at this point Sanders should ask for the full recount. Fuck Iowa.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
at this point Sanders should ask for the full recount. Fuck Iowa.
Let's clear this up. She registered as a Democrat in the 1990s, but before that she voted mostly for Democrats.
In fact, she didn't vote in most elections - just the presidential ones. For most of her young adulthood (before she hit her 40s), she was a "low-information voter." Despite the misinformation that people like Michael Moore brazenly spew of her having voted for Reagan, she never voted for Reagan. She never voted for Bush. She never voted for Nixon. She voted for Carter, Dukakis, the Clintons, and whichever Democrat was running against those other Repubs. She wasn't that political for the first part of her life. Born and raised in Oklahoma, that's what most people end up by default: Republican. But when she started to pay real attention to politics, she found her values and opinions were that of the Dems, and that's how she registered from then on.
Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Low-Information Voter
Elizabeth Warren registered as a Republican in 1987. Here's how she got there — and here.
theintercept.com
The errors on the cards or in how the caucus was conducted can't be changed. They're fixing stuff like where they show Bernie got 400 out of 500 votes but then got zero delegates in the reporting on the website because they accidentally coded it to go to Klobb or Patrick or whatever. Bernie will have won by tomorrow night but there will still be countless errors in the actual process that can't be changed.
OP
OP
More so that they can check and make sure that they finally got the transcribed version of the first canvass right after all the back and forth over results reporting. Campaigns report discrepancies, they check the sheets one last time to make sure that yes this is an error due to a process problem at the caucus itself instead of writing it down. If they recanvass they'd go back to those original voter cards, afaik, which might very well be different again than what the campaigns saw.
Honestly... well, first off, yes, fuck Iowa, but also, I don't think it'd be in his best interests at this point. Not like a recanvass would actually come in time to benefit him in any meaningful way, and tbh I doubt the "Bernie demands Iowa Recount" news cycle would be kind to him. Best to just move on.
God this is so complicated and dumb. But thank you for clarifying that. It can be really hard to piece things together first thing in the morning.
with how many issues there were, i can't help but think about what they did past years when vote numbers were not public
they would have been able to make a lot of "mistakes" had they wanted to. Hopefully they didn't do something like that though!
they would have been able to make a lot of "mistakes" had they wanted to. Hopefully they didn't do something like that though!
Even then, it should be a point of respect to see the light coming from a dark pit.Let's clear this up. She registered as a Democrat in the 1990s, but before that she voted mostly for Democrats.
In fact, she didn't vote in most elections - just the presidential ones. For most of her young adulthood (before she hit her 40s), she was a "low-information voter." Despite the misinformation that people like Michael Moore brazenly spew of her having voted for Reagan, she never voted for Reagan. She never voted for Bush. She never voted for Nixon. She voted for Carter, Dukakis, the Clintons, and whichever Democrat was running against those other Repubs. She wasn't that political for the first part of her life. Born and raised in Oklahoma, that's what most people end up by default: Republican. But when she started to pay real attention to politics, she found her values and opinions were that of the Dems, and that's how she registered from then on.
Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Low-Information Voter
Elizabeth Warren registered as a Republican in 1987. Here's how she got there — and here.
There's also pride in Sanders' being on the right side of history - again and again and again - but fighting your own cultural prejudices should also be commendable, and something we dearly need in 2020.
It really is terrifying to think about. They need to get rid of the shitty caucus system entirely.
It begs the question about vote counts in general. Should we attribute the miscount to incompetence or malfeasance?
[/QUOTE]
It's hard to argue incompetence when most of the errors favor Buttigieg and hurt Bernie. You'd expect the errors to be spread evenly but it sure doesn't seem to be so...
It's hard to argue incompetence when most of the errors favor Buttigieg and hurt Bernie. You'd expect the errors to be spread evenly but it sure doesn't seem to be so...
Incompetence. Unless we are stating a campaign is badly attempting to influence an election to gain one delegate.
Yes.Let's clear this up. She registered as a Democrat in the 1990s, but before that she voted mostly for Democrats.
In fact, she didn't vote in most elections - just the presidential ones. For most of her young adulthood (before she hit her 40s), she was a "low-information voter." Despite the misinformation that people like Michael Moore brazenly spew of her having voted for Reagan, she never voted for Reagan. She never voted for Bush. She never voted for Nixon. She voted for Carter, Dukakis, the Clintons, and whichever Democrat was running against those other Repubs. She wasn't that political for the first part of her life. Born and raised in Oklahoma, that's what most people end up by default: Republican. But when she started to pay real attention to politics, she found her values and opinions were that of the Dems, and that's how she registered from then on.
Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Low-Information Voter
Elizabeth Warren registered as a Republican in 1987. Here's how she got there — and here.
