|
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 |
Biden did terribly. We'll see how the other 38% goes (don't get me started on this shit show), but Bernie and Buttigieg did very well. Warren did okay enough, but I think her best bet is somehow to make it a Warren vs. Bernie showdown where the establishment backs her.
Also please get rid of this dumbshit caucus system, and don't use 3rd party apps to count votes. Use paper.
Let's go BernDog
|
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
As an aside I’m earnestly baffled why I can send a high definition of my genitals to my friend who responds with a (frankly derisory) electronic bank transfer for my mood-lifting service, but voting is apparently too complicated to implement modern technology.
Pretty solid showing from my boy Bernie thus far. Can’t really predict much more than that.
Why I like the Democratic primaries really, there are so many permutations, who plays with what demographics, the momentum that’s shaped by the orders of states taken and the impact of withdrawals and when they happen.
I do hope Bernie can pull it off so I’m invested emotionally there but as a politics nerd it’s rather refreshing to have an election with so many fascinating variables.
|
On February 05 2020 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 09:07 Zaros wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GsSHh7i.png) She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! thats rubbish, all the analysis ive seen is the 60% is broadly representative of the whole and it will be very close fight for both the vote % and delegates between sanders and buttigieg with neither having a big advantage by the amount of rural/urban areas left. The result could end with Sanders or Buttigieg winning both measures or one each. Check the NYT map. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-precinct-map.html Pete did well among affluent suburban neighborhoods too to be fair. He's the preferred candidate of affluent white voters that call themselves Democrats largely because the Republican party is so atrocious on social policy but economically they mostly align.
"Let the gays do what they want but don't you dare give any of my money to poor people. Also, affirmative action is racist."
|
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
On February 05 2020 09:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 09:07 Zaros wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! thats rubbish, all the analysis ive seen is the 60% is broadly representative of the whole and it will be very close fight for both the vote % and delegates between sanders and buttigieg with neither having a big advantage by the amount of rural/urban areas left. The result could end with Sanders or Buttigieg winning both measures or one each. Check the NYT map. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-precinct-map.html Pete did well among affluent suburban neighborhoods too to be fair. He's the preferred candidate of affluent white voters that call themselves Democrats largely because the Republican party is so atrocious on social policy but economically they mostly align. "Let the gays do what they want but don't you dare give any of my money to poor people. Also, affirmative action is racist."
Ah why so cynical? Surely a gay white dude with the same platform as those other boring straight white dudes will be totally different right?
|
On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird!
Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t?
|
On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t?
Are you implying they didn't?
|
On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't?
I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
|
On February 05 2020 10:06 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't? I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
I would say there is abundant evidence that the Democratic party doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are running a fair primary and there's no explanation for why they released this specific batch and aren't providing regular updates.
We can't know exactly why they are doing this because they aren't being forthcoming, but it is reasonable to decline to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would argue less reasonable to give it to them.
|
On February 05 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:06 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't? I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. I would say there is abundant evidence that the Democratic party doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are running a fair primary and there's no explanation for why they released this specific batch and aren't providing regular updates. We can't know exactly why they are doing this because they aren't being forthcoming, but it is reasonable to decline to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would argue less reasonable to give it to them.
Cool, so the default assumption is that they’re rigging it. Can’t join you there, I’m afraid.
Edit: it goes further, actually: the default assumption is that any particular allegation of malfeasance is true!
|
On February 05 2020 10:13 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:06 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't? I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. I would say there is abundant evidence that the Democratic party doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are running a fair primary and there's no explanation for why they released this specific batch and aren't providing regular updates. We can't know exactly why they are doing this because they aren't being forthcoming, but it is reasonable to decline to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would argue less reasonable to give it to them. Cool, so the default assumption is that they’re rigging it. Can’t join you there, I’m afraid.
The evidence shows there is a clear and deliberate effort to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination with some of the specific characters from 2016 and incestuous relationships between them, the technology used here, and campaign staff.
