Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Deleted member 4090 · Feb 5, 2020

Alec said:
What site is that screencap from?

Note that they're being a dishonest when they post that, using the first round vote totals and not the changes after people moved around after the viability cuts. Button gained a lot more as 2nd choices than Sanders did.

Blue Skies · Feb 5, 2020

John Dunbar said:
i'm not convinced. if it comes to that, i expect a grand betrayal from warren.

What makes you think that?

Prodigal Son · Feb 5, 2020

one thing that im nervous about seeing in NH is whether Sanders outperforms polling there. In 2016 he very often surpassed his poll numbers, including in Iowa. This time around he sort of underperformed where the average of polls expected him to be. If he doesn't overperform where the average of polls have him in an open primary in New hampshire then im a little worried

Alec · Feb 5, 2020

shamanick said:
it's making the rounds on Twitter so I can't source it, sorry. Feel free to disregard but I'm pretty sure it's not a fake

It's all good -- I don't think it's fake, I just wanted to switch to that site instead of refreshing Google every 15 minutes. :)

shamanick · Feb 5, 2020

Neoweee said:
Note that they're being a dishonest when they post that, using the first round vote totals and not the changes after people moved around after the viability cuts. Button gained a lot more as 2nd choices than Sanders did.

no one said otherwise, thanks for calling me a liar though

M.Bluth · Feb 5, 2020

Dyle said:
Pete had an insane ground game in Iowa, with way more offices and staff than anyone else. Iowa is by far his best state and his numbers will fall in other states

Spiderz said:
He min-maxed Iowa I guess in the hopes that a positive result there would lead to increases in other states he didn't spend the resources in. As a Bernie supporter, Pete taking some luster off of Biden was probably the second best scenario to Bernie winning both popular vote and delegates.

SolarPowered said:
Man, the lack of Nevada polls has really stood out as of late. We're getting swamped with NH polls, but Nevada has been this tantalizing black box hardly anyone has been paying attention to.

It'll be interesting to see what happens regarding black Texas voters. I've always considered Texas it's own separate entity compared to the rest of the south, so Bernie might have some room to grow there. Before I thought it was somewhat improbably for Bernie to pick it up even after winning the first three contests and improving his numbers with black people, but a strong showing for Pete might drain Biden of that necessary white boomer vote and open that window of opportunity just enough to squeak by in the PV and delegate count.

He basically went all in on Iowa. Dude was practically living there for a few weeks and it was necessary. Third place or worse and his fundraising apparatus would probably dry up quickly. Even Joe is experiencing this right now and he is the big fish.

Kinvara said:
Apparently Buttigieg had serious ground game in Iowa. I did not expect Biden to be so far behind. I'm glad that Sanders did well though.

Thanks!

Steel · Feb 5, 2020

shamanick said:
it's making the rounds on Twitter so I can't source it, sorry. Feel free to disregard but I'm pretty sure it's not a fake

That's the first round vote. This is where things actually are:

Final alignment of the popular vote is still a Bernie lead, but an incredibly slim one.

Deleted member 4090 · Feb 5, 2020

shamanick said:
it's making the rounds on Twitter so I can't source it, sorry. Feel free to disregard but I'm pretty sure it's not a fake

It is fake. People are presenting pre-alignment results without context to advance the "Sanders was robbed!" narrative, while glancing over Sanders' fail at getting 2nd choice picks after alignment, and also generally just neglecting the spots where he himself failed to be viable.

V_Arnold · Feb 5, 2020

Prodigal Son said:
one thing that im nervous about seeing in NH is whether Sanders outperforms polling there. In 2016 he very often surpassed his poll numbers, including in Iowa. This time around he sort of underperformed where the average of polls expected him to be. If he doesn't overperform where the average of polls have him in an open primary in New hampshire then im a little worried

Bernie is still the frontrunner. Buttigeg has no real shot at this with his history during his mayoral tenure. He also performed a full progressive->moderate switch in a manner of weeks a few months ago, so he wont get Warren's endorsement either, unless something truly weird happens. Between Bloomberg, Biden and Buttigeg, this will be a battle of egos while Bernie keeps gaining momentum overall.

shamanick · Feb 5, 2020

I posted what I thought was new news, as the % count was up. If I had the final and delegate totals I would have posted that as well. Sorry if anyone's feelings got hurt

WestEgg · Feb 5, 2020

The real question of whether or not Pete was right to go all in on Iowa is how his donations have been since the news broke. Especially if some deep pockets are having second thoughts about Biden.

inner-G · Feb 5, 2020

shamanick said:
not that any further results matter, the media narrative is baked in at this point

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/pete-buttigieg-iowa-win.html

This is far from a sure thing, totals were down from 2016 but there was huge increase in younger and first-time caucus voters

Geez, Bernie is ahead of Pete by more votes even than Pete is ahead of Warren but he doesn't get the most delegates, wtf :/

Steel · Feb 5, 2020

shamanick said:
I posted what I thought was new news, as the % count was up. If I had the final and delegate totals I would have posted that as well. Sorry if anyone's feelings got hurt

It wasn't the actual popular vote. That would be like posting a ranked choice result before collapsing second choices. The image I showed is also up to date.

