So they want people to report errors so that in the event of a recanvass they can fix those errors. Is that right?
So unless someone asks for a recount, the errors are canon?
at this point Sanders should ask for the full recount. Fuck Iowa.
So they want people to report errors so that in the event of a recanvass they can fix those errors. Is that right?
So unless someone asks for a recount, the errors are canon?
Let's clear this up. She registered as a Democrat in the 1990s, but before that she voted mostly for Democrats.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
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.So they want people to report errors so that in the event of a recanvass they can fix those errors. Is that right?
So unless someone asks for a recount, the errors are canon?
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.So they want people to report errors so that in the event of a recanvass they can fix those errors. Is that right?
So unless someone asks for a recount, the errors are canon?
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.at this point Sanders should ask for the full recount. Fuck Iowa.
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.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.
thank god NH is a simple primary lolGod 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.
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.theintercept.com
It really is terrifying to think about. They need to get rid of the shitty caucus system entirely.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!
It begs the question about vote counts in general. Should we attribute the miscount to incompetence or malfeasance?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?
It begs the question about vote counts in general. Should we attribute the miscount to incompetence or malfeasance?
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.theintercept.com
well, there are couple of things wrong with this postIncompetence. Unless we are stating a campaign is badly attempting to influence an election to gain one delegate.
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...
Straight up, we want more converts, not less. 🤷♂️it's dumb to croticiz 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
'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.theintercept.com
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
'Brazenly spew'? Last interview I saw/heard with Moore, he was waxing lyrical about her.
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 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...
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.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
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.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.
I remember that interview differently - focussing on her work done with Obama; I'll give it a re-listen.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.
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.
Aight, let's take a look at a tweet analysis I've seen going around.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"
her biggest weakness is her tendency to take the bait when a trap is laid out.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
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.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"
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.
Idk, it wasn't even unanimous. Pressley went with Warren.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.
Isn't that Joe's entire appeal though? He's basically the "don't you miss 2009 politics?" candidateBiden'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
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.
voters want to hear what will you do for them in the near futureIsn't that Joe's entire appeal though? He's basically the "don't you miss 2009 politics?" candidate
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.
Unless somebody asks for a recanvass, probably.
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?