EPTOn the other hand he’s been denied a bit of momentum over this delay, and the coverage that helps refute the ‘he can’t win an election’ charge.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2094
| 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 | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On the other hand he’s been denied a bit of momentum over this delay, and the coverage that helps refute the ‘he can’t win an election’ charge. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On February 07 2020 07:05 Wombat_NI wrote: I can’t see how this helps Bernie. Those pissed off with historic DNC fuckery/incompetence in this regard we’re likely already in the Sanders camp anyway. On the other hand he’s been denied a bit of momentum over this delay, and the coverage that helps refute the ‘he can’t win an election’ charge. There aren’t all that many die hard establishment Dems and tons of middle line Dems who mostly defer to the former, so this debacle gives teeth to those who have been trying to persuade the latter. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On February 07 2020 07:05 Wombat_NI wrote: I can’t see how this helps Bernie. Those pissed off with historic DNC fuckery/incompetence in this regard we’re likely already in the Sanders camp anyway. On the other hand he’s been denied a bit of momentum over this delay, and the coverage that helps refute the ‘he can’t win an election’ charge. Agreed. Recent polls also show Buttgieg surging after this debacle. If anything, it helped him and kept Bernie from surging even further ahead in NH. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On February 07 2020 07:17 farvacola wrote: There aren’t all that many die hard establishment Dems and tons of middle line Dems who mostly defer to the former, so this debacle gives teeth to those who have trying to persuade the latter. I suppose it’s difficult to gauge without solid data on it/the ability to look into the souls of man. You might be right there, I’m probably wrong as I somehow thought Super Tuesday was like, next week rather than further down the line. So I think my judgement was rather skewed here by my misjudgment. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
On February 07 2020 07:17 farvacola wrote: There aren’t all that many die hard establishment Dems and tons of middle line Dems who mostly defer to the former, so this debacle gives teeth to those who have trying to persuade the latter. After 2016 and everything since up to and including Iowa I'm of the opinion the number of those people that are winnable (and won't just fall in line behind whoever is in power anyway) is minimal. I think it'll more serve to draw a line of distinction between the people that really have beating Trump and the policy Sanders advocates as their priority and people that have stopping Sanders as their top priority. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
It seems the order of States has a pretty big impact on how it all plays out and funding and all that stuff. On the other hand I suppose it does eliminate unviable candidates over time who might nick votes from viable candidates, plus it’s good fodder for those into political nerdery. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
On February 07 2020 07:40 Wombat_NI wrote: Is there a particular reason they don’t do all the primaries in a couple of days? It seems the order of States has a pretty big impact on how it all plays out and funding and all that stuff. On the other hand I suppose it does eliminate unviable candidates over time who might nick votes from viable candidates, plus it’s good fodder for those into political nerdery. The primary process wasn't intended to be democratic. It has gotten increasingly (some would argue superficially) democratic to justify the pageantry or "political nerdery". | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
There's also the advantage that it allows for people to drop out and support to coalesce (assuming we treat ranked choice voting as impossible and too hard for all us dummies). For example, a national primary on Tuesday would have almost guaranteed a brokered and contested convention (campaigning might have changed, but it wouldn't have changed nearly enough for anyone to secure >33% of the votes and delegates). That said, phased primaries in the same order every time are very dumb any way you slice it. Of course, from a pragmatic standpoint, parties acting optimally should really only award delegates for the purple states as long as the electoral college is winner take all. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46514 Posts
On February 07 2020 07:05 Wombat_NI wrote: I can’t see how this helps Bernie. Those pissed off with historic DNC fuckery/incompetence in this regard we’re likely already in the Sanders camp anyway. On the other hand he’s been denied a bit of momentum over this delay, and the coverage that helps refute the ‘he can’t win an election’ charge. Well, it does: MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS 'MORE LIKELY' TO VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS AFTER IOWA CAUCUSES: NEW POLL https://www.newsweek.com/majority-democratic-voters-more-likely-vote-bernie-sanders-after-iowa-caucuses-new-poll-1486148?fbclid=IwAR3YN7Pvd4ae6Ia9CM6R-4WePrmCDQCJKiPRl9Q3h5lqY3i-75yf9WXOuBg The majority of Democratic voters nationwide are "more likely" to vote for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses, while significantly less said the same about former Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, according to new polling data. A full 52 percent of respondents to the Morning Consult survey, which was released Thursday, said they were leaning more toward backing Sanders for the Democratic nomination following Iowa's Monday caucuses. Of those, 29 percent said they were "much more likely," while 23 percent said they were "somewhat more likely." Despite performing poorly in Iowa, former Vice President Joe Biden came in second in the polling, with 48 percent saying they were more likely to vote for him. Buttigieg, who prematurely declared he was "victorious" in Iowa, saw significantly less enthusiasm, with just 38 percent saying they were more likely to back him. Of those respondents, only 14 percent said they were "much more likely" to vote for the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor. Meanwhile, 26 percent of respondents said they were "somewhat" or "much" less likely to vote for Sanders after Iowa, while 29 percent said the same of Biden and 28 percent said the same of Buttigieg. The Morning Consult poll also showed that overall support for Sanders and Buttigieg had increased, 3 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Sanders came in first as the top choice of 25 percent of Democratic voters nationwide. Biden was close behind at 24 percent, a drop of 5 percent from before Iowa. