• Light/Dark
  • 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)

Who's Going to Win South Carolina?

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 585 39.2%

  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 853 57.2%

  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 24 1.6%

  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 7 0.5%

  • THE KLOBBERER

    Votes: 16 1.1%

  • Tom Steyer

    Votes: 6 0.4%
  • Total voters
    1,491
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Finale Fireworker

Finale Fireworker

Love each other or die trying.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,710
United States
I decided to drive out to Iowa to get to the bottom of this, but you wouldn't believe what I found when I got there... nothing! Just a huge empty parking lot for miles and miles. I only saw one person: an old woman pushing a shopping cart full of corn. I had to practically beg her to talk to me.

I said "Miss, please, can you help me find Iowa?" Do you know what she said?

She said "Iowa? Why, there hasn't been any Iowa out here in over thirty years."


Just what kind of con are they running?? How deep does it go??
 

Deleted member 8561

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
11,284
Finale Fireworker said:
I decided to drive out to Iowa to get to the bottom of this, but you wouldn't believe what I found when I got there... nothing! Just a huge empty parking lot for miles and miles. I only saw one person: an old woman pushing a shopping cart full of corn. I had to practically beg her to talk to me.

I said "Miss, please, can you help me find Iowa?" Do you know what she said?

She said "Iowa? Why, there hasn't been any Iowa out here in over thirty years."


Just what kind of con are they running?? How deep does it go??
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

 
shamanick

shamanick

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,072
Spoopy Boatington said:
There's a difference between Biden pulling that ridiculous shit once and some Bernie supporters doing it constantly since Bernie first ran for president. He'd have to do it a lot more often to even come close to some of the posters in this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
why are you comparing a candidate's actual statement with some randos on the internet, as far as I know the Biden campaign is the only one to openly say that they don't trust the results
 
xenocide

xenocide

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,307
Vermont
medinaria said:
the fact that I only posted one article isn't proof that there's only one article, it's proof that I found a counterexample to a claim and said "therefore the claim is false"

I'm not under obligation to become some kind of news aggregator just to win arguments on the internet, I have shit to do, you're welcome to spin however you want though
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The claim was that us not seeing any evidence media organizations were declaring Buttigieg the winner of the Iowa Caucus, was because we apparently lacked a diverse media diet--or some such. The only evidence offered thus far was a Slate article--not exactly a powerhouse media empire--and a CNN clip posted on YouTube/Twitter. My counter to that, is that CNN, WaPo, NYT, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox News, AP, and just about every other major media source has not called the race yet. Almost all of them point out Buttigieg has a lead in State Delegate Equivalents, which is TRUE for the time being. Being able to find a single counterexample means very little when the preponderance of evidence indicates our initial statement was correct.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Alright Perez specifically calling out the satellites instead of just saying the entire process had a lot of issues is mad fucking dumb
 
samoyed

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
hydrophilic attack said:
jesus lol

what a shitshow

and does this recount business need to get sorted before they'll report what they have?

also why do i care so much about the result of this stupid caucus? i mean, really, what does it matter who of the two gets a handful more sdes lol
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Electorally it makes almost no difference as a matter of procedure, but the results will influence media perception in the coming months which can either galvanize or demoralize one campaign or another which will have consequences for turnout down the road.

The PR winners of Iowa were Butti and Sanders. Losers: Warren, Biden, the rest.
 
daschysta

daschysta

Member
Mar 24, 2019
884
I mean guys, it really isn't conspiratorial at this point. So with all of the problems, the DNC only cares once Bernie starts winning based on strong satellite caucuses? The ones where minorities actually voted?

Fuck off Perez.

Fuck off DNC.

Yes people go crazy with conspiracies, but the DNC enables it with their shady, biased behavior. That isn't an unreasonable take at all.
 
Xaszatm

Xaszatm

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,903
Finale Fireworker said:
I decided to drive out to Iowa to get to the bottom of this, but you wouldn't believe what I found when I got there... nothing! Just a huge empty parking lot for miles and miles. I only saw one person: an old woman pushing a shopping cart full of corn. I had to practically beg her to talk to me.