Former Republican, all the same. Were she a devout Republican she likely would have never been able to convert! My only interest with my reply was to explain to Blue Skies how once again they were being silly. If you feel people have a distorted view of your candidate then clarify the intensity of her 'Republicanness' rather than just suggesting she never was one.
well, there are couple of things wrong with this post
first, much more is at stake than a delegate. there's the whole momentum thing that's really dumb but which seems to matter for some reason
second, it would not necessarily be a campaign trying to influence the matter. it could be the organizers (or a rogue element within the organizers) that would like to favor one candidate over another possibly because one of the candidates ideologically better aligns with the interests of their donors than the other
it's dumb to criticize warren for having been a republican
if someone comes around from toxic views to progressive ones, it's something to be celebrated. we shouldn't turn away converts to our cause. for one, it would be a very bad strategic decision
if someone comes around from toxic views to progressive ones, it's something to be celebrated. we shouldn't turn away converts to our cause. for one, it would be a very bad strategic decision
let's be honest, it's damn near impossible to argue only incompetence at this point
being as charitable as possible it's a nice mix of the two at best
Straight up, we want more converts, not less. 🤷♂️
'Brazenly spew'? Last interview I saw/heard with Moore, he was waxing lyrical about her.Let's clear this up. She registered as a Democrat in the 1990s, but before that she voted mostly for Democrats.
In fact, she didn't vote in most elections - just the presidential ones. For most of her young adulthood (before she hit her 40s), she was a "low-information voter." Despite the misinformation that people like Michael Moore brazenly spew of her having voted for Reagan, she never voted for Reagan. She never voted for Bush. She never voted for Nixon. She voted for Carter, Dukakis, the Clintons, and whichever Democrat was running against those other Repubs. She wasn't that political for the first part of her life. Born and raised in Oklahoma, that's what most people end up by default: Republican. But when she started to pay real attention to politics, she found her values and opinions were that of the Dems, and that's how she registered from then on.
Elizabeth Warren on Her Journey From Low-Information Voter
Elizabeth Warren registered as a Republican in 1987. Here's how she got there — and here.
Focusing on Warren once being a republican seems counterproductive. There are more immediate concerns, like how she does poorly in swing states one on one with Trump, how she defaulted to calling groups she once courted super pacs when they endorsed someone else, or how her campaign is low on money and staffers.
User warned: Ignoring staff post regarding metacommentary
Yes, it is.
This made me laugh though. You will have a hard time finding a place that will drop someone faster than the speed of light if they had toxic views in the past than here.
On his Lovett or Leave It interview a couple weeks ago, he made sure to keep mentioning her Republican past, and even said she voted for Reagan.
This is far more complicated and convoluted than the actually process itself. It's just a terrible process that lends itself to errors. I find it hard to believe that volunteers would try to come together and make a candidate barely win.
If they are indeed random errors, there's no reason to believe errors would be spread evenly at all.
OP
OP
Worth noting - we're talking about errors that produced a swing of maybe 4 delegates (last I saw, feel free to correct me) out of a total pool of about 7k. That's... not a lot of errors in the grand scheme of things. With a sample that small, it's pretty easy to believe that it's just random.
Yeah, but he also heaped huge piles of praise on her. Which was weird, but idk, maybe he doesn't think it's actually disqualifying.
I really liked that interview actually. Wasn't expecting a strong call for unity out of Moore.
I remember that interview differently - focussing on her work done with Obama; I'll give it a re-listen.
The hell does it matter if someone may or may not have voted for Reagan 40 years ago? Does anything in her policies scream "Reagan Republican"?
you're kind of being slick here reframing the amount of errors into the number of delegates affected. like, yes 4 is a small number thank you. it's also irrelevant as there were far more than 4 errors and the results of those errors were fairly consistent with how they affected all the campaigns.
pretty hard methinks
Warren is tanking because she waffled on healthcare.
Before waffling, she was riding high,
she then took the bait from the media and competitors about cost.
Then watered down everything with syrup.
reason why Bernie is strong is because he yells out loud "Healthcare is a Human Right, we will get Medicare For All"
Before waffling, she was riding high,
she then took the bait from the media and competitors about cost.
Then watered down everything with syrup.
reason why Bernie is strong is because he yells out loud "Healthcare is a Human Right, we will get Medicare For All"
OP
OP
Aight, let's take a look at a tweet analysis I've seen going around.
Now, just at a glance, idk about this guy's methodology. First line he's got an error where he's saying Warren was allocated a delegate that should've gone to Sanders due to rounding differences, but Sanders, Klobb, and Pete all got the same pre-rounding delegates so I'm not sure that's really kosher. If indeed by the rules Warren shouldn't have gotten the rounded up delegate, I think that they'd have had to do a tiebreaker between the other 3, unless there's something I'm missing. But anyway, that's not really germane to the question at hand.
