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

[David Dennison 18,940]

Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

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%.

Well, yeah. There are a lot more candidates. That's why.

 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

The youngs and gays love Bernard

 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Solidarity with the Yang Gang!!!

 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

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%.

Another way to look at the 2016 race is voters were excited for anyone other than Hillary Clinton. No?  In 2020, I am thrilled with younger voter enthusiasm. It is a path to victory - but for Democrats repeating Republican talking points

[Anastasis 23,481]

Can still pick up pete @ 0.70 on predictit. 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

For the South Park fans.

[Clintonaldo 2,576]

On 2/4/2020 at 2:02 PM, bad_teammate said:

It would be a lot more interesting if you had something different to say. It's the same dumb, bland shit take every time.

This is rich. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,209]

So did anyone actually win this stupid contest?

[bad_teammate 13,220]

So did anyone actually win this stupid contest?

Bernie got more votes than anyone in both the first and second counts by a decisive and uncontested margin.

Pete and Bernie tied for number of delegates to be sent to the national convention.

Pete beat Bernie by 0.1% in a delegate allocation variable.

Bernie won.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,209]

Great.  Four more years of dotard... good job Iowa, you fucking clowns.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Great.  Four more years of dotard... good job Iowa, you fucking clowns.

Not yet. We can get the ship turned around.

But Iowa was a bad start.

[troph 24,896]

The youngs and gays love Bernard
 

.... and Warren and Pete... :-)

[bad_teammate 13,220]

I feel like they need to do a fully transparent recount regardless of whether or not a campaign asks.

Even if it's meaningless in terms of the race, I think it's a good idea to have this more settled by the time the Iowa delegates vote at the convention.

[Fozzz 152]

lmao

 

[Queen Bitch 1,692]

19 hours 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.

Finally we agree on something. Ban the Electoral College. 1 person = 1 vote.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

20 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

lmao

 

Manufacturing consent

[Incredulity 11,679]

13 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

Finally we agree on something. Ban the Electoral College. 1 person = 1 vote.

Free South Africa, you dumb son of a bitch!

Yeah,..Free South Africa.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

If none of these campaigns call for a recount, this is all going to come back up at the convention.

1) In an ugly/contested convention, it will be a giant sore spot. Even though it's a tiny number of delegates, it's a thread to pull at to unravel whatever positive feelings of unity the party will be trying to build.

2) Even in a clear convention, it's a point of drama the media can use to create unnecessary division when the Iowa delegation is called.

Just fix it and release the results in the middle of all the Super Tuesday results. I don't even care if it turns out that Biden won all of it, if we are going to unify later we need everything settled.

Tom Perez is so terrible at his job.

[BrazilHorn 6,624]

The blaming 4Chan for this is just such a bad look. The shitty app you bought called of all things "shadow" (really great name for an election monitoring app) didn't work.

Had you done any fucking due diligence on it/testing etc you would have known that. Also in this day and age why are we doing a fucking phone bank in 1st place. Text the results in, use GroupMe for fuck's sake. Just stupid, take responsibility vs trying to make it "hackers".

[Dbeasy 15,075]

The stupidity of hiring Shadow is epic. Even a junior tech industry employee would immediately see that product as an unacceptable solution.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If none of these campaigns call for a recount, this is all going to come back up at the convention.

1) In an ugly/contested convention, it will be a giant sore spot. Even though it's a tiny number of delegates, it's a thread to pull at to unravel whatever positive feelings of unity the party will be trying to build.

2) Even in a clear convention, it's a point of drama the media can use to create unnecessary division when the Iowa delegation is called.

Just fix it and release the results in the middle of all the Super Tuesday results. I don't even care if it turns out that Biden won all of it, if we are going to unify later we need everything settled.

Tom Perez is so terrible at his job.

While I have no doubt that you and your bros will make a stink about the results in a tiny state with a completely undemocratic voting process, Iowa doesn't really make a shit if the other 49 states that have real primaries manage to hold elections without much of a hitch.

But if you want to make it such a shitshow that it forces Iowa to hold real primaries instead than I am on board.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

While I have no doubt that you and your bros will make a stink about the results in a tiny state with a completely undemocratic voting process, Iowa doesn't really make a shit if the other 49 states that have real primaries manage to hold elections without much of a hitch.

You know as well as anyone the symbolic importance of winning the first contest and the millions of dollars in free positive advertising it gets from the networks. Every serious media outlet is saying they can't actually call Iowa, but Pete's got CNN saying, "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WIN!" in front of millions of interested eyes.

So congratulations on your typical bitterness about Internet posters you don't like, but you should mix in some reasoned thinking with it.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You know as well as anyone the symbolic importance of winning the first contest and the millions of dollars in free positive advertising it gets from the networks. Every serious media outlet is saying they can't actually call Iowa, but Pete's got CNN saying, "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WIN!" in front of millions of interested eyes.

