EPTNP I guess the NYT and others have given a list of discrepancies in what they've published and the Iowa Democrats just don't care.
So the IDP put them in a weird place so they haven't called it despite "100%" being reported so far it seems.
Source:
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2095
| 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 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
NP I guess the NYT and others have given a list of discrepancies in what they've published and the Iowa Democrats just don't care. So the IDP put them in a weird place so they haven't called it despite "100%" being reported so far it seems. Source: | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On February 07 2020 15:49 Zaros wrote: It’s so far past Iowa I don’t think it matters now as others have said, Buttigieg has got the bounce and Biden is crashing. Buttigieg has a real shot of winning New Hampshire now. https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1225639995244859392?s=21 It very much matters for people for which their concern for democracy can't be cast away for political expedience. That Iowa Democrats/Mayor Cheat supporters are so anti-Sanders they are openly defying math and basically the entire corporate media (data) sphere that refuses to lend credibility to his claims is concerning. Even MSNBC thinks ignoring the glaring problems is too much. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46143 Posts
On February 07 2020 12:34 Nebuchad wrote: The Sanders campaign also has published a list of mistakes https://twitter.com/IAStartingLine/status/1225615234196557825 That's an incredible number of errors, and even if they all get fixed (which means Sanders easily wins the delegate count while Buttigieg drops down quite a bit), the damage has been done (the damage being the Buttigieg boost into NH). | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On February 07 2020 19:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's an incredible number of errors, and even if they all get fixed (which means Sanders easily wins the delegate count while Buttigieg drops down quite a bit), the damage has been done (the damage being the Buttigieg boost into NH). Keep in mind that not every "delegate" missing equals one delegate in the SDE. It's still close with these. Edit: Not sure about the satellite thing that I originally wrote here so I'll delete. I guess we'll see after the recanvass. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On February 07 2020 20:07 Nebuchad wrote: Keep in mind that not every "delegate" missing equals one delegate in the SDE. It's still close with these. Edit: Not sure about the satellite thing that I originally wrote here so I'll delete. I guess we'll see after the recanvass. There isn't going to be a recanvass as far as I can tell? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On February 07 2020 20:23 GreenHorizons wrote: There isn't going to be a recanvass as far as I can tell? I missed that. Surgical recanvass lol. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
Even that isn't going to happen as far as I've seen. Tom Perez is just trying to save face and thinks he's keeping his job through the convention. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1963 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On February 07 2020 21:14 Broetchenholer wrote: According to the nyt, rhe mistakes were affecting all candidates. Bernie just published those that would benefit him. In the end, the result would stay the same, Bernie and Pete being neck and neck. From the outside, this still looks like pure incompetence, without direction, just pure chaos. Also, I don't see how this, even if intentional, would help anyone. Or particularly hurt Bernie. You think pete's spike in polling is unrelated to the favorable coverage he received as a result of that "pure incompetence"? EDIT: I'd also 2nd Neb's sentiment | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On February 07 2020 21:14 Broetchenholer wrote: According to the nyt, rhe mistakes were affecting all candidates. Bernie just published those that would benefit him. In the end, the result would stay the same, Bernie and Pete being neck and neck. From the outside, this still looks like pure incompetence, without direction, just pure chaos. Also, I don't see how this, even if intentional, would help anyone. Or particularly hurt Bernie. I don't really care whether it changes the result and you shouldn't either. It's fucked up to have data that is blatantly false in a close election and just go "eh", especially when ten minutes ago, when Perez thought the other guy was going to overtake, he didn't think "eh", he thought "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!" | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1963 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1963 Posts
