2020 Dems: Iowa (how it works and what to look for)

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Given Perez's impetus for the recount, I will not trust the result. He clearly called this because Bernie was going to take the lead via satellite caucus.

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

14 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Personally, I think the easiest explanation is that this has probably always been a disorganized, unscientific shitshow but nobody really put the process under a microscope until this year.

Yep. Hillary’s razor thin  “victory” last election in Iowa was very shady, which led to the bern insisting on more transparency, which led directly to the shitshow we’re watching in iowa this year. 
 

The Iowa caucus is fine as long as you’re willing to tolerate a lot of human error and a little bit of corruption with “close enough” results. That’s simply not possible in the era of president shitstain, Republican corruption and his Russian backed trolls. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by JimmyJames

[Zonahorn 8,079]

Why didn't you do this 48 hours ago?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Calihorn

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Turf war between the DNC and IDP.

I am forced to side with the IDP.

 

[wildcat09 29,360]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*picks up phone*

"BABA BOOEY BABA BOOEY HOWARD STERN'S PENIS!"

*falls over, knocking over a stack of ballots and spilling coffee all over the results tallied so far*

Wouldn't it be something if this legitimately was the problem? A bunch of Howard Stern callers so flustered the septuagenarian volunteers staffing the IDP that they just lost all ability to count?

Also, I'm calling it now that Pete's campaign was going to publicly demand a recount once Bernie took the lead in SDEs and Perez announced this nonsense to try to head that off. Everything about this is so stupid.

[Fozzz 152]

My biggest issue is with the Iowa Democratic Party's decision to publish partial results indicating Pete would win SDEs, as this has likely given Pete a bump in NH (the whole point of winning Iowa given the few number of actual delegates at stake) that he did not deserve in view of the more complete results we have now.  That was a deliberate decision by the state party knowing what the result would be and they did it anyway for no justifiable reason.  Also, it's clear that had Pete not had the DMR poll spiked Bernie would have clearly swept the popular vote and SDEs.  We should have known we would be in store for a massive shitshow once Pete was able to pull that off.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Fozzz

[bad_teammate 13,220]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Wouldn't it be something if this legitimately was the problem? A bunch of Howard Stern callers so flustered the septuagenarian volunteers staffing the IDP that they just lost all ability to count?

Yes. This is why we need the Bros.

They would've just yelled right back (or laughed and said, "Ha, good one!") and kept on smoking weed and counting.

Quote

Also, I'm calling it now that Pete's campaign was going to publicly demand a recount once Bernie took the lead in SDEs and Perez announced this nonsense to try to head that off. Everything about this is so stupid.

I can see that, but why would he step in to head that off?

Why would Perez step in to try and save Pete from having to look like a sore loser?

How closely are Pete and the DNC communicating that they're coordinating like that?

I just can't find the angle here that looks even vaguely innocent or even-handed.

[wildcat09 29,360]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

My biggest issue is with the Iowa Democratic Party's decision to publish partial results indicating Pete would win SDEs, as this has likely given Pete a bump in NH that he did not deserve in view of the more complete results we have now.  That was a deliberate decision by the state party knowing what the result would be and they did it anyway for no justifiable reason.  Also, it's clear that had Pete not had the DMR poll spiked Bernie would have clearly swept the popular vote and SDEs.  We should have known we would be in store for a massive shitshow once Pete was able to pull that off.

I can't see how this is anything but good for Bernie longer-term though. It might give Pete a boost going into New Hampshire, but that serves to further hurt Biden. Pete has no real shot at the nomination given the fact that he's pulling a 0% among African American primary voters, but the longer he stays in the more votes he pulls from Biden. This clown show has been great for Bernie. Hell, he's looking like a coin flip to beat Biden in Texas now. 

[Brisketexan 105,180]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Wouldn't it be something if this legitimately was the problem? A bunch of Howard Stern callers so flustered the septuagenarian volunteers staffing the IDP that they just lost all ability to count?

Also, I'm calling it now that Pete's campaign was going to publicly demand a recount once Bernie took the lead in SDEs and Perez announced this nonsense to try to head that off. Everything about this is so stupid.

It's Iowa, man.  Ernestine was just overwhelmed on the switchboard....

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I can't see how this is anything but good for Bernie longer-term though. It might give Pete a boost going into New Hampshire, but that serves to further hurt Biden. Pete has no real shot at the nomination given the fact that he's pulling a 0% among African American primary voters, but the longer he stays in the more votes he pulls from Biden. This clown show has been great for Bernie. Hell, he's looking like a coin flip to beat Biden in Texas now. 

I agree that may end up helping Bernie and Pete so far has done a great service towards electing our first socialist president, but at best that looks very dirty.  

[wildcat09 29,360]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes. This is why we need the Bros.

They would've just yelled right back (or laughed and said, "Ha, good one!") and kept on smoking weed and counting.

I can see that, but why would he step in to head that off?

Why would Perez step in to try and save Pete from having to look like a sore loser?

How closely are Pete and the DNC communicating that they're coordinating like that?

I just can't find the angle here that looks even vaguely innocent or even-handed.

