2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[degenerasian]

wow

Many Errors Are Evident in Iowa Caucus Results Released Wednesday

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Viable candidates can’t lose support on realignment, but there were more than 10 cases where a viable candidate lost vote share in the final alignment, even though that is precluded by the caucus rules.

No new voters are permitted to join the caucus after the first alignment. But in at least 70 precincts, more than 4 percent of the total, there are more tabulated total votes on final alignment than on first alignment.

Sounds like people didn't follow the new rules put in place this year, ie, if your candidate is viable after the first vote, you're locked in and can't switch.

It doesn't matter who wins now. Bernie and especially Pete needed to bump on Monday night which did not happen.

[Nonlinear FC]

Honestly, the more that comes out... Caucuses should be done at this point.

You want to go with Ranked Choice Voting, totally fine with me.

But this shit is not democratic (small d intentional.)

[degenerasian]

Honestly, the more that comes out... Caucuses should be done at this point.

You want to go with Ranked Choice Voting, totally fine with me.

But this shit is not democratic (small d intentional.)

And Bernie asked for the 3 numbers this time around for this very reason and what a mess it became.
What if 3 numbers had come out in 2016, or 2008? Would the story have been different?

I don't mind caucuses or this type of personal brokering of people but you have to have less precincts. Why are 100 people in this gym and another 100 people in another gym across the street? There's just too much separate information to tabulate and report.

[mister d]

... (small d intentional.)

[Nonlinear FC]

Honestly, the more that comes out... Caucuses should be done at this point.

You want to go with Ranked Choice Voting, totally fine with me.

But this shit is not democratic (small d intentional.)

And Bernie asked for the 3 numbers this time around for this very reason and what a mess it became.
What if 3 numbers had come out in 2016, or 2008? Would the story have been different?

I don't mind caucuses or this type of personal brokering of people but you have to have less precincts. Why are 100 people in this gym and another 100 people in another gym across the street? There's just too much separate information to tabulate and report.

You've got reports of people flaunting the rules, bullying other people at these venues, brokering deals that are borderline bribery.

That's what I'm talking about. We are taught from an early age in this country that your vote is secret and you aren't to be intimidated or otherwise unduly influenced while casting a vote.

This process is stupid.

[Ryan]

We immediately thought of at least 10 reasons we wouldn't participate. It's crazy bad.

[mister d]

[degenerasian]

Yes, let's make a mess bigger.

[mister d]

Wonder what Eric Trump thinks of this latest edition to the timeline.

[Brontoburglar]

rationality making sense what a world

[Steve of phpBB]

rationality making sense what a world

Bingo. People fuck up all the time, especially when they're operating under pressure.

[mister d]

People fuck up all the time, for sure. The organization in charge fucks up in one direction all the time? Maybe? The national organization calls for a re-do after the fact all the time ...

[Joe K]

People fuck up all the time, for sure. The organization in charge fucks up in one direction all the time? Maybe? The national organization calls for a re-do after the fact all the time ...

From what I’m reading it’s not even clear that the DNC has the authority to order a recanvass. And surely it’s just a coincidence — and nothing more — that Perez called for a recanvass right when Sanders was on the verge of taking the lead in SDEs, and not at any point during the the 3 day period that Pete was declaring himself the winner. Can’t possibly be that the DNC doesn’t want Sanders to be declared the outright Iowa winner before New Hampshire. Only Eric Trump would think that.

[brian]

The paranoia of Bernie Bots knows no bounds. Only the Q Anon people are worse.

[mister d]

The same people calling this a nonsense conspiracy theory would be moving to Canada if a Trump supporting voting machine company didn't submit Michigan and Pennsylvania results on November 3rd, trickled out some results over the next few days showing Trump in the lead, then got caught with a data flaw that was assigning Dem nominee votes to 3rd party Gabbard, then had correct votes trending to a Dem win but stopped short of finishing the release, then Pompeo called for a re-vote. I mean ... come on. You don't have to believe for a fact it was sinister, but you also can't state for a fact it wasn't.

[mister d]

(And I forgot the Des Moines Register poll that got spiked.)

[brian]

It's a ridiculously vast conspiracy to steal like what, maybe four electors tops out of the several thousand needed?

[mister d]

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'm not sure how that alters the facts involved.

[duff]

It's a ridiculously vast conspiracy to steal like what, maybe four electors tops out of the several thousand needed?