On February 07 2020 21:32 Nebuchad wrote: I don't really care whether it changes the result and you shouldn't either. It's fucked up to have data that is blatantly false in a close election and just go "eh", especially when ten minutes ago, when Perez thought the other guy was going to overtake, he didn't think "eh", he thought "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!" Those two things are separate issues though. This forum has cried wolf for the last four days, how there is a conspiracy in the problems with the caucus. The reasoning has always been, because they are the dnc. Because they can and want. I simply don't see how anything that happened supports that theory. That the dnc now is trying their best to spin the fuck up to hinder Bernie is separate from that. Of course I want them to be competent. If Iowa didn't happen, that would be great. However, I have not been convinced that the mess was orchestrated to suppress Bernie or to steal delegates from him. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On February 07 2020 21:43 Broetchenholer wrote: How did he profit from that incompetence though? In all results that were published, he was within margin of error where he would end up if they did not fuck it up. I fail to see how messing the process up so hard helped anyone. I would even argue that Bernie and Pete did both profit from their results being in the press for several days due to this fuck up. Pete seems to have a surge from his strong performance in the caucus and he probably would have that without the mess as well considering he has 10% on Joe Biden. I just wanted to make sure that's what you were saying, I don't think I can convince you otherwise. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18865 Posts
On February 07 2020 21:50 Broetchenholer wrote: Those two things are separate issues though. This forum has cried wolf for the last four days, how there is a conspiracy in the problems with the caucus. The reasoning has always been, because they are the dnc. Because they can and want. I simply don't see how anything that happened supports that theory. That the dnc now is trying their best to spin the fuck up to hinder Bernie is separate from that. Of course I want them to be competent. If Iowa didn't happen, that would be great. However, I have not been convinced that the mess was orchestrated to suppress Bernie or to steal delegates from him. You are vastly oversimplifying the positions of people in service of lumping them into a single group so that you can make a point about conspiratorial thinking. "This forum" has, in fact, argued about claims of conspiracy for days now, with folks landing all across the spectrum in terms of their conclusions. Here's a hot take for you: there can be no conspiracy whatsoever, and the DNC and Iowa Dems can still be wrongfully doing things to stopper Bernie's success. Pumping up everyone's positions into "there must have been a literal, cooperative conspiracy" so that can you knock them down with plain faced skepticism is not helpful nor accurate. Edi: I'd also add that baldly asserting that two concepts are separate, without doing any legwork on why that is so, is not very persuasive, particularly when folks are suggesting that said two concepts are not separate while pointing to specific things that have been said in the past about the fairness of primaries. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12472 Posts
On February 07 2020 21:50 Broetchenholer wrote: Those two things are separate issues though. This forum has cried wolf for the last four days, how there is a conspiracy in the problems with the caucus. The reasoning has always been, because they are the dnc. Because they can and want. I simply don't see how anything that happened supports that theory. That the dnc now is trying their best to spin the fuck up to hinder Bernie is separate from that. Of course I want them to be competent. If Iowa didn't happen, that would be great. However, I have not been convinced that the mess was orchestrated to suppress Bernie or to steal delegates from him. There's a fairly logical link between the different stages of the thought process that goes "blatant mistakes in a close election => bad, erodes public trust => we should correct those that we have seen and follow a process ensuring there are not more of them." I'm not sure why we need a conspiracy or a lack of conspiracy for that to be the correct course of action. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1963 Posts
@gh: so, please explain me how Pete profited from all of this, whil Bernie did not. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
On February 07 2020 22:30 Broetchenholer wrote: We don't. Nobody disputes that the dnc fucked up the caucus. I dispute the theory of some people that this fuck up was orchestrated because Bernie was winning. Which was the immediate reaction of some posters, because the dnc is bad. @gh: so, please explain me how Pete profited from all of this, whil Bernie did not. I haven't seen anyone argue that the fuck up was orchestrated because Bernie was winning. Presumably vague accusations of "conspiracy theories" are aimed at me and I have already said multiple times that these issues go back decades so that isn't me (or anyone I've noticed here). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27071 Posts
Then it’s a complete administrative fuckup which is far from ideal. If the DNC had a history as being a neutral arbiter of the primary process and letting it organically play out then almost nobody would be claiming it’s part of a Bernie suppression plot. As they do have such a history, some people will move to that conclusion. Personally I think it is a case of applying Hanlon’s Razor, but I can see why others would think otherwise. | ||
| ||