The only contention is whether they break rules (or ethics) in the clearly evident bending they're already doing with things as obvious as changing the debate criteria.
The assumption is that the Democratic party is deliberately trying to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination which is based on a preponderance of the evidence.
|
Yeah, I get it. Your prior is so strong that no supporting evidence is required. To me, it looks basically the same as the “corporations don’t want you to know” or “this weird food cures cancer!” mode of persuasion, but I guess this isn’t the first time you’ve been accused of overly conspiratorial thinking.
Well, I wanted things out in the open and they are, so thanks for that.
|
On February 05 2020 10:23 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, I get it. Your prior is so strong that no supporting evidence is required. To me, it looks basically the same as the “corporations don’t want you to know” or “this weird food cures cancer!” mode of persuasion, but I guess this isn’t the first time you’ve been accused of overly conspiratorial thinking.
Well, I wanted things out in the open and they are, so thanks for that.
More like "Yeah, smoking causes lung cancer" in the 50's.
Our society has conditioned us to make your position (shared by many a jury until the 80's) look like the more reasonable one but it is becoming clearer to people it isn't.
EDIT: To be clear I'm not saying the inexplicable reporting is to dampen Sanders' success in Iowa, but it would be normal behavior, and your assumption it isn't would be abnormal behavior for them.
|
On February 05 2020 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:23 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, I get it. Your prior is so strong that no supporting evidence is required. To me, it looks basically the same as the “corporations don’t want you to know” or “this weird food cures cancer!” mode of persuasion, but I guess this isn’t the first time you’ve been accused of overly conspiratorial thinking.
Well, I wanted things out in the open and they are, so thanks for that. More like "Yeah, smoking causes lung cancer" in the 50's. Our society has conditioned us to make your position (shared by many a jury until the 80's) look like the more reasonable one but it is becoming clearer to people it isn't.
The problem is, even if you think your spouse is cheating on you, and you have good reason to think it, for any given person you see them in a room with, they’re still probably not cheating with that person. Most hypotheses are false; that’s why you still need evidence even for plausible hypotheses.
“Smoking causes lung cancer” was a specific hypothesis about which a great deal of data was already available. This is more like if your mom has a cough and says “it’s probably because you smoke, and the second-hand smoke gave me cancer.”
|
On February 05 2020 10:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:23 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, I get it. Your prior is so strong that no supporting evidence is required. To me, it looks basically the same as the “corporations don’t want you to know” or “this weird food cures cancer!” mode of persuasion, but I guess this isn’t the first time you’ve been accused of overly conspiratorial thinking.
Well, I wanted things out in the open and they are, so thanks for that. More like "Yeah, smoking causes lung cancer" in the 50's. Our society has conditioned us to make your position (shared by many a jury until the 80's) look like the more reasonable one but it is becoming clearer to people it isn't. The problem is, even if you think your spouse is cheating on you, and you have good reason to think it, for any given person you see them in a room with, they’re still probably not cheating with that person. Most hypotheses are false; that’s why you still need evidence even for plausible hypotheses. “Smoking causes lung cancer” was a specific hypothesis about which a great deal of data was already available. This is more like if your mom has a cough and says “it’s probably because you smoke, and the second-hand smoke gave me cancer.”
If you call 2016 and all the crap we've seen already a "cough" then sure I guess. I'm saying it is a lot closer to hacking up blood, a strange mass on the x-rays, and a pack a day habit but if your position is still that the Democratic party isn't clearly trying to suppress Sanders chance at the nomination I'm not going to convince you otherwise with any amount of evidence imo.
|
On February 05 2020 10:13 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:06 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't? I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. I would say there is abundant evidence that the Democratic party doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are running a fair primary and there's no explanation for why they released this specific batch and aren't providing regular updates. We can't know exactly why they are doing this because they aren't being forthcoming, but it is reasonable to decline to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would argue less reasonable to give it to them. Cool, so the default assumption is that they’re rigging it. Can’t join you there, I’m afraid. Edit: it goes further, actually: the default assumption is that any particular allegation of malfeasance is true!