Most innocent explanation I can think of is that the DNC just doesn't want any candidates publicly challenging results. In a vacuum, that certainly wouldn't be a good look. Of course, that's divorced of all context and obviously this shitshow looks worse than whatever would have resulted from Pete complaining about a race he would still probably tie for first in actual delegates in. It could certainly be something more underhanded, but if their goal at this point was explicitly to hurt Bernie, I don't see how even in their stupid minds they could think this would do it. Of course, I continue to underestimate their capacity for stupidity. 

 

[hayden_horn 11,364]

14 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Personally, I think the easiest explanation is that this has probably always been a disorganized, unscientific shitshow but nobody really put the process under a microscope until this year.

yeah, i think this is it. what made this year so interesting was that there were so many candidates. in 2016, for the democratic party, it was just hillary and bernard, and they basically tied. the republicans had essentially a five horse race at that point, but donald trump was sucking all the sound out of any microphone that he could. the 2012 and 2008 iowa caucus were equally shitshows, but in an age of ubiquitous social media and streaming video, i think the curtain was pulled back a bit more on the shitshow.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Most innocent explanation I can think of is that the DNC just doesn't want any candidates publicly challenging results. In a vacuum, that certainly wouldn't be a good look. Of course, that's divorced of all context and obviously this shitshow looks worse than whatever would have resulted from Pete complaining about a race he would still probably tie for first in actual delegates in.

lol yep that's what I'm thinking

The sewage line bursts, the house is 3 inches deep in feces, and Tom Perez is diving to save a vase that's about to fall of a shelf?

 

[David Dennison 18,940]

28 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Fucking amazing

 

Yes, Bernie, but this is America. It doesn't work that way here. I feel ya, though.

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Also, I'm calling it now that Pete's campaign was going to publicly demand a recount once Bernie took the lead in SDEs and Perez announced this nonsense to try to head that off. Everything about this is so stupid.

No chance that would have happened. 

 

[Zonahorn 8,079]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Yes, Bernie, but this is America. It doesn't work that way here. I feel ya, though.

Yes, why let votes decide the matter when we can do stupid shit

[wildcat09 29,360]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol yep that's what I'm thinking

The sewage line bursts, the house is 3 inches deep in feces, and Tom Perez is diving to save a vase that's about to fall of a shelf?

 

I still think stupidity is the likeliest explanation:

Of course that's not a defense of Perez, the DNC, or the Democratic establishment more broadly, but an argument for why they all need to be destroyed.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

That's a good argument against conspiracy, yes, but I would contend that the rigging and corruption we see at the DNC level and have for a long time is far more disorganized in execution and goal but consistent in motivation.

Let's say you have a coworker you dislike. You do little things against them instinctively because you dislike them, but at no point do you ever sit down and make a plan to sabotage them. At the end of a year, a 3rd party observer can point out how that series of hostile acts was a pattern and you would still be telling the truth in saying, "I am not working against this guy in some kind of conspiracy. I didn't make some kind of grand plan to ruin him."

You're both right.

The DNC hates Bernie. I think that's fairly undeniable. It's silly, then, to presume that their hatred for Bernie exists in some other realm from their actions and decisions.

You can see how the threat of a Bernie call for a recount isn't serious because you dismiss him as a moody crank and jerk, but a Pete call for a recount requires intervention because you respect him and think his word is meaningful and reflects poorly if he's unhappy.

A long series of ~*~*~ unlucky ~*~*~ breaks for Bernie in the count are fine because you don't care if he's mad, but as soon as Pete might get mad you spring into action because he's golden boy.

Not a big, grand conspiracy, but unconscious/suppressed bias played out in fairly obvious ways.

[Incredulity 11,679]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

That's a good argument against conspiracy, yes, but I would contend that the rigging and corruption we see at the DNC level and have for a long time is far more disorganized in execution and goal but consistent in motivation.

Let's say you have a coworker you dislike. You do little things against them instinctively because you dislike them, but at no point do you ever sit down and make a plan to sabotage them. At the end of a year, a 3rd party observer can point out how that series of hostile acts was a pattern and you would still be telling the truth in saying, "I am not working against this guy in some kind of conspiracy. I didn't make some kind of grand plan to ruin him."

You're both right.

The DNC hates Bernie. I think that's fairly undeniable. It's silly, then, to presume that their hatred for Bernie exists in some other realm from their actions and decisions.

You can see how the threat of a Bernie call for a recount isn't serious because you dismiss him as a moody crank and jerk, but a Pete call for a recount requires intervention because you respect him and think his word is meaningful and reflects poorly if he's unhappy.

A long series of ~*~*~ unlucky ~*~*~ breaks for Bernie in the count are fine because you don't care if he's mad, but as soon as Pete might get mad you spring into action because he's golden boy.

Not a big, grand conspiracy, but unconscious/suppressed bias played out in fairly obvious ways.

so...human nature.

[Zonahorn 8,079]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

so...human nature.

Yup

[Pasken 1,309]

 

[LABEVO 928]

 

[wildcat09 29,360]

2 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

 

Called it!

