thing" months ago now literally comes down to a coin flip when only about 25% of Democrats even believe Sanders can win a general election running as a socialist Democrat/former Communist. Sanders was down by 51% a year ago (56% to 5%), with Elizabeth Warren at 16% and Joe Biden at 9%. Clinton's Iowa campaign manager, Matt Paul, said she had won. "After thorough reporting — and analysis — of results, there is no uncertainty, and Secretary Clinton has clearly won the most national and state delegates," Paul wrote in a statement. "Statistically, there is no outstanding information that could change the results and no way that Sen. Sanders can overcome Secretary Clinton's advantage." But Sanders spokeswoman Rania Batrice noted that one precinct in Polk County remained outstanding, and she said there were questions about the results in several other counties. "We definitely don't feel comfortable yet," she said early Tuesday. State Party Chairwoman Andy McGuire said the results were the closest in Iowa caucus history. "Hillary Clinton has been awarded 699.57 state delegate equivalents, Bernie Sanders has been awarded 695.49 state delegate equivalents, (former Maryland Gov.) Martin O’Malley has been awarded 7.68 state delegate equivalents and uncommitted has been awarded .46 state delegate equivalents," she wrote in a statement about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday. She said the missing Des Moines precinct was worth 2.28 state delegate equivalents. dmregister.com

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/coin-flip-io...-044156528.html Clinton apparently won three coin flips that pushed the election in her favor by just 4 out of 1,396 total. Plus, O'Malley ended up with 8 that probably would have gone to Sanders, arguably. There are rumors she "magically" won all six state-wide coin flips, overall. The odds of that happening are just 1 in 64 or 1.6%. Not the way she wanted to kick off the campaign.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 06:03 PM) Who's even slated to play right for the Royals currently? Cain with Dyson in center? Dyson and Orlando, with Travis Snider as insurance. Unless they add Jennings or Jackson. Cain in CF, Gordon in LF.

QUOTE (Knackattack @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 10:56 PM) I'd offer Putnam and LaRoche for Ethier and 0 money. You take a little hit salary-wise, but you put Avi in left and Ethier in right and the outfield D looks way better. Ethier sits against LHP and you find a righty DH/OF candidate for the bench. What happened to Cabrera? You're going to leave Avi playing the field to DH Cabrera?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 10:36 PM) Um, Viciedo had 25 HRs (compared to 10) and higher OPS. And while both are terrible defensively, Viciedo at least had a cannon of an arm. Yes, but Soler has the ability to put up a higher OBP imo. Not taking walks and swinging at pitches outside of the zone (especially high fastballs) just killed his career. Along with the defensive falloff after 2012. That and the post-season run give Soler a burst of added value, but the Cubs would be better off holding onto Soler/Baez (one of them), whichever they believe has the most upside. It's quite possible they're not ready to sell low on either guy. The problem is where are they going to find enough at-bats for both of them to increase their value? Baez tearing up AAA again doesn't help much. http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/32558/jorge-soler If you combine his stats over two years, you get a 758 OPS, 15 homers and 67 RBI's in 455 at-bats, they're actually close to identical from an offensive standpoint.