PixelatedDonut · Feb 5, 2020

Steel · Feb 5, 2020

inner-G said:
Geez, Bernie is ahead of Pete by more votes even than Pete is ahead of Warren but he doesn't get the most delegates, wtf :/

Image is BS, look a few posts up from yours to see the actual popular vote.

Prodigal Son · Feb 5, 2020

V_Arnold said:
Bernie is still the frontrunner. Buttigeg has no real shot at this with his history during his mayoral tenure. He also performed a full progressive->moderate switch in a manner of weeks a few months ago, so he wont get Warren's endorsement either, unless something truly weird happens. Between Bloomberg, Biden and Buttigeg, this will be a battle of egos while Bernie keeps gaining momentum overall.

thats the hope. for the record i also dont think buttigieg has anything resembling a chance. this has been a bernie-biden fight for months now

shamanick · Feb 5, 2020

Steel said:
It wasn't the actual popular vote. That would be like posting a ranked choice result before collapsing second choices. The image I showed is also up to date.

If you really want to get pedantic about it, it was the first popular vote

ChrisR · Feb 5, 2020

inner-G said:
Geez, Bernie is ahead of Pete by more votes even than Pete is ahead of Warren but he doesn't get the most delegates, wtf :/

Just like the electoral college? Popular vote doesn't matter

Steel · Feb 5, 2020

shamanick said:
If you really want to get pedantic about it, it was the first popular vote

I'm glad we agree that pushing the first popular vote as meaning something in a system that allows transferable votes is pedantic. Bernie is in the lead in the actual popular vote, just not by that margin.

Wilf Netherton · Feb 5, 2020

So a plurality of caucus-goers went into the caucus intending to select Bernie and a plurality of caucus-goers walked out of the caucus selecting Bernie.

smisk · Feb 5, 2020

New story I'm telling myself: Pete has no real chance nationally right? He's polling at like 10%. Enough of Biden's supporters will leave him after the poor showing in Iowa that Bernie can rise above both the centrists.

Deleted member 4090 · Feb 5, 2020

shamanick said:
no one said otherwise, thanks for calling me a liar though

You posted stuff you didn't take and didn't understand and used it is a launching point for a dig about media narratives. That's lazy enough to be considered dishonest, IMO.

smisk said:
New story I'm telling myself: Pete has no real chance nationally right? He's polling at like 10%. Enough of Biden's supporters will leave him after the poor showing in Iowa that Bernie can rise above both the centrists.

The entire argument for why Iowa matters depends on it being a launching point to grow from for lesser-known candidates. Him winning isn't likely, but he did the bare minimum to have it at least remain possible.

Iowa's initial claim to fame is Carter going from nobody to the nom after a win in the 20-30% range.

Pop-O-Matic · Feb 5, 2020

PixelatedDonut said:

Who the fuck is Deval Patrick and why is CNN giving him airtime?

Damaniel · Feb 5, 2020

inner-G said:
Geez, Bernie is ahead of Pete by more votes even than Pete is ahead of Warren but he doesn't get the most delegates, wtf :/

This also only covers the first alignment results (which look far better for Bernie than the second ones, where he still wins in overall votes, but by a very slim margin). Lies through omission are still lies.

That being said, the margins are close enough that both of them will essentially get the same number of delegates. I guess that Pete can claim a 'win' in that he outperformed expectations, but I don't think that will translate to him dominating the field in future states.

shamanick · Feb 5, 2020

Neoweee said:
You posted stuff you didn't take and didn't understand and used it is a launching point for a ig about media narratives. That's lazy enough to be considered dishonest, IMO.

I fully stand by my points. If you want to falsely accuse people of lying that's your problem

Slader166 · Feb 5, 2020

Feep · Feb 5, 2020

MetroidPrimeRib said:
Massive incompetence or fuckery? Does it matter at this point? Democrats look shitty here no matter what. If they counted votes this slow in a general we would have to wait over a year after the NEXT election to get results.

Uh...states could count their votes at the same time, you know. Do you remember 2004?

