In the primary process the whole entire point is to gain delegates. And based one the results, the most likely outcome is a tie in national delegates. So Bernie didn't win.
-
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
In the primary process the whole entire point is to gain delegates. And based one the results, the most likely outcome is a tie in national delegates. So Bernie didn't win.
let's forget about Iowa. Bernie and Pete did great; Biden flopped. They might never get all the issues in the data fixed but a fraction of an SDE here and there is not going to change the results. Ban caucuses.
OP
OP
I dunno if this is the actual dilemma, though.
I heard this great discussion on... I think it was The Weeds about what they felt were the big differences between the candidates. One of the things that came up was legislative strategy. Biden will basically take lumps on his stuff - give the other side things actually anathema to what he wants - if it means they'll vote for whatever it is he's trying to pass. Bernie... mostly doesn't. He's actually not as hardline as his image would have you believe, but like, Bernie would generally prefer to not pass legislation he thinks is too compromised, even if it means he doesn't get any of what he wants. So everybody's trying to pass stuff you like, unless what you like is... I dunno how to put it. Unvarnished bills? Which sounds too dismissive for what I mean, but like, that's sort of the core dilemma here. Do you get some good stuff and take the bad with it or do you just not get stuff at all. That's what I think Biden would pitch his approach as.
There's a lot wrong with Biden's approach, though. First and foremost that a lot of what the other side wants at this point is to sabotage what you want, just because you want it. That's what happened with the ACA, when you get down to it. Republican members of congress had a bunch of demands and ended up making it a party line vote anyway, even when they were met. That weakened and watered down the bill and they were able to run against it for 6 years. Was still popular enough to make it difficult to remove, but hell, if they took that same vote now, it'd probably just pass.
Ultimately, I think that the core of it is: any executive action focused agenda is going to be definitionally short-term. They're too easy to roll back, too vulnerable to interference from the courts. The next Republican administration (and there would be one, because there's basically nothing you can do with EOs on small-d democratic reform) would just undo the entire term, no matter how popular it is, because they're governing from the minority anyway so might as well just focus on making their base happy by making those dirty libs miserable, right? That's why it's so damn important to take back the Senate and either repeal the Filibuster or do Bernie's kinda dumb "overrule the parliamentarian on everything" Filibuster reform by any other name. Democratic reform has got to top the agenda in 2020, above even healthcare, because if we can do that it gives us so much more breathing room on everything else.
Not really. Depends a lot on implementation and public relations. Republicans are very happy to take it in the teeth if it makes Democrats and minorities miserable.
That is a ridiculous comment from Sanders. Anybody who feels like that is a remote possibility is being delusional.
McConnell won't vote on Chuck Grassleys prescription drug bill, one that the president of McConnell's own party gives lip service to in his campaign speeches and has widespread support among McConnells own constituents.
McConnell won't vote on Chuck Grassleys prescription drug bill, one that the president of McConnell's own party gives lip service to in his campaign speeches and has widespread support among McConnells own constituents.
Functionally they tied in terms of delegates, but nobody likes a tie.
Bernie received more votes.
Bernie won.
Butti nuked NH with ads just as much as Iowa, so that bit's not over. And he does have a decent warchest still. For Biden, his demos are more not-Iowa, but yeah, the media is loving the narrative of a falling Biden atm and that hurts him. We'll see how that works out in Nevada and SC.
I mean it's a worthless amount of delegates to bother over, the whole point of Iowa is to take the initial momentum which... recanvassing will not provide
Yes, it's the nature of a caucus and a candidate like Sanders vs a candidate like Buttigieg.
In precincts where Sanders was not viable it's likely he held onto more votes but was below 15% than in precincts where Buttigieg was not viable. Buttigiegs first round supporters were likely to reassign to another moderate like Biden or Klobochar in the 2nd round, Sanders supporters are less likely and would still keep their vote with Sanders. While some Sanders supporters in the first round would go for another progressive like Warren, the number who would switch is less than that of a Buttigieg, Klobochar, or Biden -- relatively. Those votes still count towards the popular vote tally but they assign no delegates if the candidate does not break viability.
This is also why Sanders has focused on the "most votes in the first round" line. Because he has more "true believers" than most other candidates, which is an asset in a primary state (you only have 1 vote, there's no runoff or ranked choice) but not as valuable in a caucus state.
Doesn't really matter. Cruz won Iowa in 2016, Trump finished in a distant 3rd or 4th. And then swept super Tuesday. The Iowa democratic caucus has predicted the candidate for about 20 years but that's sort of been a coincidence.
smart from both of them, they're not the ones who need to poke holes in the results :eyes biden's campaign:
Elections really aren't that complicated you guys. How did the US manage to fuck up this entire process so thoroughly?
Watching these town halls, the contrast between the questions Pete & Warren received is incredible. The tone also just seems drastically different. Warren was constantly getting pushed by Cuomo on tough questions regarding gun control, health care & immigration. Meanwhile Cuomo's treating this like a stand-up set & has barely pushed Pete.
