EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2136
| 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 | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On February 23 2020 08:18 LegalLord wrote: So, on another note: anyone expecting any dropouts today? Lot of unviable candidates, and money does eventually run out, but at the same time we do have a lot of them that just refuse to leave despite the fact that they can't win. Gabbard probably. Also talk about which moderate needs to be rallied around is going to skyrocket this week. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
GOD I'm just so stoked. So many rats in the party need to go. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
smh msnbc | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 23 2020 08:43 CorsairHero wrote: Chris Matthews comparing Bernie winning to Germany invading France in WW2 smh msnbc It's our party now  | ||
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
On February 23 2020 08:43 CorsairHero wrote: Chris Matthews comparing Bernie winning to Germany invading France in WW2 smh msnbc Wait what? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 23 2020 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Gabbard probably. Also talk about which moderate needs to be rallied around is going to skyrocket this week. I'd honestly like to see Steyer and Klob also drop, since their campaigns are nonviable, but I don't really see it happening quite yet. Only Sanders, Biden, Butt, and the self-funded billionaires seem like they have the cash to keep playing. This post-debate bump feels like Warren's last gasp at relevance too - she's almost certainly going to stick it out to Super Tuesday, get pummeled, and drop. Her calls for fundraising sound pretty desperate right now. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:03 LegalLord wrote: I'd honestly like to see Steyer and Klob also drop, since their campaigns are nonviable, but I don't really see it happening quite yet. Only Sanders, Biden, Butt, and the self-funded billionaires seem like they have the cash to keep playing. This post-debate bump feels like Warren's last gasp at relevance too - she's almost certainly going to stick it out to Super Tuesday, get pummeled, and drop. Her calls for fundraising sound pretty desperate right now. Steyer is in till SC where he can probably still finish 3rd but already spent a lot of money and isn't going to waste another $100 on super Tuesday imo. Klobuchar looks like she's going to cry but her words say she's in till super Tuesday as far as I can tell. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote: lmao state party released a bit of delegate numbers that are blatantly (but I'm sure coincidentally *eye roll*) unrepresentative of the electorate. Shockingly it shows Bernie just 10 points ahead of Warren, which thanks to Media's addiction to being first, we know had to take some serious massaging of which results they reported first. So they say Sanders is 10% ahead of everyone and it's still a conspiracy theory? I'm not saying that the party is particularly on board with having Sanders, nor are most of the newsroom, but there's no point in us becoming the boy who cried wolf. Also, it's just delegate it says he's about 25% ahead of everyone in raw vote, it's looking like a crazy good night | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:12 Nakajin wrote: So they say Sanders is 10% ahead of everyone and it's still a conspiracy theory? Literally said like a week ago that the results would be questionable even if he won by 10%. It doesn't matter if it is a "conspiracy" or mass systemic incompetence that mimics conspiracy at this point. The point is that 1-3% "officially" reporting when they had 88%+ in 2016, coincidentally showing Bernie underperforming despite it clearly conflicting with larger, more representative results that have already been reported is laughably transparent to me and I think anyone observing in good faith. EDIT: Finally bumped up to 4% official and MSNBC which was enough with their numbers and they called it for Sanders during Biden's seeming victory speech | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
This (since Iowa is just not going to fix their shit) will officially give Bernie a Delegate lead there's no foreseeable way for him to lose. This is also the first time a candidate has ever won the popular vote in the first 3 contests. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:40 JimmiC wrote: The democratic party elite seem as inept at stopping Sander's as the deep state was at stopping Trump. They pulled out all the stops to do so in 2016, and were successful at stopping Sanders. Having failed to win that election in 2016 despite what was later shown to be some very dirty tactics, their power to do so again in 2020 is greatly diminished. