Klobuchar might actually be loving this more than Biden or Bernie.
is New Hampshire results Monday night?
I followed the Iowa caucus closely and I think that was a bad idea, shit drove my anxiety out of control, especially once it became obvious the information was being delayed.
On Tuesday I might just get tacos and beer with friends and tune it out and hopefully come home to good news.
LmaoPete is getting hit hard online
That's just a preview of what anyone but Bernie is expecting in the Fall.
that's terrifying.
There's still a HUGE chance it's not bernie come June.
fixedPundits better chill out and stop doing republicans work for them.
I mean it's translating to real life.
Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.
yeah idk what that they meant because ive never hated people more than i hated in 2016. it was a rough time
I mean it's translating to real life.
Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.
2008 has someone 'carve' the letter 'B' on their face with their car keys and blame it on Obama loving 'thugs' but she got imediatley caught out because it was backwards.the words of someone who is far too online for their own good lol
Y'all need to pick your battles.
Warren was registered as a Republican from 1991 to 1996. She voted Republican for many years. "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets", she has said
I mean it's translating to real life.
Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.
"Wall St Pete" definitely rolls off the tongue more easily than "Ratfuck Pete"
I mean it's translating to real life.
Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.
It's legit chantable. Got that U-S-A cadence to it.wall street pete is an extremely good nickname, I'm sure we'll be hearing much more of it
It's perfectwall street pete is an extremely good nickname, I'm sure we'll be hearing much more of it
Yeah the people screaming to guarantee healthcare as a human right are definitely being influenced by the "trump effect" and not because they can't afford their medical bills.
Next thing you know they might be chanting "free Palestine" or something. What can we do, god damn trump effect.People chanting terrible, terrible things such as "Medicare for all"
the horror!
It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.Pete is getting hit hard online
That's just a preview of what anyone but Bernie is expecting in the Fall.
that's terrifying.
There's still a HUGE chance it's not bernie come June.
The internet better chill out and stop doing republicans work for them.
Almost as if people are sick of the status quo and will criticize candidates who seek to continue business as usual.It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.
I mean it's translating to real life.
Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.
It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.
When I look at Pete, I see the face of America's rotten sham meritocracy, and I know I am not alone.
I mean it's translating to real life.
Someone that is labelled "Wall Street Pete" is not electable, especially against Trump.
These leftist are attacking candidates that represent the billionaire class that have been waging a war against the working class, killing tens of thousands every year by denying them healthcare, terrorizing millions using police and are literally destroying the only habitable planet that humans have access to.It's actually insane how hard online lefties will go on anyone who threatens Bernie. The attacks on Kamala, Biden and Pete are ruthless. If Amy got anywhere close, she'd receive the same treatment.
Which would be like one of the worst things he could do.The most likely person he should pick, I would say is Nina Turner.
These leftist are attacking candidates that represent the billionaire class that have been waging a war against the working class, killing tens of thousands every year by denying them healthcare, terrorizing millions using police and are literally destroying the only habitable planet that humans have access to.
What's insane is how restrained these attacks have been considering what is at stake.
Bernie on guns says otherwise.I don't disagree with Turner being a bad choice from traditional political perspectives, but like I said in my original post, sanders is an ideologue. you're crazy if you think he'll for a second weight political expedience over policy for the first time in his life. you fundamentally dont understand who bernie sanders is if you disagree with this
What doesn't add up is that they say they're taking until Monday to correct errors as reported by campaigns but according to this internal e-mail they can't/won't correct the errors. Is it because the guy reporting them doesn't represent a campaign?Let me get this straight (assuming this is all true): they delayed the final results under the pretense that they wanted to examine inconsistencies and correct errors first, but now they're saying they won't adjust the results for the corrected data anyway. Am I right?
Honestly, I don't even care to draw a distinction between incompetence, corruption, bias and conspiracy anymore. Whatever this is, it's a complete clusterfuck that allows false narratives about who won to continue, and makes the entire party look like buffoons who can't be trusted with the simplest tasks. It's unacceptable.
Let me get this straight (assuming this is all true): they delayed the final results under the pretense that they wanted to examine inconsistencies and correct errors first, but now they're saying they won't adjust the results for the corrected data anyway. Am I right?
Honestly, I don't even care to draw a distinction between incompetence, corruption, bias and conspiracy anymore. Whatever this is, it's a complete clusterfuck that allows false narratives about who won to continue, and makes the entire party look like buffoons who can't be trusted with the simplest tasks. It's unacceptable.
So, my understanding is that it's like this:What doesn't add up is that they say they're taking until Monday to correct errors as reported by campaigns but according to this internal e-mail they can't/won't correct the errors. Is it because the guy reporting them doesn't represent a campaign?
This is all so braindead.
So they want people to report errors so that in the event of a recanvass they can fix those errors. Is that right?So, my understanding is that it's like this:
They cannot, legally, change the caucus results as tabulated by the precinct captains absent a full recanvass. They asked for inconsistencies to ensure that their transcription of those results was without error, but they cannot alter the reported totals. Even to fix the math. This is because the Iowa Caucuses are an insane system designed by crazy people more than it is corruption, bias, conspiracy, or even incompetence in this specific case. As far as I know, that rule predates even the notion of anybody currently in the race running for president aside from maybe Joe Biden because damn he's been doing it for a while. The math is bad because caucuses are mostly entirely run by volunteers to keep the costs down. Guarantee you that even aside from the tabulation errors, there's a lot of places out there that just didn't run the process right in the first place. I've seen reports of people leaving without submitting their cards to their voters weren't counted, precincts where they didn't even do the second alignment, ones where they let people from groups that passed the 15% threshold switch around 'cause that's actually a new rule... there are errors all up and down this thing.
Basically the Iowa Caucuses have always been bad, and it's just now that people outside of political nerds are seeing that. Should just toss caucuses into the sea. We got rid of most of them after 2016 (ty Perez) but ofc of the 3 remaining, 2 are in the first 4 states, and one went first.