It's not default true so much as default likely. The list of slight thumbs on the scale is just so long at this point. And it's not rigging. All someone has to do is say "count districts in this order, this is our plan" and the job is done. No votes changed by doing that, but helps to suppress an explosive Bernie victory. Iowa is basically just a commerical. People compete for it like they would an endorsement.
|
On February 05 2020 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:36 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:23 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, I get it. Your prior is so strong that no supporting evidence is required. To me, it looks basically the same as the “corporations don’t want you to know” or “this weird food cures cancer!” mode of persuasion, but I guess this isn’t the first time you’ve been accused of overly conspiratorial thinking.
Well, I wanted things out in the open and they are, so thanks for that. More like "Yeah, smoking causes lung cancer" in the 50's. Our society has conditioned us to make your position (shared by many a jury until the 80's) look like the more reasonable one but it is becoming clearer to people it isn't. The problem is, even if you think your spouse is cheating on you, and you have good reason to think it, for any given person you see them in a room with, they’re still probably not cheating with that person. Most hypotheses are false; that’s why you still need evidence even for plausible hypotheses. “Smoking causes lung cancer” was a specific hypothesis about which a great deal of data was already available. This is more like if your mom has a cough and says “it’s probably because you smoke, and the second-hand smoke gave me cancer.” If you call 2016 and all the crap we've seen already a "cough" then sure I guess. I'm saying it is a lot closer to hacking up blood, a strange mass on the x-rays, and a pack a day habit but if your position is still that the Democratic party isn't clearly trying to suppress Sanders chance at the nomination I'm not going to convince you otherwise with any amount of evidence imo.
No, you’re misunderstanding my analogy. 2016 is (for sake of argument, at least) “do cigarettes cause cancer.” The cough is “the DNC is reporting 68% of precincts, but Mohdoo thinks the rural precincts are overrepresented in the already reported group.” Even if the DNC in general is corrupt (a bigger question we can argue about another time, but I’ll grant it for the moment), it doesn’t mean that any given malfeasance you accuse them of should be presumed true absent any evidence.
Edit: perhaps the simplest illustration of my point: if I tell you “The DNC doesn’t want you to know that giving me $5 is the only way to cure your cancer” you shouldn’t assume it’s true just because the hypothesis involves DNC malfeasance. If you do, though, there’s always TL+!
|
On February 05 2020 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:13 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:06 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't? I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. I would say there is abundant evidence that the Democratic party doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are running a fair primary and there's no explanation for why they released this specific batch and aren't providing regular updates. We can't know exactly why they are doing this because they aren't being forthcoming, but it is reasonable to decline to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would argue less reasonable to give it to them. Cool, so the default assumption is that they’re rigging it. Can’t join you there, I’m afraid. Edit: it goes further, actually: the default assumption is that any particular allegation of malfeasance is true! It's not default true so much as default likely. The list of slight thumbs on the scale is just so long at this point. And it's not rigging. All someone has to do is say "count districts in this order, this is our plan" and the job is done. No votes changed by doing that, but helps to suppress an explosive Bernie victory. Iowa is basically just a commerical. People compete for it like they would an endorsement.
I feel like for some reason people change the meaning of "rigged" to make it not apply to elections. Carnival games are rigged too but it doesn't mean people don't walk away with prizes sometimes.
|
On February 05 2020 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 10:13 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:06 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2020 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:
There will be at most 8 Black voters supporting Buttigieg in SC. Biden just needs to get sufficiently not clobbered before then. Buttigieg's entire campaign is built on the idea that he can trick people into thinking he is viable, thereby becoming viable.
