Posted on 02/02/2016 11:54:15 AM PST by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I have to tell you, whether she knows it or not, it's over for Hillary Clinton. I don't know if that means she doesn't get the nomination or if she does and doesn't win the general.
This woman last night on her stage was just a sight to behold, parroting Bernie Sanders, calling herself the latest big, new "progressive," talking about the same things Bernie's talking about. Because last night in Iowa was the shock and the scare of her life. It's 2008 all over again. "This is not supposed to happen," Mrs. Clinton's saying. I don't know if you've seen this in the television coverage of Mrs. Clinton's speech last night. She did not declare victory, by the way. And they are still saying in some places it's too close to call.
How can that be?
How can it still be too close to call?
I mean, if it's still too close to call, it means they're playing games out there on the Democrat side. Of course you've heard about the fact that Hillary won six coin flips in a row? You know what the odds of that are? It's 1.7%. It doesn't happen. Anyway, I watched television coverage of Mrs. Clinton's acceptance last night and there's this guy that ends up being over her right shoulder as you're looking at the picture, and he's got two stickers on each cheek right below each eye, and he's making weird, odd faces. It turns out this guy has become a hero of the Internet today because people are replaying this and sending it, tweeting it, Facebooking it all over the place.
It's a comedy piece. Some guy stands there with Hillary stem-winder serious and telling everybody what she's gonna do. She's doing the Hillary screech, the voice that reminds you of your first two ex-wives. This guy's back there with these stickers on his face laughing and making faces, totally distracting everybody, and then if you notice Bill Clinton behind her. And that was... What's the word? I was gonna say "scary," but, no, it was shocking the way Bill Clinton looked last night. It's clearly not the 1990s, and there aren't a bunch of bikini-clad babes running...
Well, there might still be that. With Bill Clinton, you never know.
END TRANSCRIPT
If I was Slick, I would die at the worst time for Hillary, politically speaking.
Just to get back at her for all those years of a lifeless, loveless, soulless marriage.
Of course Hillary will outlive Slick just to pee on what’s left of his “parade”.
I’m on anti seizure and blood pressure meds.
Docs tell me to learn to live with it.
Are those your Doctors that are still “Practicing” medicine?
For all we know, .017 was her BAC...
Not the same thing at all. I predicted back in 1995 that a Black man would get a massive surge of public sentiment that would translate into votes.
I knew he would be invulnerable to criticism because everyone would be terrified that any criticism of him would be considered "racist."
I knew back in 2008 that if Obama got the nomination, he would very likely win. Rush Limbaugh realized this too, and that's why he pushed very hard for "Operation Chaos."
Hillary would have lost in 2008, just as she will lose in 2016, and that's IF she can get the nomination and stay out of prison.
No, Black Obama gave all the Liberals (and the Media, but I repeat myself) Orgasms at the thought they could have a "black" President. They pulled out all the stops. Both News and Entertainment media threw in their maximum level of support, and thereby got this weak minded, lazy, stupid, mouthy, affirmative action candidate past the public.
Hillary can't do this. She is going to lose, and it doesn't even matter who we run. She is just that obnoxious and toxic.
Dunno. I've had a pretty good track record up till now. I think Romney (whom I didn't like) only lost because of Vote Fraud. (And because he is a RINO squish.)
Hillary won't get so much support as did Barack in this regard.
Wow big numbers for the commies 450 451 to cruz trump and rubio’s 27,000, 22,000. The kakling witch of westchester county was insulted that she didnt win by a large margin so she declared herself the winner. This is what they are
They used a coin like this - "Heads I win": 
I always tell people that depending on the day, I'm from whatever country is was at the time. You're probably the same.
Same with me. My Polish last name roughly translates to "little German." The boarder has moved around a lot between the two countries over the last 500 years.
Either of you have relatives in the Pennsylvania coal country?
...attacked Cruz. Why?
I think he operates on the Me Against the World principal.
When you want to win the biggest prize in the world, it’s scorched earth
with respect to all opponents.
Mark Levin was warning the error of attacking fellow republicans but it fell on deaf ears. Perhaps now Trump will back off and save it for the real enemy, Demorats.
It's his chronic syphilis along with chlamydia that has set in.
Excellent pic, but you left out chinagate.
The past toss means nothing to the next toss.
It is based on statistics which are based on past events.
That is why it is called the gamblers fallacy.
You can roll the dice and they can come up snake eyes 1,000 times in a row.
The past event has nothing to with the present.
The gambler’s fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a fair coin. With a fair coin, the outcomes in different tosses are statistically independent and the probability of getting heads on a single toss is exactly
1
/
2
(one in two). It follows that the probability of getting two heads in two tosses is
1
/
4
(one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is
1
/
8
(one in eight). In general, if we let Ai be the event that toss i of a fair coin comes up heads, then we have,
\Pr\left(\bigcap_{i=1}^n A_i\right)=\prod_{i=1}^n \Pr(A_i)={1\over2^n}.
Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row, so that if the next coin toss were also to come up heads, it would complete a run of five successive heads. Since the probability of a run of five successive heads is only
1
/
32
(one in thirty-two), a person subject to the gambler’s fallacy might believe that this next flip was less likely to be heads than to be tails. However, this is not correct, and is a manifestation of the gambler’s fallacy; the event of 5 heads in a row and the event of “first 4 heads, then a tails” are equally likely, each having probability
1
/
32
. Given that the first four tosses turn up heads, the probability that the next toss is a head is in fact,
\Pr\left(A_5|A_1 \cap A_2 \cap A_3 \cap A_4 \right)=\Pr\left(A_5\right)=\frac{1}{2}.
While a run of five heads is only
1
/
32
= 0.03125, it is only that before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are 1. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses, that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds in the future, is the fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
It is therefore meaningless regarding the subsequent coin toss.
Childbirth[edit]
Instances of the gambler’s fallacy being applied to childbirth can be traced all the way back to 1796, in Pierre-Simon Laplace’s A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. Laplace wrote of the ways in which men calculated their probability of having sons: “I have seen men, ardently desirous of having a son, who could learn only with anxiety of the births of boys in the month when they expected to become fathers. Imagining that the ratio of these births to those of girls ought to be the same at the end of each month, they judged that the boys already born would render more probable the births next of girls.” In short, the expectant fathers feared that if more sons were born in the surrounding community, then they themselves would be more likely to have a daughter.[4]
Some expectant parents believe that, after having multiple children of the same sex, they are “due” to have a child of the opposite sex. While the Trivers–Willard hypothesis predicts that birth sex is dependent on living conditions (i.e. more male children are born in “good” living conditions, while more female children are born in poorer living conditions), the probability of having a child of either sex is still generally regarded as near 50%.
The sum of the probability of all outcomes equals 1. If you consider that, you'll realize the probability of six correct calls cannot be 50%, because that outcome is no more likely than 6 others...zero correct, one correct, two correct, three correct, etc.
Fail.
There is nothing in the number of coin flips that would dictate any particular result.
It is always 50-50.
You’re not calculating a particular event, but the sum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.