What is relevant is that we're looking at 34 precincts here. Of those, only 14 represent the Pete>Sanders error. That's 0.82% of precincts. If we're concerned about "errors hurting Bernie's delegate count" more generally, rather than just Pete, it only goes up to 16. .94%.
I just don't believe that the Iowa Caucuses are rigorous enough that a 0.94% error falls outside of the ream of "this is just a fuckup." Espcially given that on that sheet there's 4 other precincts where Sanders picked up delegates rather than lost them. That's a full fifth of his errors on the sheet.
Hope I'm still slick now that I do math. Been a minute since I took stats but I could dig up my textbooks and figure out some confidence intervals.
it's really a shame how her campaign has been run ever since sniffing co-front runner status for a little bit. she ran away from everything that got her there in the first place and now to try and claw back she's doing some shady listen to the 2016 clinton folk shit and turn the knife on sanders. obviously the woman can't be president stuff but her new unity candidate talk is dog whistling to people who still blame sanders for 2016 and of course now she's trying to lean in on pete's dark money attack against sanders without explicitly saying his name. such a shame.
her biggest weakness is her tendency to take the bait when a trap is laid out.
Trump DNA test: she took the bait
Media and Dem competitors hit her on healthcare costs: she took the bait
she does this all the time.
I think she may have some really bad advisors. Like the whole thing with the inter-faith whatever that was so bad they said it was a mistake that it was every published. She was bragging about having staffers from all the failed campaigns on her team too.
I think the Squad endorsing Bernie had a negative affect on Liz's campaign. I don't think it's a coincidence that she sunk and he rose after that.
Warren is a wonk and not really a politician. You can see numerous examples throughout the primary of her just having really bad political instincts and not doing an especially good job handling things on the fly during a campaign. Her mastery of policy is incredible and I respect her a great deal for that, but as a campaigner she fumbles a lot and makes dumb calls sometimes, which is how she bumbled her brief moment in the lead in Iowa and never managed to get it back. It doesn't help that her campaign doesn't really seem all that coherent or well organized - bragging about hiring the staff of other losers isn't exactly the great look she thought it was.
Biden's problem is that he talks too much about past accomplishments but says nothing about the future.
If Biden would go into Bill Clinton mode and get detailed roadmaps about about the future, Biden would be ahead.
Bill Clinton crushed it by talking about the future in 1992
You can't run for president and say absolutely nothing about the future
If Biden would go into Bill Clinton mode and get detailed roadmaps about about the future, Biden would be ahead.
Bill Clinton crushed it by talking about the future in 1992
You can't run for president and say absolutely nothing about the future
Which is hilarious, in retrospect, because of the talking heads saying things like this at the time:
OP
OP
Idk, it wasn't even unanimous. Pressley went with Warren.
If any endorsement mattered, though, it was probably AoC's, but I'd wager on that being because it came just after the heart attack, right when the Bernie campaign needed a show of confidence. More about averting a disaster than getting a leg up.
Isn't that Joe's entire appeal though? He's basically the "don't you miss 2009 politics?" candidate
Give the man a break; when your brain is starting to fail you, your mind goes back to sweet memories of glory past.
voters want to hear what will you do for them in the near future
Look at George H. W. Bush, he failed to talk about what he will do in his 2nd term while Bill Clinton and Ross Perrot were hammering future roadmaps.
Bush 41 failed to get re-elected for a 2nd term
*edit, when talking about future policy plans, be clear. If candidates get wonkey and talky with convoludedness the message gets lost
OP
OP
Already been/being discussed, yeah. It's a dumb rules thing.
Edit:
Pete Buttigieg be like
Last edited:
I think it was the next debate performance once she had starting flirting with taking the lead in the polls that sunk her. I like Liz, a lot, but her handling of the M4A/Tax question was terrible, and it basically dragged on all night. It's too bad- because it's a fundamentally stupid debate question in search of a 'gotcha' moment- but you still have to answer it honestly. Bernie had already shown how to diffuse that question, which had been aimed at him at all the prior debates.
Warren would crush it in a cabinet position, but without a different team or attitude, she's not good at campaigning.
OP
OP
Unless somebody asks for a recanvass, probably.
(Tom Perez already did but apparently the IDP is sticking to its guns and insisting it has to be requested by a candidate)
Tbh I've been saying this ever since the turnout numbers came out and I think it's true and it's good news. By and large people in the party like all the candidates pretty well. Why spend hours caucusing when you're going to be happy with the outcome regardless?
And, just as a horserace thing, this is probably good news for Bernie as well if it holds going forwards, given that he's got the most ardent supporters.
For a Canadian who just wants it to be November so I can be disappointed/enraged at America for the millionth time, when is this all settled? Why don't they just do all the caucuses on the same day?
like. Shouldn't this be done by now and give lots of time for the candidate to build up a team, plan and begin campaigning?
like. Shouldn't this be done by now and give lots of time for the candidate to build up a team, plan and begin campaigning?
- Status