That's not an entirely unfair assessment. There are a few other issues I disagree with the democrats on that I haven't spoken about much on these forums. Like abortion.Marik2 said:
The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee
- Thread starter Tireseas_v1legacy
- Start date
Quite frankly, it's been because "conspiracy theory!" has been cried over less, with more evidence. Hell that entire Donna Brazile row was decried as conspiracy theory and she wrote a damn book about it and brought receipts. Just about the only reason I see that it got airplay, is that it's so brazen, transparent, and ridiculous that to not report it would represent a huge hit to media credibility (well, what's left of it)...and that it's so brazen, transparent, and ridiculous it'll drive ratings. Also that it provides a neat scapegoat for the caucus' problems without drawing attention to causes, or bigger problems like Troy Price's deadass ratfucking.trunkage said:
It does say something the IA democratic party seems to be throwing a woman under the bus to protect a white dude.
Well, it's the same group of incompetents who pulled the same incompetent shit in multiple election cycles, that disadvantaged the same people and groups, in favor of different people from the same group. The only difference this year, is they added more levels of "incompetence" and got caught red-handed. You know the saying: if it happens once it's an anomaly; twice, a coincidence; three times, a pattern.Dreiko said:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1225301865879003136"]
Hmmmmm...
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/NicholsUprising/status/1225306787081003008"]
Ah...
So with 97% reporting,
Bernie had the most votes in the first round.
Bernie had the most votes in the second round.
Weird math translated Bernie's lead over Buttigieg into slightly more state delegate equivalents for Buttigieg for some reason-- possibly because certain districts were given more weight like they've got a miniature electoral college going on; land can vote!
It's possible the data is still wrong.
It seems pretty likely that the last 3% will swing the 0.1 or 0.2% needed to Sanders so he'll win not just the most votes in the first and second rounds, but also state delegate equivalents.
Either way, the result in terms of delegates to the national convention is a tie.
But due to reporting about Pete's (aka Mayor Rounding Error) false "victory" in Iowa, he jumped 9 points in a poll in New Hampshire. So mission accomplished, I guess?
Hmmmmm...
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/NicholsUprising/status/1225306787081003008"]
Ah...
So with 97% reporting,
Bernie had the most votes in the first round.
Bernie had the most votes in the second round.
Weird math translated Bernie's lead over Buttigieg into slightly more state delegate equivalents for Buttigieg for some reason-- possibly because certain districts were given more weight like they've got a miniature electoral college going on; land can vote!
It's possible the data is still wrong.
It seems pretty likely that the last 3% will swing the 0.1 or 0.2% needed to Sanders so he'll win not just the most votes in the first and second rounds, but also state delegate equivalents.
Either way, the result in terms of delegates to the national convention is a tie.
But due to reporting about Pete's (aka Mayor Rounding Error) false "victory" in Iowa, he jumped 9 points in a poll in New Hampshire. So mission accomplished, I guess?
Just to put down my takes on the situation:
I don't think the reporting issues were anything more than genuine incompetence.
I don't think Mayor Pete sabotaged the caucus.
I do think the party leaders there released early numbers because they don't like Bernie.
I don't think any of the nonsense is going to have a big impact in the long run compared to the impact of the actual numbers. Pete is probably getting a small bump from reports that he's winning, but he's bound to have gotten a huge bump of panicking Biden voters who thought they were supporting the electable moderate. That's the bump Buttigieg is getting. Bernie was not going to get that bump even if they reported him as the uncontested winner right away. Warren's voters are the ones Bernie could pull away, so if you want to be upset at people sabotaging Bernie, I'd go back to fight Warren picked with him.
I don't think the reporting issues were anything more than genuine incompetence.
I don't think Mayor Pete sabotaged the caucus.
I do think the party leaders there released early numbers because they don't like Bernie.
I don't think any of the nonsense is going to have a big impact in the long run compared to the impact of the actual numbers. Pete is probably getting a small bump from reports that he's winning, but he's bound to have gotten a huge bump of panicking Biden voters who thought they were supporting the electable moderate. That's the bump Buttigieg is getting. Bernie was not going to get that bump even if they reported him as the uncontested winner right away. Warren's voters are the ones Bernie could pull away, so if you want to be upset at people sabotaging Bernie, I'd go back to fight Warren picked with him.
