-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
If Bernie's trying to be FDR part 2, Pete ain't half the man Henry Wallace was.
And Bernie is still up more than Pete in those from the previous poll in Jan lol.
You might be right, but can you source that?
This article has a good amount of foreshadowing and presents a scenario close to what actually happened (replace Biden with Buttigieg and change final vote winner to Sanders).
Ultimately it doesn't really fucking matter at this point. The narratives that are told and how they influence subsequent states matters and this has all been a mess. Time to move on.
Oh I definitely agree with that, I just want it recognized in an official capacity. With the head of the DNC calling for recanvassing, I don't know what to believe anymore.
Pete being Bernie's primary competitor in early states is absolutely the best possible scenario for Bernie. Polling has shown absolutely zero staying power for Pete beyond NH—Iowa and NH would seem to be the only states that Pete would perform competitively in here. Pete doing well in these early states isn't a warning sign to Bernie, it's a huge blow to Warren and Biden, who would be much more difficult competitors to Bernie going into later states.
User Banned (1 Week): Ignoring the Staff Post with Regards to Hostility
I can help: No, he can't.
OP
OP
I feel like he's oversimplifying a little, but not in a way that really helps Bernie, if that's what you're looking for.
SDEs determine delegate allocation, which is like... the most directly straightforward way of figuring out who won, since that's nominally what they're competing for.
But! Iowa isn't actually worth many delegates. Getting one or two more isn't really worth much. The real value is in the media narrative after Iowa, which depends on a lot of things. For instance, it's not at all rare to see a second place finisher get the most media shine just because they were expected to place lower and everybody loves an upset (even if they really lost). Bernie and Pete tieing means that it's a little hard to say how this would've played out even absent app-gate.
In the ad he goes after Biden and Buttigieg, not Bernie, but makes a jab about socialism at the end.
I mean do y'all think they do these cauacasues and just make up the rules at the end?
everybody that competed knew they'd be competing for delegates not the popular vote
I know what SDEs are. But I do not think there is any reasonable interpretation of the Iowa caucuses which holds that "the rules" state that SDEs are the metric for who wins. It isn't "oversimplifying a little", it's just Blue Skies babble. SDEs are effectively a vestigial metric; not only is their utilitarian value wildly diminished, I think public perception of their importance is itself dwindling.
For what it's worth, yes, I agree with you that public narratives concerning 'momentum' and voter support are more important to candidates' takeaways from Iowa than delegate count. I think a lot of the handwringing about the impact of Bernie's missed opportunity for a night-of victory speech is misguided, though. Yes, he was robbed; yes, some combination of ineptitude and malice seems to have significantly muddied the narrative around these caucuses. But, for a lot of Bernie's base, that DNC muddying isn't worrying—it's a confirmation of precisely the values that attracted them to Bernie in the first place, and encouragement that they are right to look to him to overcome the modern DNC's chronic fecklessness. I think the ugliness and clunkiness of the caucus might energize Bernie's base more than many are expecting.
SDEs are not delegates. And I'm not whatsoever sure you have any idea what you're referring to when you say "the rules."
If you don't know what you're talking about, you don't have to make a post.
I mean aren't they literally deciding between two ways to count satellite caucuses right now?
That's exactly what's happening wrt the satellite caucus weighting though. They didn't write the rules clearly enough.
You really can't trust a single billionaire. You hate to see it.
I immediately thought of this. Funny that when I was little and saw this movie (one of my childhood faves), I always thought it was called a "Caca Race". If I could only travel back in time and tell my younger self, "Yeah, you are right. The whole Caucus thing is pretty much caca!"
When it comes down to it, in the end, they are ALL still "The 1%". They aren't our friends.
Nope! SDEs were an antiquated process for translating vote totals into delegates; AP outlets used them to determine the winner in previous years because the caucus did not release vote totals.
This year, the caucus did release vote totals, and the actual apportioning of the delegates is obviously going to be public knowledge, so the SDE numbers themselves are an intermediary step of absolutely zero direct use to the public. The decision to weight them as a metric is based primarily on precedent, as they are no longer the earliest or most transparent step of the process.
Given how tight the SDE counts are, it seems very likely that Sanders and Buttigieg will be awarded the same number of delegates regardless of who edges the other out in SDEs.