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:43 LegalLord wrote: They pulled out all the stops to do so in 2016, and were successful at stopping Sanders. Having failed to win that election in 2016 despite what was later shown to be some very dirty tactics, their power to do so again in 2020 is greatly diminished. Don't underestimate Democrats willingness to go along with the idea that we have to ignore the votes to save democracy (as all the candidates argued they'd do at the convention if they can). | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Literally said like a week ago that the results would be questionable even if he won by 10%. It doesn't matter if it is a "conspiracy" or mass systemic incompetence that mimics conspiracy at this point. The point is that 1-3% "officially" reporting when they had 88%+ in 2016, coincidentally showing Warren overperforming despite it clearly conflicting with larger, more representative results that have already been reported is laughably transparent to me and I think anyone observing in good faith. Maybe, maybe not. They just had a disastrous Ioha coccus, it might just be the consequence of some new vote counting methods, maybe they are lacking staff, maybe it just so happen those were the place that were counted faster. The rest of the results are entry pools are they not? Seems normal to me to talk about official results and not those, maybe the fact that Warren is overperforming in the official results fit their narrative better, especially after the last debate. Honestly if you want my best bet, they just didn't report Sanders winning based on exit/entry polls cause they have hours to fill and need people to watch the show. And, ya, maybe it is actually planned behind the scene, (it's not above the Democratic party let's be honest) but there's already more conspiracy theory buzzing around than can possibly be true, I'm not sure it's always that great of an idea to try to turn every stones to find new one. It sometime fells like it's just a hinch away from saying they stuff the ballot boxes. If there's more consistent report that comes out in the next days I'd be willing to reexamine what I said of course. Anyhow, maybe that was a bit to nit picky on my part, happy that Sanders won big, here's to hopping he get over the 50% mark. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:50 Nakajin wrote: Maybe, maybe not. They just had a disastrous Ioha coccus, it might just be the consequence of some new vote counting methods, maybe they are lacking staff, maybe it just so happen those were the place that were counted faster. The rest of the results are entry pools are they not? Seems normal to me to talk about official results and not those, maybe the fact that Warren is overperforming in the official results fit their narrative better, especially after the last debate. Honestly if you want my best bet, they just didn't report Sanders winning based on exit/entry polls cause they have hours to fill and need people to watch the show. And, ya, maybe it is actually planned behind the scene, (it's not above the Democratic party let's be honest) but there's already more conspiracy theory buzzing around than can possibly be true, I'm not sure it's always that great of an idea to try to turn every stones to find new one. It sometime fells like it's just a hinch away from saying they stuff the ballot boxes. If there's more consistent report that comes out in the next days I'd be willing to reexamine what I said of course. Anyhow, maybe that was a bit to nit picky on my part, happy that Sanders won big, here's to hopping he get over the 50% mark. I think Fox News calling the race hours ago demonstrates my point pretty well. I don't care much at this point whether it is mass incompetence, greed, or a conspiracy, it is unacceptable and they need to go. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:56 LegalLord wrote: So I'm really not at all certain how these results are being counted. Seeing Sanders with anywhere from 29% to 54% of the vote, depending on who's reporting. Can't help but feel that the complete lack of transparency in how these results are supposed to work is a problem. Wtf? The basic explanation is this: 1. Media didn't trust the party to give them the numbers they needed to keep their audience. 2. Media put out their own observers to document and report results to their decision desks. 3. As expected the party wasn't reporting anything long after they previously reported a lot of results in 2016 4. The media attempting to prevent another Iowa, start reporting their own numbers. 5.They show Sanders running away with it 6. The party having reported 88%+ in 2016 at this point had to report something and released an inexplicable selection for the delegate count. 7. Delegate count? Yes, the media only reported popular vote totals and left the delegate math to the state party to report. So the delegate count with only 4% is the official state party report (unclear if they gave the 1st and 2nd alignment numbers that went with them). The 10% popular vote count is from a pool of observers for decision desks in media companies. Seems that they collaborated and are sharing a common number for that (but it isn't from the state party, but documented by media staff at the caucuses) | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
On February 23 2020 09:56 LegalLord wrote: So I'm really not at all certain how these results are being counted. Seeing Sanders with anywhere from 29% to 54% of the vote, depending on who's reporting. Can't help but feel that the complete lack of transparency in how these results are supposed to work is a problem. Wtf? Some are also reporting raw vote and others delegate%, but ya it's weird. | ||
| ||