I said "Miss, please, can you help me find Iowa?" Do you know what she said?

She said "Iowa? Why, there hasn't been any Iowa out here in over thirty years."


Just what kind of con are they running?? How deep does it go??
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The issue here is that you've been talking to people. The midwest consists of a vast and proud population of corn, wheat, and Bison. There is your proud Iowan (and Midwestern) population.
 
Cat Party

Cat Party

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,403
daschysta said:
I mean guys, it really isn't conspiratorial at this point. So with all of the problems, the DNC only cares once Bernie starts winning based on strong satellite caucuses? The ones where minorities actually voted?

Fuck off Perez.

Fuck off DNC.

Yes people go crazy with conspiracies, but the DNC enables it with their shady, biased behavior. That isn't an unreasonable take at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're seeing a conspiracy because you're looking for one. There have been problems with the Iowa caucuses for years and years, for both parties.
 
shamanick

shamanick

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,072
xenocide said:
The claim was that us not seeing any evidence media organizations were declaring Buttigieg the winner of the Iowa Caucus, was because we apparently lacked a diverse media diet--or some such. The only evidence offered thus far was a Slate article--not exactly a powerhouse media empire--and a CNN clip posted on YouTube/Twitter. My counter to that, is that CNN, WaPo, NYT, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox News, AP, and just about every other major media source has not called the race yet. Almost all of them point out Buttigieg has a lead in State Delegate Equivalents, which is TRUE for the time being. Being able to find a single counterexample means very little when the preponderance of evidence indicates our initial statement was correct.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No one has ever claimed that any of the major media outlets outright declared Pete the winner. I've seen multiple instances of MSM describing Pete as the winner, and it's fine that you don't believe it - feel free to provide counterexamples
 
inner-G

inner-G

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,473
PNW
Xaszatm said:
The issue here is that you've been talking to people. The midwest consists of a vast and proud population of corn, wheat, and Bison. There is your proud Iowan (and Midwestern) population.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The original post was funny.

Your post just comes off as derogatory towards midwesterners. It's not dense with people but there are real lives there
 
Finale Fireworker

Finale Fireworker

Love each other or die trying.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,710
United States
madstarr12 said:
New Monmouth Poll has Pete and Bernie very close in NH.....

Bernie does not have NH in the bag.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, that poll is way narrow. Too close for comfort, IMO. I know every previous poll has Sanders up by huge number (seen here) but only +4 over Buttigieg in that poll is wack. It's just one poll but hopefully there won't be more like that to come.
 
hydrophilic attack

hydrophilic attack

Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,438
Sweden
Spoopy Boatington said:
There's a difference between Biden pulling that ridiculous shit once and some Bernie supporters doing it constantly since Bernie first ran for president. He'd have to do it a lot more often to even come close to some of the posters in this thread, and even then, nobody would believe that he wasn't just grasping for any excuse he could find to deflect from the royal asswhooping he was just given.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
indeed

it's a lot worse when it comes from a campaign itself rather than from internet randos
 
MechanicalWall

MechanicalWall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
936
The funny thing is that all this fuckery plays into Bernie's strengths. People watch this fucked system operate, and when Bernie goes 'I want to unfuck this system' it's going to be hard to disagree.
 
msdstc

msdstc

Member
Nov 6, 2017
6,874
MechanicalWall said:
The funny thing is that all this fuckery plays into Bernie's strengths. People watch this fucked system operate, and when Bernie goes 'I want to unfuck this system' it's going to be hard to disagree.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No it doesn't. Pete has closed the gap in NH in a big way. It initially appeared to be a runaway but it's going to be close there. This has been a big momentum swing for pete.
 
fontguy

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
16,150
skullmuffins said:
yeah the biden thing was bad but biden does not have an army of supporters constantly crying conspiracy at EVERY FUCKING THING. you say the DNC is "acting shady" because you take it as an article of faith that everything they do is tainted by their distaste for bernie, regardless of whether they're "acting shady" by any reasonable objective measure. there is a huge problem of infowars brain in the berniesphere and going whatabout biden taking his loss poorly does not change where the overwhelming amount of conspiracy theory talk comes from.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But that's my entire point through this whole thread: the DNC may very well be totally impartial, but that's not how it looks, and people trust what they see with their own two eyes.

