The Swamp

rass wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:35 am

WHat did I do!?!?!

Man, this guy really does seem like a tool.

I think it’s more likely to be incompetence than conspiracy for the reasons stated but this debacle definitely hurts whoever did well and helps Biden (assuming that he did in fact finish a distant 4th or 5th). Iowa is a small state that apportions its delegates among multiple candidates so the value of winning there is almost entirely symbolic. If there are delayed or murky results it takes away what would otherwise be a big PR boost. The headline on every paper in America today would’ve been “Sanders/Warren/Pete Wins Iowa.” Instead, I’m seeing on CNN.com: “Iowa meltdown hands opening to Trump.”

Also the level of grift by former Clinton staffers like Robby Mook here is impressive. They used all the Russia fearmongering to not only deflect blame for their own catastrophic mistakes but also to rebrand as “election security experts.” Then used that rebranding to get new contracts that they were apparently woefully unqualified for.

They should have hired Brian.

Yeah, I can assure you it would have gone even worse then.

Though all I'll add is I've lived in a state with a primary and now live in a state with a caucus and caucuses are dumb as shit. Should just mandate every state have a primary.

It's also interesting to me that the year that I've heard so much more clamoring for Iowa to a) change its format and b) not be first is the same year this colossal fuck up occurs.

Again, not feeding into conspiracy, it's just that I've never heard such a concerted effort before about Iowa.

Now this.

I'm of a mind that you hold a round of Super Tuesday's beginning in February and running through April or May. I understand the fear about "big money" being overweighted in that type of scenario, but c'mon at this point: You need to be able to fundraise on a massive scale to even be in the conversation.

But, surely Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest states in the union, shouldn't be the bellwether states with such undo influence at this point.

C'mon.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:57 am

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:27 am Chill the fuck out.

Along these lines... There's a paper trail and the caucuses are done out in the open. You can't fake the results because people at any given venue know all too well how things went down.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aper-trail

it also took two weeks for Santorum to win in 2012! this is a screwup that's immensely exacerbated by our need for instant results in a 24/7 news cycle

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:27 am Chill the fuck out.

Yup. Sooner or later everyone will find out if their favored candidate earned 14 delegates, or only 11. Out of the 1990 needed for the nomination.

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:26 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:57 am

govmentchedda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:27 am Chill the fuck out.

Along these lines... There's a paper trail and the caucuses are done out in the open. You can't fake the results because people at any given venue know all too well how things went down.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... aper-trail

it also took two weeks for Santorum to win in 2012! this is a screwup that's immensely exacerbated by our need for instant results in a 24/7 news cycle

yeah but that was because it was close and contested. There were results coming in all night. Wolf got to draw on his board! He was so bored yesterday.

and last night is, by all accounts and projections, going to be close and contested too

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:32 am and last night is, by all accounts and projections, going to be close and contested too

that may be, but results should be rolling in live.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:33 am

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:32 am and last night is, by all accounts and projections, going to be close and contested too

that may be, but results should be rolling in live.

Why, when those numbers will most likely be a false narrative. Just wait and get the correct numbers. Why the rush to see incorrect or incomplete data.

duff wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:35 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:33 am

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:32 am and last night is, by all accounts and projections, going to be close and contested too

that may be, but results should be rolling in live.

Why, when those numbers will most likely be a false narrative. Just wait and get the correct numbers. Why the rush to see incorrect or incomplete data.

To your point then there should be no election coverage. No numbers, no speeches, no interviews. No results on Nov 3, 2020. Wake up on Nov 4 and get the final results. That's fine by me but that's not how things work.

The counter of "people don't need instant information" works if you're setting that expectation months in advance, not the night of.

Look, I don't think it needs to be as extreme as degen stated... But there's a lot of weight to just waking up the next day and seeing what the numbers show.

I'm never watching election night coverage again, I can tell you that. I watched ZERO coverage last night, just noted there seemed to be some weirdness, kept reading my book and conked out around 11.

I'm in no way excusing this fucking shitshow, and the fact that I'm now reading that they are, as of 1030a CT sending out people to collect paper ballots in person speaks to the fucked up nature of the people in charge... But I'm not gonna waste my blood pressure chits on shit like this on the night of anymore.

In the UK, they don;t release partial vote tallies. They wait until all the votes are counted in each constituency and then announce the winner in the constituency.

Granted, it's a different system, but it seems to work well.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:13 pm In the UK, they don;t release partial vote tallies. They wait until all the votes are counted in each constituency and then announce the winner in the constituency.

Granted, it's a different system, but it seems to work well.

It works well if you want to stay up til 2am.

I worked the last Canadian election. I counted the ballots and was home by 9:30.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:18 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:13 pm In the UK, they don;t release partial vote tallies. They wait until all the votes are counted in each constituency and then announce the winner in the constituency.

Granted, it's a different system, but it seems to work well.

It works well if you want to stay up til 2am.