So congratulations on your typical bitterness about Internet posters you don't like, but you should mix in some reasoned thinking with it.

Lol. I'm not bitter at all. You might have to look in the mirror to see bitterness. I also don't dislike you. Relax.

[TexEx15 17,549]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You know as well as anyone the symbolic importance of winning the first contest and the millions of dollars in free positive advertising it gets from the networks. Every serious media outlet is saying they can't actually call Iowa, but Pete's got CNN saying, "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WIN!" in front of millions of interested eyes.

So congratulations on your typical bitterness about Internet posters you don't like, but you should mix in some reasoned thinking with it.

Sounds like Pete’s media team was smart.  It’s pretty clear that unless the irregularities are massive in scale the general consensus is Pete and Bernie in about a dead heat followed by Warren and Biden.  Pete’s team was smart to go on a media offensive with such a close race and project confidence.  

[heso 2,813]

Buttigieg with a 6% bump in New Hampshire polling since the Iowa caucus.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Pete to Biden

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

Sounds like Pete’s media team was smart.  It’s pretty clear that unless the irregularities are massive in scale the general consensus is Pete and Bernie in about a dead heat followed by Warren and Biden.  Pete’s team was smart to go on a media offensive with such a close race and project confidence.  

It's easy to lie when you are in the rat's position because the media will prop up your claims (like with Cuomo introducing Pete as the winner in Iowa last night), which is different in Bernie's case.  Hell, the fact that the "final" results were published mere minutes before that vermin's town hall makes it look like it was a coordinated effort between at least the IDP and his campaign.  Conversely, look at how Bernie is treated by the media when he makes the uncontroversial claim that he won the popular vote in Iowa.  

 

[Tuco 5,076]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I feel like they need to do a fully transparent recount regardless of whether or not a campaign asks.

Even if it's meaningless in terms of the race, I think it's a good idea to have this more settled by the time the Iowa delegates vote at the convention.
 

If Bernie wins the nomination, it will be interesting to watch him try to unite a party that many of his supporters have been shitting on for the last four years.  It's 10 delegates to 10 delegates - out of 4000. Other than the media perception, which is going to be irrelevant after New Hampshire, it just doesn't fucking matter.  You all are going to have to figure out how to stop playing the victim and actually start to lead something. Not only will the Party need it, Bernie will.  And if he loses to Trump, he was never any better candidate than Hillary. 

The Iowa debacle should certainly be investigated, as a way of keeping it from happening again - preferably by shitcanning the caucus all together. But continuing to argue over meaningless votes will just escalate the internal conflicts. That's why the candidates aren't asking for it. Nobody wants party disunity, especially the guy who is likely to win the nomination. 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

If Bernie wins the nomination, it will be interesting to watch him try to unite a party that many of his supporters have been shitting on for the last four years. 

This goes both ways. It's going to be interesting to watch a non-Bernie try to unite a party that has been blowing rape whistles at Bernie fans for the last four years whenever they get a snake emoji posted at them.

Luckily, Bernie is very popular and his favorables are high.

Quote

But continuing to argue over meaningless votes will just escalate the internal conflicts. That's why the candidates aren't asking for it. Nobody wants party disunity, especially the guy who is likely to win the nomination. 

It's not going to just disappear. As I say in my post, leaving it anything but settled gives the media an entry into the drama, and the media will want as much drama as possible.

[pacman 7,366]

Why are the Democrats doing this when the stakes couldn't be higher?

This party seems to only know boobery.

[Tuco 5,076]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not going to just disappear. As I say in my post, leaving it anything but settled gives the media an entry into the drama, and the media will want as much drama as possible.

The bell has been rung.  It's not getting unrung.  There is absolutely no resolution that settles it. If Iowa stands by their counts, more or less, some folks are going to claim "it's corrupt." If it changes their count, some folks are going to say, "see - we told you it's corrupt."   There is no winning path.  And every time the IDP, or a candidate, or a campaign manger, says something about it, it's going to make the news.  

Edited February 7, 2020 by Tuco

[Huckleberry 33,045]

The damage is done, it's not getting worse. The difference in Iowa will be irrelevant to the actual nomination outcome, as washpark and b_t are saying it's all about media coverage and "momentum" but that is also overstated. Four weeks from now everyone will be back to not giving a shit about Iowa.

[0xdeadbeef 1,651]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

Why are the Democrats doing this when the stakes couldn't be higher?

This party seems to only know boobery.

By 'this' do you mean screwing up the Iowa results?  It's absolutely a self-inflicted injury that there is no excuse for.   I attribute it to incompetence, hubris, and probably a good dose of bias. I'll stop short of calling it corruption, but as we learned well after the last election, people really were actively stacking the deck again Sanders.