Malicious or not, party leadership regularly feeds into that distrust and conspiracy thought (by doing things like only demanding a recount 45 minutes before a presumptive Sanders "victory" press conference, after days of obvious chaos, for example).

"Sanders got cheated in 2016" is a very common sentiment, and it isn't remotely exclusive to crazed Sanders supporters, regardless of whether or not it's at all reflective of reality. The mere appearance of or potential for conflicts of interest is enough to cast doubt on the party's trustworthiness in the minds of the general public, and party leadership refuses to even acknowledge that it could possibly be a problem.

If all us angry Bernie bros sat down and shut up, that distrust would still exist and grow outside of rose twitter because we're not the only ones watching.
 

Deleted member 1476

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,449
digit_zero said:
I feel like the most fitting way for this all to end is for an exact tie.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Perez with the coin ready.

images
 
Ando

Ando

Member
Apr 21, 2018
744
always been very against the conspiracy stuff but it now does feel like the DNC is trying to retroactively change the rules because the rest of the candidates didn't think of using the satellite caucases to their advantage :/
 
daschysta

daschysta

Member
Mar 24, 2019
884
msdstc said:
No it doesn't. Pete has closed the gap in NH in a big way. It initially appeared to be a runaway but it's going to be close there. This has been a big momentum swing for pete.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You realize that poll shows no gain for Buttigieg right? How do you square that with"closing the gap. That shows Bernie up 6 points.
 
Zeron

Zeron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
402
Iowa
User Banned (1 week): ignoring the staff post, antagonizing other users
Cyclone said:
It's fine?

How are they cherry-picking when we have 98% of results?
Also, my point is that none of this is the IDP going "Oh boy! Who can we screw over!"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not a coincidence the results were released in such a way that Bernie would never be shown as ahead in SDEs until the very last 4%, which they are now mostly likely not going to release due to the call for recanvassing.

Honestly at this point anyone who doesn't think that most of this debacle was an intentional attempt to bury Sanders is either dumb or willfully ignorant.
 
bye

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,419
Phoenix, AZ
Ando said:
always been very against the conspiracy stuff but it now does feel like the DNC is trying to retroactively change the rules because the rest of the candidates didn't think of using the satellite caucases to their advantage :/
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But the DNC would never change the rules for shitty reasons like allowing someone to buy their way into a debate despite not qualifying!
 
Deadly Cyclone

Deadly Cyclone

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,257
The Cyclone State
Zeron said:
It's not a coincidence the results were released in such a way that Bernie would never be shown as ahead in SDEs until the very last 4%, which they are now mostly likely not going to release due to the call for recanvassing.

Honestly at this point anyone who doesn't think that most of this debacle was an intentional attempt to bury Sanders is either dumb or willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Being on the ground in Iowa and caucusing myself, it'd be pretty hard to implement a "bury" attempt with hundreds of volunteers at hundreds of locations. I also know people at the IDP and they aren't the type to do that shit. The DNC? Maybe, but it'd be very hard to do this on a state level. Too many factors.

It doesn't look great, though, I give people that.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Bernie picks Steyer but only on the condition that Steyer donates enough of his wealth that he's a 999 millionaire
 
Tfritz

Tfritz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,254
Ando said:
always been very against the conspiracy stuff but it now does feel like the DNC is trying to retroactively change the rules because the rest of the candidates didn't think of using the satellite caucases to their advantage :/
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

that... doesn't seem to be the case? i haven't seen anyone talk about changing the rules for the satellite caucuses, just that they may have been incorrectly calculated.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.