I worked the last Canadian election. I counted the ballots and was home by 9:30.

Your country has like 200 people.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:21 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:18 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:13 pm In the UK, they don;t release partial vote tallies. They wait until all the votes are counted in each constituency and then announce the winner in the constituency.

Granted, it's a different system, but it seems to work well.

It works well if you want to stay up til 2am.

I worked the last Canadian election. I counted the ballots and was home by 9:30.

Your country has like 200 people.

Iowa has like 200 people.

Now that's funny!

So Pete claims victory after funding the system and Biden threatens to sue to keep result form coming out because they may be bad for him.

Maybe JoeK can lecture again how they aren't closet Republicans.

I mean, dirty politics sure isn't confined to one party... that's like... History and shit.

And, BTW, if you're everyone other than Biden:

"Yes, please, continue to threaten to sue. Thank you very much."

Terrible fucking optics on that, man. Terrible.

A friend of mine is a precinct captain. On Saturday he new the app wasn't working.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:42 am

duff wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:35 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:33 am

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:32 am and last night is, by all accounts and projections, going to be close and contested too

that may be, but results should be rolling in live.

Why, when those numbers will most likely be a false narrative. Just wait and get the correct numbers. Why the rush to see incorrect or incomplete data.

To your point then there should be no election coverage. No numbers, no speeches, no interviews. No results on Nov 3, 2020. Wake up on Nov 4 and get the final results. That's fine by me but that's not how things work.

That doesn't sell Coca-Cola

If you're on the "Bernie or Warren vs. no one else please" train like most of us, this Iowa fuckup could actually be really good news. Regardless of whom wins Iowa, it's not going to be as important as if the results had been announced last night, upping the importance of NH where presumably Warren and Sanders could/should be stronger than Iowa.

Assuming you believe in things like momentum and whatnot, a strong 1-2 finish for Bernie and Warren in either order could really reset things towards ensuring one of those two is the nominee.

(Bernie might well have won Iowa anyway, who the hell knows, but the point is that whomever won isn't going to get the fundraising and media bump that they would have otherwise.)

I'll tell you this, from the Pod Save guys and other reporting for months in Iowa...

Biden had extremely tepid support. He has the big name endorsements, but his ground game was absolutely shitty. Low attendance at a lot of rallies, not nearly as many operational workers.

Folks with extremely strong ground games: Bernie, Pete, Warren and Klobuchar. And as I mentioned back in the day, Cory Booker.

I said on Monday I wouldn't be surprised by Warren coming in third. I thought Biden's name would put him second and Bernie 1st.

As I said earlier today, I'm happy to be wrong and swap Pete for Biden in the second slot. Hell, bump Biden down to 5th with Klobuchar in the 4 spot.

-u0-u-u-u

Klobuchar, IMO, is the one that this lag is hurting most. She put almost all of her eggs in the Iowa basket, hoping for this bump.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:24 pm I'll tell you this, from the Pod Save guys and other reporting for months in Iowa...

Biden had extremely tepid support. He has the big name endorsements, but his ground game was absolutely shitty. Low attendance at a lot of rallies, not nearly as many operational workers.

Folks with extremely strong ground games: Bernie, Pete, Warren and Klobuchar. And as I mentioned back in the day, Cory Booker.

I said on Monday I wouldn't be surprised by Warren coming in third. I thought Biden's name would put him second and Bernie 1st.

As I said earlier today, I'm happy to be wrong and swap Pete for Biden in the second slot. Hell, bump Biden down to 5th with Klobuchar in the 4 spot.

-u0-u-u-u

Klobuchar, IMO, is the one that this lag is hurting most. She put almost all of her eggs in the Iowa basket, hoping for this bump.

My mom and middle son have been in Iowa for two weeks and whatever Klobuchar was doing worked on her. Hoping she's (Klobuchar) way out of it before we vote here in Florida.

I just don't think finishing 4th in a state which she neighbors after spending almost all of her time/resources is going to be enough momentum. Regardless of this SNAFU, I don't think she has legs past this first two primaries.

First results (about 2/3rds of final precincts supposedly) drop:

Mayor Pete 27-ish
Bernie 26-ish
Warren 18-ish
Biden 15-ish
Klobuchar 12-ish

No one else even close enough to those five to matter. Gotta think if Biden falters in NH (which seems likely at this point), that's going to reset a lot of things heading into states like SC and NV with more diverse electorates. I think Bernie's gonna win NV. Biden might need to win SC to even remain viable which is pretty amazing.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:09 pm First results (about 2/3rds of final precincts supposedly) drop:

Mayor Pete 27-ish
Bernie 26-ish
Warren 18-ish
Biden 15-ish
Klobuchar 12-ish

No one else even close enough to those five to matter. Gotta think if Biden falters in NH (which seems likely at this point), that's going to reset a lot of things heading into states like SC and NV with more diverse electorates. I think Bernie's gonna win NV. Biden might need to win SC to even remain viable which is pretty amazing.