It isn't just the electors, but the optics of winning. People tend to vote for the front runner after a handful of primaries. Pete looks a lot better in NH, SC, & NV by winning IA. Having Bernie win pushing the DNC farther away from getting their "guy".

[Jerloma]

The paranoia of Bernie Bots knows no bounds. Only the Q Anon people are worse.

Make sure to save that in your clipboard for the next time this happens.

[Steve of phpBB]

People fuck up all the time, for sure. The organization in charge fucks up in one direction all the time? Maybe? The national organization calls for a re-do after the fact all the time ...

From what I’m reading it’s not even clear that the DNC has the authority to order a recanvass. And surely it’s just a coincidence — and nothing more — that Perez called for a recanvass right when Sanders was on the verge of taking the lead in SDEs, and not at any point during the the 3 day period that Pete was declaring himself the winner. Can’t possibly be that the DNC doesn’t want Sanders to be declared the outright Iowa winner before New Hampshire. Only Eric Trump would think that.

Of course the Democratic National Committee would prefer that the Democratic nomination go to a Democrat.

[HaulCitgo]

Not sure I'm voting for Bernie. And this is a clusterfuck. Congrats y'all losers setting it up for him to get a second term if the economy holds. Well done guys. I blame u.

[Joe K]

People fuck up all the time, for sure. The organization in charge fucks up in one direction all the time? Maybe? The national organization calls for a re-do after the fact all the time ...

From what I’m reading it’s not even clear that the DNC has the authority to order a recanvass. And surely it’s just a coincidence — and nothing more — that Perez called for a recanvass right when Sanders was on the verge of taking the lead in SDEs, and not at any point during the the 3 day period that Pete was declaring himself the winner. Can’t possibly be that the DNC doesn’t want Sanders to be declared the outright Iowa winner before New Hampshire. Only Eric Trump would think that.

Of course the Democratic National Committee would prefer that the Democratic nomination go to a Democrat.

This argument is funny to me because the same people who criticize Sanders for NOT BEING A DEMOCRAT would accuse him of being a Russian agent if he ran as an independent. And can you identify any concrete way in which his independence has led him to have worse positions? Because as I see it, Sanders has been way ahead of the Democratic Party on issues like gay rights, opposition to unjust wars, and economic justice.

[Steve of phpBB]

This argument is funny to me because the same people who criticize Sanders for NOT BEING A DEMOCRAT would accuse him of being a Russian agent if he ran as an independent. And can you identify any concrete way in which his independence has led him to have worse positions? Because as I see it, Sanders has been way ahead of the Democratic Party on issues like gay rights, opposition to unjust wars, and economic justice.

To me the party issue isn't about positions on certain issues. It's about whether you are willing to strengthen or weaken the only institution in the country capable of defeating Trump and/or the Republican Party.

Except for voting to protect gun manufacturers from liability, I imagine I mostly agree with most of Sanders's positions.

I think party is relevant for two other things, though I don't know how strong they are. One is that if he were the nominee, how could he credibly encourage people to vote for all the Democrats running for lower offices?

The second has to do with whether he's more interested in advocacy or the work necessary to turn goals into actions. I really like the fact that Warren not only has been addressing economic unfairness and corporate power for a long, long time (well before 2016), but she has also seen through the process of creating a government agency whose sole purpose is protection of consumer finance. Sanders has said great stuff - and that is definitely important, especially the way he's moved the discussion to the left over the past five years. But has he been directly involved in more mundane but concrete stuff, like taking the lead to get difficult bills through Congress, or stuff like that? (That's a legit question, not a rhetorical one. I really don't know that much about Sanders' actual work as a legislator.)

[Rush2112]

He's only had two initially his sponsorship bills passed through (and at least another one passed but vetoed!), but cosponsered over 200. He's also very adept at getting amendments to bills attached.

The success rate on his sponsored bills isn't great, but he routinely introduces very progressive ideas. You can get an idea here

[Johnnie]

Why so many excuses to maintain some moderate representation under the auspice of "getting the middle" or some dumb shit? Especially in the primary.

Quite frankly, I'd rather fail with a progressive than hope to succeed with a moderate. Nothing is for certain.

Handicapping to appeal to some "middle" is bullshit. And thinking that a moderate wins seems foolish because they've constantly lost.

I wonder what Eric Trump thinks about this. And Richard Spencer. And Ja Rule.