Prodigal Son · Feb 5, 2020

Slader166 said:

this meme is especially funny given that bernie people have never given a shit either way that hillary clinton won the popular vote. like a month ago sanders on stage twice touted clinton's popular vote victory. what hypocrisy is this supposed to be calling out lol

Rodderick · Feb 5, 2020

I understand not liking Pete, but if nominated he'd run on the most progressive platform of any Democrat in memory. The hyperbolic statements of doom surrounding him are very strange, and so is the fact that a gay young man winning a caucus in a rural state is going mostly unnoticed.

bye · Feb 5, 2020

this is just beyond incompetence. more fuel for the "conspiracies" when they are openly allowing Pete to look like the winner for as long as possible with incomplete results.

https://twitter.com/organizingpower/status/1225144821045760000?s=21

ValiantChaos · Feb 5, 2020

V_Arnold · Feb 5, 2020

Slader166 said:

1) Except Bernie Sanders literally said weeks ago that Hillary did win the popular vote, so why would he think that women cant be president?
2) Except Bernie fans more proportionally voted for Hillary than Hillary fans did to Obama
3) Except that now that you are supposedly trolling Bernie fans, lets turn this around: NOW suddenly the popular vote does not matter?

Mona · Feb 5, 2020

Slader166 said:

i cant imagine anyone is conflicted between these two at the same time

shamanick · Feb 5, 2020

I can't think of anyone on the left that defends the EC

Doctoglethorpe · Feb 5, 2020

Pop-O-Matic said:
Who the fuck is Deval Patrick and why is CNN giving him airtime?

Bloomberg's stand-in. Gotta fill that critical 11pm slot.

Wilf Netherton · Feb 5, 2020

I personally never really heard leftists claim that the popular vote in 2016 was unimportant. Leftists that I know who are interested in electoral politics strongly dislike the electoral college.

PixelatedDonut · Feb 5, 2020

I've yet to see a person defend the EC like ever, especially after 2016.

Tfritz · Feb 5, 2020

V_Arnold said:
3) Except that now that you are supposedly trolling Bernie fans, lets turn this around: NOW suddenly the popular vote does not matter?

that's not what that meme is mocking, it's mocking bernie supporters who were making hay about how clinton winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college was a clear rejection of her evil neoliberal shrill shillness are now talking up bernie winning the popular vote as if it actually matters in some way. it's just a cute + fun way of making fun of how hypocritical some folks can be.

Haubergeon · Feb 5, 2020

Honestly almost everyone here, left and center, more or less agrees that elections should just be based on the popular vote and caucuses, especially after this one, are insanely archaic and should be abolished. It's just an attempt to pick a fight.

Wilf Netherton · Feb 5, 2020

Tfritz said:
that's not what that meme is mocking, it's mocking bernie supporters who were making hay about how clinton winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college was a clear rejection of her evil neoliberal shrill shillness are now talking up bernie winning the popular vote as if it actually matters in some way. it's just a cute + fun way of making fun of how hypocritical some folks can be.

Who are these people?

Tamanon · Feb 5, 2020

Pop-O-Matic said:
Who the fuck is Deval Patrick and why is CNN giving him airtime?

A candidate for President!

chadskin · Feb 5, 2020

PersonAndStuff · Feb 5, 2020

PixelatedDonut said:

Cool, now I know when to turn off my TV.

Tfritz · Feb 5, 2020

Wilf Netherton said:
Who are these people?

plenty of folks on twitter, some folks on here. if you're not someone who did it, it shouldn't bother you tbh.

Haubergeon · Feb 5, 2020

Wilf Netherton said:
Who are these people?

Almost no one. Again, this is just an attempt to bait leftists - anyone who makes fun of Hillary's loss usually does so by saying it's an indictment of her ridiculously bad campaigning skills and her campaign's obsession with ~the algorithm~ that saw them attempting to win places like Arizona and Georgia instead of almost ever setting foot in Michigan or Wisconsin. Not that she shouldn't have been declared the winner, regardless.

PersonAndStuff · Feb 5, 2020

chadskin said:

I can't believe CNN wouldn't let Tulsi be viable in Iowa.

shamanick · Feb 5, 2020

Wilf Netherton said:
Who are these people?

none that I can remember, unless expecting a billion dollar campaign to campaign in swing states is somehow a shrill accusation of neoliberalism

John Dunbar · Feb 5, 2020

Blue Skies said:
What makes you think that?

if the choice at the end would be bernie or biden (or buttigieg), i just feel she would have more to gain personally to side with the establishment. she's never becoming the president at that point, so throwing bernie under the bus to become the moderate darling seems the likelier alternative.

medinaria · Feb 5, 2020

Wilf Netherton said:
Who are these people?

you know, people

well, you don't know them. but they're people. other people. elsewhere.

Blue Skies · Feb 5, 2020

John Dunbar said:
if the choice at the end would be bernie or biden (or buttigieg), i just feel she would have more to gain personally to side with the establishment. she's never becoming the president at that point, so throwing bernie under the bus to become the moderate darling seems the likelier alternative.

So you know nothing about her
Got it

Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Who's Going to Win South Carolina?

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

Pete Buttigieg

THE KLOBBERER

Tom Steyer

Hero of Bowerstone

One Winged Slayer

Chicken Chaser

Lead Designer, Iridium Studios

Chicken Chaser