EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2079
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
It seems like Biden's face plant + the 15% threshold often not being met for Klob/Warren/Biden sent a lot of people into the Pete camp. What does seems like rigging (but could not be) is trying to deflate the news cycle with delays to save face for Biden, minimize the potential fact that Sanders won, or even minimize that Pete won (it's unclear if he has a path to victory even with an Iowa win). Either way it's really just a big win for Trump it feels like and feels like more of the "rather become a Republican than move left" establishment sentiment. Why are people shitting on Perez? Wassnt this whole thing run by the Iowa dems? Did the DNC create the app? I get people like to shit on the DNC but what did they actually do last night that fucked things up? From what I can tell all the blame belongs on Iowa dems Just because you delegate a task doesn't mean you have no responsibility when the person screws it up. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 05 2020 00:33 IyMoon wrote: Why are people shitting on Perez? Wassnt this whole thing run by the Iowa dems? Did the DNC create the app? I get people like to shit on the DNC but what did they actually do last night that fucked things up? From what I can tell all the blame belongs on Iowa dems A properly run DNC doesn't have things like this happen in any state. Iowa Dems interact with, are funded by, influenced by the overall DNC. Sure it's not direct national dnc staff, but it's all connected. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
The idea that a high turnout, yet poorly coordinated Iowa caucus bodes well for Trump is total nonsense, which is why outlets like CNN are running so hard on it as we speak. It’s a high prominence talking point that entirely discounts the impact of good turnout and high excitement. The Democratic Party certainly looks bad from this, but that actually plays into at least one candidate’s campaign theme. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 05 2020 00:37 farvacola wrote: State parties and the national party tend to work together closely on primary administration, particularly in the early historical bellweathers. For example, Iowa Dems did not stumble upon this controversial app on their own and Nevada is apparently planning to use it as well. The idea that a high turnout, yet poorly coordinated Iowa caucus bodes well for Trump is total nonsense, which is why outlets like CNN are running so hard on it as we speak. It’s a high prominence talking point that entirely discounts the impact of good turnout and high excitement. The Democratic Party certainly looks bad from this, but that actually plays into at least one candidate’s campaign theme. There was already a high sentiment against the DNC and CNN from 2016, totally ignoring Trump's camp, because of stuff like this. And now after 3 years of Trump, they have all the space in the world to position themselves against him by advocating for good progressive candidates, and still choose to push the same shenanigans. Ignore high turnout and excitement for the most progressive candidates, suggest they're feuding, celebrate when it looks like they're losing or falling away, still just pushing for the same ultra-safe, yet ultra-impotent, centrist candidates, and acting like they tried to stop Trump. Like they're playing to an older bloc of voters, but that bloc gets more and more outnumbered by enthusiastic young voters every day. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
I mean, it’s no surprise when Nettles starts calling shenanigans, but I’m seeing a lot more sober-seeming people talking like this was rigged. Can someone tell me what that’s based on? It sounds like there’s a paper trail for all of this, so the results are totally auditable. And if there’s one good thing about caucuses, it’s that there are hundreds of witnesses for every reported result that could tell you if a result was way off. I don’t even understand what the conspiracy theory is. It sounds like the results will probably be something like Buttigieg > Sanders > Warren > Biden, which is hardly the result I’d expect the DNC to rig. People are playing Kevin Bacon games with the app, but the problems with the app just made everyone not use the app, which seems like the opposite of what you’d want if you were programming the app for nefarious purposes. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46288 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12502 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
It just surprises me to see smart people buy it so quickly. What is it about nutrition, cancer, and the DNC that makes people so fucking credulous? Edit: reading this back it came across more angry than I intended. Sorry, posting while waiting for the mechanic to tell me what’s wrong with my car | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
On February 05 2020 01:42 Nebuchad wrote: I see no real reason to think there's a conspiracy so far. Just atrocious optics with the Shadow thing and a pretty large display of incompetence with the delay. Those results are fairly good for Sanders overall even if Buttigieg wins given how much ground he has to cover to get to Sanders level in other states, so that would be a weird rig. I think, perhaps not necessarily applicable here but we’re so spoiled by 24/7 news and the internet that any delay whatsoever on confirming anything will be seized upon as evidence of some form of malfeasance. Probably best exemplified if there’s any kind of terrorist incident and the lack of official confirmation of details people are speculating on is part of some agenda. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
But, unfortunately, preliminary campaign results in a voting system that is enthusiasm-based are probably going to be taken as the gold standard in each camp at this point. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
| ||
|
JohnDelaney
Ireland73 Posts
On February 05 2020 00:39 Mohdoo wrote: At least we can say with confidence it won't be used in Nevada CNN now says they will no longer use Shadow. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Since we already know it is common for companies to use shells, unrelated expenses and other forms of compensation for influence, candidates need to be extra careful so as to not give any slight indication of corruption. In this case, Pete having an existing business relationship with a company also involved with voting is something most people would caution against. It's just not a good look. Since other companies could also provide the banking services Pete says shadow provided, it would have been wise to use a company without a voting platform they are trying to sell to Iowa and Nevada. When there are other options, it makes sense to just do that instead. The entire idea of money laundering is that you use one transaction to cover up another. While I am not saying this is laundering, I am saying that similar dynamics are why people would caution against having a business relationship with a company trying to get into election voting tallying. Pete will not be president if he doesn't win Iowa. He probably still wouldn't win, but he definitely won't without Iowa. From there it just depends how bad he wants it. Hard to say. Always expect the worst from someone who is trying to become more powerful. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11952 Posts
As such, you should put in the absolute maximum possible effort to make the system transparent, and to avoid even the slightest impression of shady things going on. Having one of the candidates pay for part of the voting process is the opposite of that, and i cannot even imagine who thought that that would be a good idea. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Not gonna hold my breath, but here's to hoping. I predict Bernie barely beat Buttigieg by 1%. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
Afaik the counting went fine, just the sending not? So after you realise your app is crap, why does it take a day to resolve this? We do this in Switzerland with minimal technological help every 3 months for far more votes... There are hookups from time to time but never something truely major. | ||
| ||