[Johnnie]

Can't verify this, but found via Reddit comment:

Vote by Gender

Men: Sanders 25%, Buttigieg 21%, Warren 16%, Biden 16%, Klobuchar 11%

Women: Sanders 24%, Buttigieg 22%, Warren 21%, Biden 14%, Klobuchar 14%

Votes by Age

18-44 years old: Sanders 43%, Warren 20%, Buttigieg 19%, Biden 5%, Klobuchar 3%

45+: Buttigieg 23%, Biden 22%, Klobuchar 19%, Warren 18%, Sanders 12%

Votes by Race

White: Sanders 23%, Buttigieg 23%, Warren 19%, Biden 15%, Klobuchar 12%

Non White: Sanders 38%, Biden 17%, Buttigieg 12%, Warren 11%, Klobuchar 5%

Old people love Pete Buttigieg because he makes Joe Biden look like Malcolm X.

Let's ask a young, non-white person about Iowa: (Ooh, he just turned 45 a month ago. Regardless...)



#MATH

[Johnnie]

This covers it nicely.

Mayor Pete Challenges Iowa Results Now That Bernie Is Leading

[duff]

I gave my in-laws the what for last night as I was programming their new universal remote. The Iowa results came on saying Pete was up over Bernie by .1 or .2%. My MiL was all excited. And when I mentioned Bernie's name both of them guffawed. They said they wanted new ideas and not the same old stuff. I told them Pete was just a younger version of Biden and if they wanted new ideas they should think long and hard about Sanders or Warren.

I guess they see younger being different and exciting. Add in the gay part and they feel like they are woke.

[mister d]

[Nonlinear FC]

It sucks, but at this point, the entire point of Iowa is bellwether and momentum. Train has left the barn, time to move on.

Well, other than to make sure the delegate count is accurate. We're talking about one or two delegates here or there, but for accuracy sake, I guess...

[degenerasian]

[Steve of phpBB]

Why so many excuses to maintain some moderate representation under the auspice of "getting the middle" or some dumb shit? Especially in the primary.

Quite frankly, I'd rather fail with a progressive than hope to succeed with a moderate. Nothing is for certain.

Handicapping to appeal to some "middle" is bullshit. And thinking that a moderate wins seems foolish because they've constantly lost.

I wonder what Eric Trump thinks about this. And Richard Spencer. And Ja Rule.

Yeah, the problem with that reasoning is (i) it just isn't true. There are way more moderates (and conservatives) than liberals.

And (ii) saying you'd rather fail in this upcoming election just drips of straight white male privilege. It's easy to go Bernie-or-bust as a straight white male - we basically have freer, safer, better lives than 99 percent of people who ever lived. A Supreme Court full of Brett Kavanaughs doesn't really matter to us.

To the extent we're persecuted by the system, it's mostly philosophical: we're cogs in a system we have little say in, and there's these super-rich folks out there living pampered lives of privilege and taking advantage of the hardships of others. And that sucks. But for a lot of folks who aren't straight white males, they have that hardship *plus* a bunch of others that are more concrete. Women, gays, racial or religious minorities, trans kids, Syrian refugees, Guatemalan asylum seekers, DACA recipients - they're also facing problems that really can be affected by the election of a moderate versus the election of Trump.

So, yeah, whoever wins in November, we're going to have the same overall oppressive system. But there are literally millions of people whose lives will be better if the Democrats take power away from Trump.

[Johnnie]

Oh sweet. I need to now check my privilege. Awesome.

[Nonlinear FC]

Truth hurts?

Not trying to be an asshole, but what about Steve's post isn't true?

[A_B]

Oh sweet. I need to now check my privilege. Awesome.

I mean...yes?

[mister d]

Steve, how do you reconcile that to the Bernie or bust voters who live in far less privilege than the voter you're referring to, who are directly affected by Trump but won't settle for a half-measure?

[Jerloma]

Call it what is is...by moderate, you mean establishment dems. The kind that are going to make the rich richer and let corporation do whatever the fuck they want. Being for that seems like white privilege more than Bernie or bust.

[Jerloma]

Moderate dems are just sycophants who've allowed themselves to be pushed right by the idiots we have in control now so they can keep pretending that they're centrists. Stop it.

[Nonlinear FC]

Call it what is is...by moderate, you mean establishment dems. The kind that are going to make the rich richer and let corporation do whatever the fuck they want. Being for that seems like white privilege more than Bernie or bust.

And while I get that, when you are looking at Trump vs. Establishment Dem, I just don't see how anyone can allow 4 more years of Trump.

Keep fighting as progressives. You are winning. Somethings this stuff takes a few cycles.

But letting Trump win is a really shitty "protest" move.