Cruz simply can't win a general election based predominantly on promoting Judeo-Christian principles. He will learn that quickly enough in New Hampshire next week. Maybe 25-30 years ago, this was possible, but not in a modern, closing in on minority-majority America that's largely moved on from fighting social values wars over gay rights, abortion, school prayer, etc. And graduating from Princeton, it's pretty hard to be completely anti-establishment, no matter how much you try to run from your past as an "outsider". Rubio gave the right speech to the entire country...from Iowa. Cruz is taking the tone-deaf strategy which won't broaden his tent and be more inclusive or uniting. And Rick Perry and Glen Beck aren't exactly who I'd want on my side against the "Washington Cartel" he's very much a part of. Reagan Democrats for Cruz? Is he completely nuts? I feel like I'm watching a Kirk Cameron documentary. Even that would be more entertaining. Sen. Cory Gardner twists the knife in Trump Sean Sullivan · 11:31 PM DES MOINES — In a celebratory mood after Sen. Marco Rubio’s projected third-place finish in Iowa, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) took a dig at Donald Trump, who was barely ahead of Rubio for second place in the latest tally. After a Washington Post reporter noted to him that Rubio did not mention Trump in his speech, Gardner interjected. “I’m not so sure Iowa did either in their votes,” Gardner said with a laugh. Gardner said Rubio heads into New Hampshire with a “full head of steam.” He said the endorsement of his colleague, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is “a big deal” in South Carolina, which votes after New Hampshire. Gardner summed up Rubio’s pitch by calling him “the unity candidate.” Washington Post https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_RCONV16.cfm Rubio now the clear favorite for the nomination, Trump in 2nd, Cruz 3rd, Republican Field 4th and Carson 5th

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 09:56 PM) Cruz and Trump are both nuts so Rubio is the only chance the GOP has. Bush has really resented the "upstart" Rubio jumping his place in line as they're from the same state and Bush was sort of a mentor to him at one time...not unlike Hillary's camp thinking Obama should have waited his turn eight years ago. It would be nice to see Kasich and Christie and the reasonable candidates left pushing their supporters in the direction of Rubio. Kasich has one final shot in NH to gain some ground, and I actually think Rubio and Kasich would make an excellent pairing for a general election, because of his popularity in Iowa. You need to balance Rubio's youth with someone more experienced. That said, because of Hillary's expected advantage with women, there's at least a 50/50 chance he tries to counter with a Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez type. Don't see Fiorina and Rubio fitting together, although that would be interesting as well.

You'd have to think he'd average around 425-475 at-bats in those two seasons... So not very likely, but not impossible.

Before tonight, the nomination was Trump's to lose. Now it's likely to be Rubio's. The irony is that it would be the complete reverse of 1992 (the first of the Baby Boomers to break through), when her husband and Gore ran against Bush's father...and then Dole/McCain/Romney against the much younger and more vibrant/energetic candidates. That's IF she can survive tonight. An Iowa loss again would be absolutely devastating. If it weren't for O'Malley's 7 out of 1,224, they would be exactly tied with 12% still to report. Nobody thought it would be that close.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2016 -> 08:57 PM) Caucuses are dumb, just hold a vote. It's actually a good lesson in civics and government...I remember being in high school when we tried to lead a Jesse Jackson block in 1988 but we had to give way to Dukakis because you had to get that 15% threshold or join another candidate (basically the same challenge an O'Malley supporter faced coming into tonight). But that was a very crowded field, and much deeper. It was kind of cool that high school and college students had an equal voice and could actually influence older adults if they could argue their case passionately and intelligently. Something unique about the American democracy you don't see anywhere else. Sanders within just 3 with 89.5% in, 7 for O'Malley and 1 uncommitted....razor-thin margin no matter how it turns out. The night started out with 3 delegates committed already to Clinton, so she's leading in that race 20-17. No matter how you cut it, huge psychological victory for the Sanders campaign. And he has the donations streaming in to keep fighting theoretically all the way to the Democratic Convention, much like Santorum did in 2012 to Romney (albeit at the end it was clear he had no real chance.) TRULY INSPIRATIONAL!!! DES MOINES — The Democratic race remains incredibly close, with Sanders and Clinton separated by less than a point with results still streaming in. But already, the Clinton campaign says that they believe they have won, given the high turnout reported throughout the state. “Turnout is high, which Sanders campaign always said would benefit them. But we believe we have won tonight,” according to a campaign aide. Tonight will be all about setting expectations for both campaigns. If Clinton is able to stave off a Sanders victory — or make it incredibly close — despite elevated turnout, they will declare victory. The Sanders team may call it a win either way.

There's not even a 50/50 split. It's something like 35-40% registered Republican, 30-35% registered Democract and the rest independent/moderate/centrist.