Edit: I wish P6 was still around because he'd tell me why Warren isn't required to concede right now. I feel like we are talking about the 3 B's so much that we forgot she was at one point considered viable.
What are her options right now? Is she up...anywhere? lol What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't? I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. I would say there is abundant evidence that the Democratic party doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are running a fair primary and there's no explanation for why they released this specific batch and aren't providing regular updates. We can't know exactly why they are doing this because they aren't being forthcoming, but it is reasonable to decline to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would argue less reasonable to give it to them. Cool, so the default assumption is that they’re rigging it. Can’t join you there, I’m afraid. Edit: it goes further, actually: the default assumption is that any particular allegation of malfeasance is true! It's not default true so much as default likely. The list of slight thumbs on the scale is just so long at this point. And it's not rigging. All someone has to do is say "count districts in this order, this is our plan" and the job is done. No votes changed by doing that, but helps to suppress an explosive Bernie victory. Iowa is basically just a commerical. People compete for it like they would an endorsement. I feel like for some reason people change the meaning of "rigged" to make it not apply to elections. Carnival games are rigged too but it doesn't mean people don't walk away with prizes sometimes.
A lot of people define rigging as "ensuring the result" of an election. For the sake of conversation I adopt that definition and take what you're describing to be "applying their thumb to the scale" or something
|
On February 05 2020 14:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2020 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:52 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 10:13 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:06 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 05 2020 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On February 05 2020 09:03 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2020 08:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] What do you mean? She's still in a solid third place, nationally... significantly behind Biden and Sanders, yet significantly ahead of Buttigieg and the rest of them. She's probably going to consistently come in 2nd/3rd in many states, while Biden swings wildly up and down between different states. We have the same impression. But how much does a consistent 2nd and 3rd really get her? Especially as people jump ship. Also, my current favorite campaign slogan right now is "CORNFIELDS FOR PETE 2020". The 62% reported is basically entirely rural areas. Just so happens the areas not yet counted are industrialized. How weird! Just to get things out in the open, am I to interpret this as you implying that the Iowa Democratic Party/DNC/whoever is intentionally releasing only this portion of the results to make it look like Buttigieg won when he didn’t? Are you implying they didn't? I’d be interested to see any evidence of such. At first glance it sounds pretty implausible to me, but I’m willing to be proven wrong. I would say there is abundant evidence that the Democratic party doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are running a fair primary and there's no explanation for why they released this specific batch and aren't providing regular updates. We can't know exactly why they are doing this because they aren't being forthcoming, but it is reasonable to decline to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would argue less reasonable to give it to them. Cool, so the default assumption is that they’re rigging it. Can’t join you there, I’m afraid. Edit: it goes further, actually: the default assumption is that any particular allegation of malfeasance is true! It's not default true so much as default likely. The list of slight thumbs on the scale is just so long at this point. And it's not rigging. All someone has to do is say "count districts in this order, this is our plan" and the job is done. No votes changed by doing that, but helps to suppress an explosive Bernie victory. Iowa is basically just a commerical. People compete for it like they would an endorsement. I feel like for some reason people change the meaning of "rigged" to make it not apply to elections. Carnival games are rigged too but it doesn't mean people don't walk away with prizes sometimes. A lot of people define rigging as "ensuring the result" of an election. For the sake of conversation I adopt that definition and take what you're describing to be "applying their thumb to the scale" or something
Makes sense but I think as in the carnival example rigging is legal and within the rules, whereas ensuring the result would be electoral fraud which is outside of the rules/laws to the degree they are real without an enforcement mechanism.
|
Buttigieg (that name though) at first glance looks to me like a walking guarantee for another Trump term.
Bernie is the populist and not much different in his strategy from Trump who started out as someone who actually called things out rightly and then became just another part of the system once inside, with a bit of batshit crazy sprinkled on the show to not make him seem entirely different from before.
I wouldn't mind to see Bernie as pres just to show how much it doesn't matter what opinions they have before they become presidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
