EPTOk, i get it now.. Warren got 18% with 0?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2082
| 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 | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10801 Posts
Ok, i get it now.. Warren got 18% with 0? | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:13 Sermokala wrote: I think a bigger thing to take away is that biden is only 3 perecent of the vote away from Klob. Sanders is also beating pete in the popular vote. Warren not winning anything just shows that she is second teir to sanders and can't seriously win. In Pure vote terms Biden was actually only 2% ahead of Klobachar (on 13 and 11 respectively) after realignment but his rural votes helped him get 16% of delegates. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:15 Velr wrote: Are the colourd spaces the ones counted? What does this graph mean? Who has the majority of reported delegates based on an unspecified percentage of results from those areas. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10801 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bG3UnCA.png) | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21945 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:19 Velr wrote: yes.Do i see this right.. This is a proportianol vote but the media is scared that people wouldn't understand it so they just paint the map? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:30 Zaros wrote: The 3 different types of counts as shown by fivethirtyeight + Show Spoiler + This is what happens when Democrats complain about rural precincts having outsized influence but build it into their own primary | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10801 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3244 Posts
On February 05 2020 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Here's the big problem. They fucked up first alignment counts in many caucuses, which messed up which candidates were viable, which meant realignment was inaccurate or illegitimate because of the rules, and then people did the math on how to allocate the delegates based on those alignments wrong. Typically the party collects the same "3 types of data" but they used to only report the final count so no one saw the 'bad math' and process errors. So they might have a sheet of paper with numbers on it but they can't recapture the moment a candidate should have been declared viable or non-viable but wasn't because of a bad count/bad math. That's what Biden is intimately familiar with and privately arguing invalidates the results. Source on fucking up the first alignment counts? Everything I’ve seen is about failure to report results after caucusing; viability determinations wouldn’t be effected by that. If they fucked up first alignment counts that’s a bigger deal, but also has no apparent relation to the app or the delayed results. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45003 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:30 Zaros wrote: The 3 different types of counts as shown by fivethirtyeight I'm unfamiliar with how these 3 columns are related. Does Bernie have more votes but might end up getting slightly fewer delegates that Buttigieg? If so, why is that? Is it because it's not a popular vote, but instead by regions (like the general election's electoral college)? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10801 Posts
Morons, retards or assholes. Aka the american electorate/democratic party/who gives a shit. Sry. Kinda drunk, gonna go to sleep now. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45003 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/voQMU31.png) 2/3 of the results are in, according to Google. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21945 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:37 GreenHorizons wrote: based on what? Do results from rural precincts count double or something?This is what happens when Democrats complain about rural precincts having outsized influence but build it into their own primary A 3% difference sounds perfectly natural because there are only 56 delegates, a perfectly identical split between the result (2nd column) and delegates is nigh impossible. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
 | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3244 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:48 Gorsameth wrote: based on what? Do results from rural precincts count double or something? A 3% difference sounds perfectly natural because there are only 56 delegates, a perfectly identical split between the result (2nd column) and delegates is nigh impossible. You need less people per delegate in rural areas compared to urban areas im not sure of the exact reason but it might be each area has a minimum amount of delegates so lots of the small places add up to more delegates with less people than a city. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45003 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11923 Posts
On February 05 2020 07:51 ChristianS wrote: There’s something really funny about everyone panicking about possible irregularities in the Iowa caucus that could maybe probably not slightly alter the results of the caucus, while no one is especially worried about the fact we’re using the ridiculous undemocratic monstrosity that is a caucus to make official determinations about our government. There’s a metaphor in it, but I’m not sure for what. Well it is a better system than your FPTP normal election system, it at least has that going for it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45003 Posts
| ||
| ||
