Don't be playing coy after you were the one to talk about "Venezuelan election integrity" like it's something to be mocked.
Actually, you were talking about Venezuela until your talking points fell apart.
CNN is now reporting there was a "major coding error" within the app.
based on what?I'm comparing numbers between the 2008, 2016, and 2020 Democratic Iowa caucuses. So far 2020 is looking on par with 2016, which was a sharp decline from 2008, and overall not a great sign.
Claiming a caucus doesn't decide anything is a reductionist. Obviously it's very important or we wouldn't have 107 pages discussing it, we are talking about the "Iowa Bump" and which candidates are credible past this. It doesn't decide the candidate for each party but it clearly matters and reducing certain people's chance to vote for their chosen candidate in their own state isn't good.I agree with this that they're exclusionary of people who can't get to the building for an hour, or w/e, but caucuses aren't a public event, they're a private event that ultimately don't decide anything on their own. It's more or less a matter of luck that the candidate who has happenstance that the Iowa Democratic caucus has gone onto be selected as the representative of the Democratic party the last 5 elections... This hasn't played out the same way for the Republican party.
I think that's really a stretch, though, to say that caucuses are "intentionally manufactured to be exclusionary." Caucuses are not manufactured at all. The Iowa Caucus is an old-timey party event that is a throwback to 100 years of political election chicanery; it's a reflection of when candidates had to get into a room and make a personal appeal to voters, as opposed to today's election process when you're as likely to be influenced by an ad on Facebook as you are by an actual candidate's personal appeal. It's why so many voters in Iowa can claim that they've met every president, because it compels candidates to actually go to the state and introduce themselves to people in person where they live and work. As opposed to my state, Massachusetts, which has a larger delegate count and has a traditional primary, and nobody cares about it. Elizabeth Warren, one of the leading candidates, probably won't even set foot in my state at an official, large-scale event, I'll never meet her, and she lives here! I work about 20mins from Elizabeth Warrren's house, and she'll never come to my work or see us out at lunch to talk to us, while meanwhile she's personally introduced herself and talked with thousands of Iowans, thousands of miles away. That's something that the Iowa caucus makes possible that the Massachusetts primary really doesn't (and in any event, both the Iowa caucus and the MA primary both picked the same candidate by about the same spread in 2016).
The caucus is weird. It's a throwback. But it also has benefits that other primaries don't have. It's closer to a "Ranked choice" system where you can support your favorite candidate, but then fall back to another candidate if they're not successful.
Beyond that, though and most importantly, there's only 2 caucuses out of 50 state primaries. 48 other state primaries are traditional primaries, and you have 2 caucuses. On the whole, I think that's better for Democracy. But, also, primaries are party events, not public elections.
Go back and read the entire chain here. My point on this stupid topic introduced by some dumb social media post has been "A caucus is not an election," then someone else brought up Venezeula and Bolivia or some other elections somewhere else in the world. Genuinely, I have no opinion on the state of general elections in Venezeula and they are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the Iowa caucus, which -- again -- is not an election.
Go back and read the entire chain here. My point on this stupid topic introduced by some dumb social media post has been "A caucus is not an election," then someone else brought up Venezeula and Bolivia or some other elections somewhere else in the world. Genuinely, I have no opinion on the state of general elections in Venezeula and they are 100% irrelevant to the topic of the Iowa caucus, which -- again -- is not an election.
I'm comparing numbers between the 2008, 2016, and 2020 Democratic Iowa caucuses. So far 2020 is looking on par with 2016, which was a sharp decline from 2008, and overall not a great sign.
I meant they just wireframed a UI on the app screen lolDo you think a UI involves no coding, or do you just mean it's all HTML?
There's nobody like Obama on the ballot so it's not surprising.
Well at least there is one good thing coming out of this. Say goodbye to his electability argument.
From 1968-1992/96, Only Carter and Clinton were elected. Then you have Obama in 2008 and 2012. And by 2020, much of his accomplishments overturned or largely watered down. All while losing massively in smaller state and local level races. 2018 at least stopped the bleeding quite a bit.