Biden might not even beat Steyer in SC, who is really charging.

(As for Biden, I think Trump's months-long attacks including the shizz that got him impeached worked, especially after 2016. I don't think Democrats are interested in repeating the "but her emails" nonsense again with the "but Hunter Biden" shit, as ridiculous as it was four years ago and still is today.

That also said, Trump could well be doing the Democrats a favor by ensuring Biden isn't the nominee. I'm not gonna cry any crocodile tears over it.)

Not sure why we're in parens mode. Trump has been going after Biden from Day 1 because of the Obama connection and his perception that he was always going to be the most formidable opponent.

I also think that he and his camp think that Bernie would do the most to split the Dem Party. He saw that play out in his favor in 2016 and is rather densely (and predictably) just hoping it happens again.

The massive problem with that calculation is twofold: The Dem party is shifting/has already shifted to where Bernie is already. Secondly, and I've talked about this here a lot: There is a Venn Diagram that has a ton of carry-over between white, rural disaffected voters that went Obama-->Trump and potential (or existing) Bernie voters.

To me, that's a huge problem for Trump. If Bernie can win over the suburban white vote, this shit is over.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:25 pm Not sure why we're in parens mode. Trump has been going after Biden from Day 1 because of the Obama connection and his perception that he was always going to be the most formidable opponent.

I also think that he and his camp think that Bernie would do the most to split the Dem Party. He saw that play out in his favor in 2016 and is rather densely (and predictably) just hoping it happens again.

The massive problem with that calculation is twofold: The Dem party is shifting/has already shifted to where Bernie is already. Secondly, and I've talked about this here a lot: There is a Venn Diagram that has a ton of carry-over between white, rural disaffected voters that went Obama-->Trump and potential (or existing) Bernie voters.

To me, that's a huge problem for Trump. If Bernie can win over the suburban white vote, this shit is over.

Well, Biden was polling well in Iowa and nationally as recently as a couple of weeks ago. Falling to what looks like a fourth-place finish is going to kneecap him and is a stunning fall (with the caveat that the delay in results numbs the sting a little). If Biden doesn't win SC or NV he's probably done, which is even more amazing considering in national polling he had a double digit lead earlier this year.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:29 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:25 pm Not sure why we're in parens mode. Trump has been going after Biden from Day 1 because of the Obama connection and his perception that he was always going to be the most formidable opponent.

I also think that he and his camp think that Bernie would do the most to split the Dem Party. He saw that play out in his favor in 2016 and is rather densely (and predictably) just hoping it happens again.

The massive problem with that calculation is twofold: The Dem party is shifting/has already shifted to where Bernie is already. Secondly, and I've talked about this here a lot: There is a Venn Diagram that has a ton of carry-over between white, rural disaffected voters that went Obama-->Trump and potential (or existing) Bernie voters.

To me, that's a huge problem for Trump. If Bernie can win over the suburban white vote, this shit is over.

Well, Biden was polling well in Iowa and nationally as recently as a couple of weeks ago. Falling to what looks like a fourth-place finish is going to kneecap him and is a stunning fall (with the caveat that the delay in results numbs the sting a little). If Biden doesn't win SC or NV he's probably done, which is even more amazing considering in national polling he had a double digit lead earlier this year.

Just going to point out that polling in Iowa, in particular, doesn't take into account the ground game necessary to do well in that state's caucus. He'd probably STILL do well in a general poll there, it doesn't account for the actual effort and more importantly real commitment from caucusers it takes to do well there.

Some years, it's not as big a deal. But with a field this crowded and competitive, if you don't have an army of die hards, you are going to falter. People really love Bernie, Pete and Elizabeth. There's not that fire for Biden.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:09 pm First results (about 2/3rds of final precincts supposedly) drop:

Mayor Pete 27-ish
Bernie 26-ish
Warren 18-ish
Biden 15-ish
Klobuchar 12-ish

No one else even close enough to those five to matter. Gotta think if Biden falters in NH (which seems likely at this point), that's going to reset a lot of things heading into states like SC and NV with more diverse electorates. I think Bernie's gonna win NV. Biden might need to win SC to even remain viable which is pretty amazing.

Or put another way:

Pete 11
Bernie 11
Warren 7
Biden 6
Klobuchar 5

The gap among the Top 4 is 5 - with only 3,938 delegates left.

Yeah Iowa is about optics, not delegates.

As #IowaCaucas holds as the #1 trend on U.S. Twitter, users highlight the misspelling of "caucus" as it goes viral.

Now the DNC is getting torched for releasing just enough of the poll (62%) to make it look like mayor Pete won.

Can't win.

I've never understood how Biden was winning polls for so long. I never come across anyone - in real life or online - who is pulling for Biden. I get that the DNC wants him and the big donors want him, but do any actual voters?