Not really. All that happened was that Biden crashed and burned, and a plurality of supporters migrated to Pete. Sanders' numbers haven't really moved, and he maintains a lead comfortably outside the MoE. Taking into account Sanders' base of support remains perennially underrepresented thanks to saurian polling methodology, and that Pete's polling bump was the result of the mainstream media throwing its full weight behind constructing a false narrative around falsified and misleading caucus results, I doubt it'll have much impact.Seanchaidh said:
About the best that can happen from this, is claiming victory in siphoning pledged delegates away from Bernie to weaken his position and blunt his ability to snowball. For some reason the chosen strategy seems to be trying to force a brokered convention, but the winning play for the DNC is to make a deal with Warren, keeping her in the race to spoil Bernie, but dropping out just prior to Super Tuesday and endorsing Pete in exchange for the VP nod.
Tom Perez called for a "re-canvass" this morning. Pausing at 97%.
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1225478710632964096"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1225478710632964096"]
Everybody and their pet rock knows at this point Bernie blew out that last 3%, and the Iowa party nor national party want to admit Bernie won. Hell, even in the "97%" result Pete's only ahead in the most meaningless metric to come out of the caucus.Seanchaidh said:
What's funny, is after a decade of ceaseless grouching about minority enfranchisement...the districts whose outcomes the party refuses to release are the predominantly-minority ones in an overwhelmingly white state.
I know stealing an election is awful and all, but that was so blatant (and being a safe distance from it affecting me) it's kind of funny.Seanchaidh said:
* * *
Republican attack ads have pretty much already been written for them. "Would you trust a party that can't run it's own candidate elections to run the country?"
"Kind of"? To be frank this is so "Armando Iannucci movie" I've given up on anger and gone straight to "point and laugh". Highlights from private conversations I've had:Agema said:
"It's like watching a rhinoceros suck its own cock".
"They should have just hired the Russians".
"At least hire people to rig the caucuses who know what they're doing instead of the dipshit nepotism hires who fucked it up last time".
"It could have been worse, Pete could have come out onstage in blackface and thrown an infant into a woodchipper while masturbating furiously".
"So, thanks for making Katherine Harris look like D.B. Cooper".
"Was FuckBernie McElectionTheft, Inc., already taken?"
"So, it's the Jewish guy facing a million bucks in attack ads from the Israel lobby, the gay guy polling worse than AIDS among LGBTQ's, the woman who got baited into taking a DNA test by the most obvious political trap in human history, and the electoral equivalent of Ann Veal."
"Is that Buttigieg's donor list or Jeffrey Epstein's rolodex?"
"That's the political equivalent of a 1970's Ford Econoline van parked outside a daycare facility, and Democrats are arguing over what flavor of Jolly Ranchers are inside".
"At this rate we're going to split Iowa up into North and South, and spend the next decade carpet bombing Nebraska".
"Pinochet had freer and fairer elections than this. He even offered helicopter rides to the polls."
"Gay man cucks crazy communist under the cover of the Clinton's Shadow, would you want your daughter to be in the same bathroom as either of them?"
"Before we release the next round of caucus results, have you heard of RAID: Shadow Legends?"
"See, all that talk about women and minority enfranchisement and representation was before the DNC figured out they'd vote for Bernie."
"Iowan Democrats are waiting for their MAGA hats to come in the mail before releasing the last round of caucus results."
"The best way to prevent premature electoration is to practice Bernitus Interruptus."
EDIT: Latecomer! "Iowan Democrats held the satellite caucuses, mistakenly believing they'd actually be launching those voters into space."
"To speed up the caucus reporting process this year in case the app for some reason fails, we have multiple phone lines for reporting results. If your precinct is reporting a Buttigieg, Warren, or Biden victory, call the regular number. If your precinct is reporting a victory for any other candidate including Sanders, please dial 1-900-HOT-ORAL."
"What slack-jawed, chicken-f*cking, grab-asstic Mickey Mouse smear of anal froth across a porno theater's glory hole came up with the brilliant f*cking idea to let Palladium Books write the caucus rules?"
"See, all that talk about women and minority enfranchisement and representation was before the DNC figured out they'd vote for Bernie."