There is a convincing argument to be made that delegates are most important in determining a 'winner', because they are materially instrumental to the primary process. There is also a convincing argument to be made that vote totals are most important in determining a 'winner', because they are actually directly indicative of voter support in our system. I do not think there is any convincing argument to be made that SDEs are the most important metric, except in arguments about how byzantine and stupid our primaries process is.
Most importantly, SDEs have never been our government's primary metric for determining a winner, nor do "the rules" state that SDEs are the metric we use for determining that.
Yoh do realize those assumed Everyone but the top 4 dropping out right?
You realize that SDE is an abstraction that's basically not useful, right?
SDE is State Delegate Equivalent, an estimation of delegates who will attend the state caucus. It was a more useful determination in previous Iowa caucuses because the national delegates were assigned by the state caucus that the state delegates would attend, and only by the state level. So, Iowa has 41 pledged delegates, those state delegates would determine the allocation of the 41. This time, that state caucus will assign a whopping 9 delegates, with the other pledged delegates coming from district-level allocations.
If you wanted to look at something other than who voted, the thing to use is pledged delegates, since that's the thing that's actually at stake. Pete is not going to come out ahead on pledged delegates.
If you're going to keep patronizing people please do better
This is one of the clearest outlines I've seen yet. Thanks
I think I may finally understand how this all works yet it's likely it will mercifully never be used again
And the newest Suffolk/BG and Emerson NH polls all show big gains for Pete from what I'm seeing.
And that's probably because a) he certainly over-performed expectations in Iowa and b) made a shrewd political gamble to go out there Monday night and declare victory. You can rightly bemoan that move (I thought it was stupid, too, and I definitely don't want Pete to win), but politics is a dirty game sometimes.
I'm glad New Hampshire won't have a caucus.
Thanks y'all for the explanation.
Wish everyone would chill a bit.
Thanks y'all for the explanation.
Wish everyone would chill a bit.
Doesn't matter - the results are the same.
Popular vote - same result for first and second tabulation (if anything, the second tabulation is actually a bad result for him because it shows that most people who didn't have him as a first choice didn't have him as a second choice either)
SDEs - currently a Pete lead, not likely to change
Pledged delegates - tied
I don't know how my measures change as a result of your analysis. On the other hand, it's hypocritical of me to keep pointing out reality to the people hung up on something that really doesn't matter in the end, while (indirectly) dwelling on something that doesn't matter in the end. If Bernie ekeing out a popular vote win helps you feel better, then fine, but the rest of us (including those of us who still support Bernie to some degree) move on to the upcoming races; the ones that will actually give the leader (most likely Bernie) more momentum.
If anything, this is the thing that Bernie supports should be taking out of Iowa, not dwelling on a few SDEs here and there - Pete is pulling support from Biden. Biden's inevitability doesn't seem as inevitable now, and Bernie's not going to lose supporters to Pete. This is all relatively good for Bernie, so this extreme pettiness over whether Bernie 'won' or not in the way you want him to (versus the way he did or didn't) just seems like a huge waste of time and breath.
Last edited:
I disagree with and cannot stand alongside the Bernie Bros who are trying to act like we should all ignore SDEs as a metric.
I think it would be very nice to let Mayor Pete claim Iowa so he can hold on to that moral victory to keep him warm during Bernie's presidency.
I think it would be very nice to let Mayor Pete claim Iowa so he can hold on to that moral victory to keep him warm during Bernie's presidency.
I think it was the thing he should have gone with in 2016. He still does have the problem of getting his stuff eventually passed through Congress with its current make-up (and I'm not entirely sure if he or any of the Dems anymore will have the coattails to pull the Senate back to Dem control) and that as a whole, progressives really seem to be accepting of anyone they see as an ally without being too critical of it, which could lead to problems on down the line. The latter isn't a thing Bernie might be able to control much, though.
See I just like the idea of taking away the false or trumped up victory that Pete was so ready to claim prematurely lol.
You keep bouncing back and forth between saying that Pete has already won the SDEs so Bernie didn't win, to saying that nobody will ever really know who won the SDEs so it doesn't matter when it became apparent that Bernie could have actually won them, and then going back to fairly definitively saying that Bernie had lost the SDEs (I guess it actually was possible to really know who won!), and now saying that it's not likely that the lead will change, based on... something.
I was typing something fairly similar so I'm glad you did.
I feel like he is being very dishonest at this point.
- Status