If 'this' is referring to the in-fighting, I think that's pretty normal when multiple different folks want the nomination.   The longer the fight goes on and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place candidates remain viable, based on history, I think we can expect the in-fighting to become more intense.  It was Bush sr. that coined the phrase "voodoo economics" in a primary fight against Reagan;  The Dems ran hard with that in the general election.  A big advantage of an incumbent is not having  a primary fight.   Unfortunately for the Dems, there is no 'likely' candidate at this point. 

  

 

 

[Tuco 5,076]

If Bernie wins the nomination, it will be interesting to watch him try to unite a party that many of his supporters have been shitting on for the last four years. 

BTW, Bernie is doing a great job of pushing that unity in the debate.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,209]

10 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

2) Even in a clear convention, it's a point of drama the media can use to create unnecessary division when the Iowa delegation is called.

That one is easy to fix.  Call them at the end of the line when the nomination is already wrapped up.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Bernie & Pete want a recount.

 

[Nivek 16,949]

Red state education.

[hpslugga 4,062]

On 2/7/2020 at 1:06 PM, pacman said:

Why are the Democrats doing this when the stakes couldn't be higher?

This party seems to only know boobery.

Fuck me, I guess I’ll be the one to say it:

because they would rather one of their corporate candidates lose to Trump in the general election than to get primaried out by a Bernie Sanders. That’s why. 

[Biff Tannen 45,695]

On 2/7/2020 at 2:35 PM, 0xdeadbeef said:

By 'this' do you mean screwing up the Iowa results?  It's absolutely a self-inflicted injury that there is no excuse for.   I attribute it to incompetence, hubris, and probably a good dose of bias. I'll stop short of calling it corruption, but as we learned well after the last election, people really were actively stacking the deck again Sanders.

If 'this' is referring to the in-fighting, I think that's pretty normal when multiple different folks want the nomination.   The longer the fight goes on and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place candidates remain viable, based on history, I think we can expect the in-fighting to become more intense.  It was Bush sr. that coined the phrase "voodoo economics" in a primary fight against Reagan;  The Dems ran hard with that in the general election.  A big advantage of an incumbent is not having  a primary fight.   Unfortunately for the Dems, there is no 'likely' candidate at this point. 

  

 

 

[WBT 20,644]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie & Pete want a recount.

 

This is so stupid.  Take the tie and move on.

[Zavala 1,384]

[bad_teammate 13,220]

Ask Nicholas II and the Romanovs what the Bolsheviks can do.

[bad_teammate 13,220]

So they're doing a recount, but they're not going to fix math done wrong.

So... uh... lol?

 

[WBT 20,644]

lulz.  I blame common core.

[gmr548 16,590]

On 2/7/2020 at 1:06 PM, pacman said:

Why are the Democrats doing this when the stakes couldn't be higher?

This party seems to only know boobery.

You answered your own question.

[gmr548 16,590]

11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

So they're doing a recount, but they're not going to fix math done wrong.

So... uh... lol?

 

[RayDog 682]

Assuming Iowa is no longer an early primary/caucus state in 2024 and the Democratic party could pick 4 early states, who would they pick? I would assume it should be swing states where the money is well spent, while having more ethnic diversity that is representative of that region of the country. It also can't be too big a state due to the costs.

In the Southeast I would propose North Carolina or Georgia instead on South Carolina. Georgia may be too big. In the Southwest Arizona instead of Nevada. In the Midwest, Michigan or Wisconsin instead of Iowa. I am not sure about the Northeast as Pennsylvania is too large and half of it is more Midwestern. Maybe let New Hampshire keep their primary.

What are your thoughts? 

[Zonahorn 8,079]

2 hours ago, RayDog said:

Assuming Iowa is no longer an early primary/caucus state in 2024 and the Democratic party could pick 4 early states, who would they pick? I would assume it should be swing states where the money is well spent, while having more ethnic diversity that is representative of that region of the country. It also can't be too big a state due to the costs.

In the Southeast I would propose North Carolina or Georgia instead on South Carolina. Georgia may be too big. In the Southwest Arizona instead of Nevada. In the Midwest, Michigan or Wisconsin instead of Iowa. I am not sure about the Northeast as Pennsylvania is too large and half of it is more Midwestern. Maybe let New Hampshire keep their primary.

What are your thoughts? 

Nevada and New Hampshire are fine. I would roll with North Carolina and Illinois instead of South Carolina and Iowa.

[Tuco 5,076]

I said it previously - Florida and Ohio.  The test to become the nominee is whether you can build an organization and momentum in the two states you could block a Republican path to victory.  The down side is that they are huge states, and therefore would make it more difficult for a dark horse candidate to gain momentum.  But maybe that would help narrow the field from the start. 

[bad_teammate 13,220]

The sign falling...