"Iowan Democrats are waiting for their MAGA hats to come in the mail before releasing the last round of caucus results."
"The best way to prevent premature electoration is to practice Bernitus Interruptus."
EDIT: Latecomer! "Iowan Democrats held the satellite caucuses, mistakenly believing they'd actually be launching those voters into space."
"To speed up the caucus reporting process this year in case the app for some reason fails, we have multiple phone lines for reporting results. If your precinct is reporting a Buttigieg, Warren, or Biden victory, call the regular number. If your precinct is reporting a victory for any other candidate including Sanders, please dial 1-900-HOT-ORAL."
Update: Wash Post [https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/iowa/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-low_iowa-label-over-both%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans] is at 97% reporting and the result is effectively a de facto tie (<5 state delegate equivalant and ~525 caucus-goer difference after 2nd round) between Buttigieg and Sanders, with Buttigieg having a few more delegates and Sanders having a few more votes. No one has finalized the results.
The head of the DNC is calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to recanvass, meaning verifying the individual caucus site totals with the reported results [https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politics/iowa-caucus-results/index.html]. The NYTimes [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html] is reporting minor inaccuracies in the results, though the errors appear to be due to confusion over the caucus rules and scribiner errors and not favoritism towards any candidate. It does not appear the errors will have a substantial impact on the results.
The head of the DNC is calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to recanvass, meaning verifying the individual caucus site totals with the reported results [https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politics/iowa-caucus-results/index.html]. The NYTimes [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html] is reporting minor inaccuracies in the results, though the errors appear to be due to confusion over the caucus rules and scribiner errors and not favoritism towards any candidate. It does not appear the errors will have a substantial impact on the results.
Bernie has 6000 more votes, the delegates are tied but we don't do electoral college here, right? We care who got more votes, right? Bernie did. The end.
In the depths of Shadow you will find the hearts of men, the kingdom hearts!Seanchaidh said:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1225511267789606912"]
Doesn't seem like a good look for the Buttigieg campaign especially given that it already has huge problems with race.
Doesn't seem like a good look for the Buttigieg campaign especially given that it already has huge problems with race.
I mean, depends on your idea of "substantial". The media seems to think SDE is substantial enough over, say, popular vote or pledged national delegates for some reason, and multiple outlets (including CNN) have used that basis to declare Pete the winner despite being tied in pledged national delegates and losing the popular vote.Tireseas said:
So, it turns out once you account for the errors and inconsistencies in IDP's reporting, Bernie's actually ahead in SDE's too. The campaign just issued a press release, complete with math and receipts. And, searching around the Twittersphere, that's not even a conclusive list of instances in which Pete was erroneously awarded delegates, and/or Bernie was erroneously stripped of delegates.
Not even touching the coin toss issues yet.
https://twitter.com/JennElizabethJ/status/1225616191646990337
As far as I know there were three disputable coin tosses that have video evidence, that I know of. There's the one with the putz that literally tossed it in the air and flipped it in his hand to give Pete a delegate (which I don't believe was between Pete and Sanders), then there was the Pete/Warren one where the guy flipped the coin and called it before anyone could verify the result, and the Sanders/Warren instance where they were tied but due to rounding rules Sanders should have gotten the delegate, but the chair declared a coin toss in violation of them.Schadrach said:
That would have been 563.5 for Sanders right there, and 562 for Pete before considering those other two coin tosses. Only had Pete won both tosses (a 25% probability) would he have been able to claim victory on the basis of SDE's, which mind is the most meaningless metric to base the caucus outcome.
As 100% are reporting, I'm posting the Iowa results with the note that they may change following a recanvassing. Currently waiting the reported national delegate equivalent, but CBS [https://www.cbsnews.com/2020-primary/] is already assigning 10 to Buttigieg, 10 to Sanders, and 6 to Warren, which is 26 out of the 41 DNC delegates for Iowa, making Iowa a tie in terms of the delegates needed to obtain the nomination between Buttigieg and Sanders.
Why are they even doing coin tosses? This is something important so they at least should play a game of similar gravitas like a game of magic the gathering between the candidates, right? I mean, if it's chance it feels cheap, at least it should have a measure of skill involved, right? Are they afraid Bernie stopped playing magic back in 95 and has a deck full of moxes and lotuses or what?