They literally brought him in asking him how he felt about his "Iowa win". The shit was softball.
OP
OP
That's the rule for actual elections, but for a caucus... hell if I know.
I await Monday night when we get to see a real vote tabulation process.
Iowa has been left behind.
Iowa has been left behind.
Their support will get split all over the place, but Bloomberg will probably scoop up a lot from Biden while Butt and Bernie split Warren's vote.
pete. More Warren supporters went to him in Iowa than to Sanders.
Im trying to keep track of these numbers and I don't know what they mean. I mean make a damn graph.
This is 'Murica, we're exceptional at fucking up basic things like measurement systems, healthcare, and democracy. It's what we do.
As stupid as the Iowa Caucus is though, it's more of a weird relic than anything malicious. I'm honestly glad this year's is so f'd up as maybe it'll mean it finally dies the death it deserves.
Your question just happened to be answered a mere second before, but to add:
It has been clear for a year that Buttigieg's voters are extremely limited to just a few states due to the demographics of his voters.
If that's the case then Biden and Warren's plan of crafting the perfect bipartisan bill to sway the senate is even more of a fantasy.
User Banned (1 Week): Ignoring the staff post with regards to conspiracy theorizing
The errors in the data (that are unlikely to be corrected) favor sanders to overtake Pete, and we have video of suspicious coin toss wins for Pete.
It was pretty obviously stolen, but it won't matter in the long run.
It's not as bird brained as Biden but isn't her plan to slow roll watered down programs to garner support to eventually get M4A?
Biden people will split among Pete and Bernie so that's a wash.
Warren people will split among Bernie and Pete.
Here's the real unmentioned wild card: YangGang
Do they go to Bernie or do they disappear? If they go to Bernie they can push him over Pete but they're just as likely to sit it out, I don't get those people.
I wonder how much moving between choices actually matters given how the caucus works? This is more to say that the caucus process is bizarre than to argue this works in any specific person's favor, but given how viability works and how the delegates are split, moving to another candidate for the final alignment doesn't necessarily mean you like them specifically vs wanting another candidate to do worse if you can get someone else past the line of viability, right?
...actually, how do we even know (or reasonably exptrapolate) this stuff about people moving to specific candidates when we just have the totals and no actual data on individuals shifting?
It wasn't "pretty obviously stolen". It was a closely contested election with a garbage set of rules.
This hyperbole is legit gonna give me a stroke
There's literally no argument that Pete won based on the data we have.
OP
OP
Nnnnot really?
Her plan is to pass a public option more or less immediately, work on other legislative priorities, and then circle back around to M4A later rather than spending all her political capital on it and probably not getting anything else done. If it works out, the first-term pro-democracy reforms would make it a lot easier to pass anyway.
There is, though. Like, a very close race on SDEs that Pete won is at least an argument, even if you don't agree with it.
People are a little too certain of this I think. It's not unprecedented for a candidate to be doing poorly nationally (including with black voters) and then do well in early contests and build the coalition once people are paying more attention.
You can make some educated guesses based on platform and policy, but that's all. It's just guesswork.
All 4 of them probably go 75 percent to bernie and 25 percent back to not voting
The end result is the same, passing anything using political capital in the senate is impossible if Mitch wont even look at something his own party wants.
Dunno why the campaign wouldn't also ask for a recount if this is the route they're going to go
A difference of less than two SDEs, less than .1%. That's if you trust the methodology, which none of us do.
The most charitable thing you can say about Pete in real-world terms is that he tied on delegates.
But Bernie got more votes. Bernie won.
OP
OP
Oh, sure.
Let me be clear, if we don't get the Senate nobody's passing anything. That should be priority #2.
Hey, that's your argument, that's your argument. Just don't like the idea that there's no argument to be had at all. Makes people act dumb, provokes hostilities, all that.
Discrepancies are all part of the process in Iowa. Guarantee you some hurt Pete, some helped him. The satellite caucus thing sticks out. If they've landed on a 2-delegate lead, that's what he's got. You want to say that Bernie got the popular vote and that's what matters, go for it. But please don't say that there's no argument at all.
Cuz at this point, either camp asking for a recount is a losing strategy. Both want to claim victory and move on. Dragging this out for even longer in order to gain bragging rights doesn't really help anybody
I'm up for arguing whether Bernie won or tied. That's fair game.
To claim that Pete won is to claim that a .1% difference in a functionally meaningless metric is victory.
OP
OP
Yuuuuup.
Worth noting for people following this thing for the first time, a traditional feature of Iowa is that everybody always claims victory on some level. If you got first in the delegates and the vote count, you'd better believe #2 is out here talking about how they beat all expectations and really their surging momentum means they're the real winners, and #3 talks about how holding strong before their good states means it's really their victory, and so on and so forth. Spin is part of the game.
Pete didn't win if you go into the verified errors that are unlikely to be corrected. It would result in 2-3 more points for Sanders, not counting the video of a very suspect coin toss.
- Status