Yes
"why do people hate buttigieg"
the "I was saying boo-urns" of explanations, he's such a slimy little shit
This is nasty but there's several Democrats I've met at events who won't support Pete because he is gay. Don't know why that bigotry flies with people.
That said... I don't support Pete for other reasons
With Biden seemingly having lost, why were the polls such shit in this regard? Wasn't he in the number one spot for some time?
I also wonder why the last minute Pete surge. Who are these people that like Pete? Who!?With Biden seemingly having lost, why were the polls such shit in this regard? Wasn't he in the number one spot for some time?
With Biden seemingly having lost, why were the polls such shit in this regard? Wasn't he in the number one spot for some time?
Define 'this bad'.
With Biden seemingly having lost, why were the polls such shit in this regard? Wasn't he in the number one spot for some time?
Worth pointing out (as always) that Gore and H. Clinton still won the popular vote. Our only popular vote loser in more than 30 years is Kerry, who was up against a wartime incumbent and still nearly pulled it off (60,000 Bush voters changing their minds in Ohio would have done it).Yeah, Democrats are this bad. Obama, and Bill Clinton, were extremely gifted politicians, and anomalies for the party.
Stop"We have discovered some irregularities within the app..."
Read: Biden didn't win the caucaus so we're trying to figure out how to make that happen.
Frankly I'm still trying to wrap my head around the optics of "Shadow, Inc."
it's hard to poll caucusesWith Biden seemingly having lost, why were the polls such shit in this regard? Wasn't he in the number one spot for some time?
"We have discovered some irregularities within the app..."
Read: Biden didn't win the caucaus so we're trying to figure out how to make that happen.
Claiming a caucus doesn't decide anything is a reductionist. Obviously it's very important or we wouldn't have 107 pages discussing it, we are talking about the "Iowa Bump" and which candidates are credible past this. It doesn't decide the candidate for each party but it clearly matters and reducing certain people's chance to vote for their chosen candidate in their own state isn't good.
Yeah you're right, I probably should have said intentionally manufactured but there are still many other systems that encourage the candidates to visit the area but can still be done in a standard voting system. I admit I'm a foreigner looking in on this so I'll be missing the cultural side of this but in our leadership elections (which are the closest to primaries) we have hustings that local party members can attend to ask questions and meet the candidates in a smaller forum and then after the fact you can vote over a certain time period.
I also agree that ranked voting is the best system so why not introduce that? Having a throwback that means taking hours out your Monday night in Iowa in winter surely can't be the ideal solution?
I read it as "We were in the middle of ratfucking Bernie when someone told us that his campaign had an app and was tabulating numbers from all over the state".
Biden was doing no favors to himself.With Biden seemingly having lost, why were the polls such shit in this regard? Wasn't he in the number one spot for some time?
"We have discovered some irregularities within the app..."
Read: Biden didn't win the caucaus so we're trying to figure out how to make that happen.
And it's no wonder we're partly in the state we're in when people just need to cling to conspiracies to justify possible losing or poor performance. Especially in a state that has fucked up caucuses before.I read it as "We were in the middle of ratfucking Bernie when someone told us that his campaign had an app and was tabulating numbers from all over the state".
Because "Ratfuckers Incorporated" was too on-the-nose (and also taken by a furry Nine Inch Nails cover band).
Worth pointing out (as always) that Gore and H. Clinton still won the popular vote. Our only popular vote loser in more than 30 years is Kerry, who was up against a wartime incumbent and still nearly pulled it off (60,000 Bush voters changing their minds in Ohio would have done it).
The country overall has a natural inclination towards the Democratic Party, but there is systemic bias within the Electoral College that favors the Republicans. Only Obama and B. Clinton were charismatic enough to overcome that and win outright, but even our boring, hum-drum candidates usually win the popular vote.
Most recent polls before the caucus had Pete and Bernie ahead 🤷♂️With Biden seemingly having lost, why were the polls such shit in this regard? Wasn't he in the number one spot for some time?