[bad_teammate 13,220]

lol Rat Mode Pete

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Man, fuck Iowa.

They’re too white, too rural, unrepresentative of the Democratic Party, and apparently can’t count nor use apps.

And caucuses are just stupid.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I thought the calls for Perez to resign were premature but he needs to fucking resign at this point if they don't let multiple unaffiliated 3rd parties handle this.

Beto for DNC chair please.

[David Dennison 18,940]

25 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Yes, why let votes decide the matter when we can do stupid shit

Exactly.

The way we do democracy on a national level in this country is stupid.

[Fozzz 152]

I don't like cauceses, but if they simply relied on the popular vote like how the Republicans do it, then these problems would likely be avoided.  1 person = 1 vote is pretty simple calculation.

[Zonahorn 8,079]

10 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Beto for DNC chair please.

 

You know, given how invested he is in trying to rebuild the party from the ground up, that's not a bad idea.

[Tuco 5,076]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I still think stupidity is the likeliest explanation:

Of course that's not a defense of Perez, the DNC, or the Democratic establishment more broadly, but an argument for why they all need to be destroyed.

Yep.  

And just to be clear, I have no idea why Perez would prefer Pete over Bernie, and rather doubt he does.  I would assume that he would prefer whatever candidate is polling the best against Trump, and currently that's Biden and Bernie, with Warren and Pete behind them.  And Pete's success is at the expense of Biden, way more than Bernie.  So, some conspiracy theory where the DNC is rigging Iowa for Pete just seems stupid. The national party doesn't really care about policy; they care about winning, and it's difficult to understand why that would favor Pete. What, maybe to rob Bernie of a victory thinking that would somehow cushion a fourth place finish by Biden? 

There is the question as to why Perez wants a recount, but the bigger question is why he would tweet the request.  He most certainly has the phone number for the IDP chairman.  He could have pressured the state party to do this, while keeping it quiet.  This was a purposely public statement. 

My guess is that with some of the discrepancies noticed by the Bernie camp, he wanted to make a public statement that would seem to support transparency and playing fair.  The party is extremely worried about unity. But he's too stupid to know that what he should have said is nothing.  Stay the fuck out of it, man.  Nobody trusts you and anything you say is going to questioned.  And, with the timing, Perez gives them all sorts of fodder not to trust the actions.    

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Called it!

I stand corrected.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

I would assume that he would prefer whatever candidate is polling the best against Trump, and currently that's Biden and Bernie, with Warren and Pete behind them.

Why would you assume that?

Quote

The national party doesn't really care about policy; they care about winning, and it's difficult to understand why that would favor Pete. What, maybe to rob Bernie of a victory thinking that would somehow cushion a fourth place finish by Biden?

They don't care about winning. Look at the power position of Democrats nationwide.

They care about the maintenance of their own power.

[David Dennison 18,940]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

I don't like cauceses, but if they simply relied on the popular vote like how the Republicans do it, then these problems would likely be avoided.  1 person = 1 vote is pretty simple calculation.

It took the Republicans weeks to figure out who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012.

[wildcat09 29,360]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

lol Rat Mode Pete

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It took the Republicans weeks to figure out who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012.

Yeah, but they're even bigger morons than the Ds.

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

 

[wildcat09 29,360]

Pete narcing on minorities for voting is an interesting way of gain support among minority voters.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

42 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

 

The Karen meme really pisses off privileged white women. For all the privileged white women voting in this election, it's just a meme - even the Zoomers don't believe all of you ask to speak to the manager. 

(ducking the Klobachar binder headed my way)

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Beautiful:

https://twitter.com/Harvard4Bernie/status/1225498226784075777

 

[Zonahorn 8,079]

29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

PHOENNIIIIIIIIX

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

Wonderful

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,991]

Fucking Buttig- 

wait 

 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

The phrase "earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords" is so beautifully apt for liberal campaigns.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Did this already get shared? For people who are worried about Bernie's base of enthusiasm, this is the kind of stuff that gives you a shot in the arm.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

32 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Fucking Buttig- 

wait 

 

Sigh.  We just can't have nice things.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

13 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Did this already get shared? For people who are worried about Bernie's base of enthusiasm, this is the kind of stuff that gives you a shot in the arm.

 

We don't remake this nation by just hoping and praying the same well-off white people who got us here have a major change of heart. We remake this nation by activating the broad working class, which is largely non-white.

[Guest Lobo]

Tokenized with leadership at loggerheads?

what the fuck that does that even mean?   
 

is that some kinda Fanghorn reference?

[bad_teammate 13,220]

6 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Tokenized with leadership at loggerheads?

Very white leadership that has hired some people for exposure reasons ("LOOK AT THE MINORITY ACTIVISTS WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO!") but doesn't want to actually listen to those people and adopt their values and ideas into the campaign.

Those minorities are tokenized. They are in conflict/at loggerheads with the very white leadership.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,463]

One way to look at Iowa is that Bernie came in a very close second - again. But another way to look at is that he has lost half his support from 2016 - from almost 50% to about 25%.