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came in third with just 15 percent, a decrease of 1 percent. Buttigieg was fourth at 12 percent, followed closely by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 11 percent, a dip of 2 percent for her. The Iowa caucus results have been a major fiasco for the Democratic Party. Problems with an app called Shadow, which was supposed to streamline the counting process, caused major delays. The Iowa Democratic Party eventually ditched the app, as it was causing errors and malfunctioning. In addition, it was too complicated for many precinct leaders to download, let alone use. While the results from Iowa are generally released within a couple of hours after the statewide caucuses conclude, the full results were still not available early Thursday afternoon. Although 97 percent of precinct tallies have been released, numerous errors and inconsistencies have been widely reported. "Enough is enough," Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez tweeted in frustration on Thursday. "In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a re-canvass." The results that have been released show Sanders winning the state's popular vote by about 2,500. However, Buttigieg leads by just 0.1 percent in "state delegate equivalents," 26.2 percent compared with Sanders' 26.1 percent. Warren is in third with 18.2 percent of SDEs, and Biden finished a distant fourth at 15.8 percent. Meanwhile, Sanders appears to be the strongest contender going into 2020's first primary, next Tuesday in New Hampshire. An aggregate of national polls by Real Clear Politics shows Sanders in the lead with 25.5 percent, followed by Biden in second place at 17.7 percent and Buttigieg third at 15.7 percent. I'm not particularly surprised, considering Buttigieg + Perez suddenly asked for a recount after learning Sanders won the popular vote, when they did nothing for the past 3 days. All this establishment bad faith turns Sanders into a victim that people empathize with, and it's also clear that Sanders can win states. My opinion of Pete Buttigieg has plummeted, considering he was fine with his sponsored app screwing up the Iowa caucus when he thought he was going to have an easy win. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
On February 07 2020 08:47 Logo wrote: There are certainly better middle grounds than the circus we have now though, so while an all at once primary would be awful there's a whoooole lot of room for improvements. Ranging from letting different states go first, to having a phased approach that backloads delegates (so like 3+ mini super Tuesdays, but the later ones award a higher share of delegates). It is not as if we're super geniuses pondering this for the first time. There is a very deliberate reasoning to the primary being the way it is. Something like the extreme whiteness of the first two states is not an accident of happenstance for example. Nor is it tied to a deep tradition any more than dressing boys in blue and girls in pink is. It is just getting increasingly difficult to pretend it isn't problematic and intentional. Where again, Democrats incompetence/malicious mismanagement stands as evidence of Bernie's overarching argument that they are largely a failed institution. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
The democratic party isn't going to throw away Iowa and put the northeast into play politically over something as petty as the order for the primary. Best case scenario they just change it to a primary and tell everyone to report a few numbers as needed to a phone bank. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
On February 07 2020 09:23 Sermokala wrote: Again this isn't how arguments for changing something works GH. Just saying something is bad is easy, but finding something for people to agree to change something to is how things actually change. The democratic party isn't going to throw away Iowa and put the northeast into play politically over something as petty as the order for the primary. Best case scenario they just change it to a primary and tell everyone to report a few numbers as needed to a phone bank. I'm not saying "something is bad" I'm saying if people want to fix it, the problem isn't that we don't know what is wrong with it or how to do it better. Only way Iowa can move to a primary and stay the solitary first contest is if they can come to terms with NH on it though. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
The numbers should probably be higher, but it is difficult to optimize that reward function when you can't ever actually trial it and in an environment as volatile as politics, and I think this might be the first year they're doing anything like it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
Gotta love US democracy, no seriously, you HAVE to love it. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 07 2020 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote: So it looks like we have "100% of the results" but no call in Iowa. Gotta love US democracy, no seriously, you HAVE to love it. Source? NYT still has 4 precincts left with Pete only having a 2 delegate lead. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
On February 07 2020 11:59 Gahlo wrote: Source? NYT still has 4 precincts left with Pete only having a 2 delegate lead. Iowa Democratic Party https://results.thecaucuses.org/ | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 07 2020 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote: Iowa Democratic Party https://results.thecaucuses.org/ Thanks. =] | ||
| ||
