Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 02-04-2020, 02:54 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
All this money and time spent on winning 49 piddly delegates, with the possibility that a first- or second-place finish will boost your media attention? It's bupkis this year. Absolutely fucking bupkis.
As I mentioned earlier, I have no stats on the "Iowa bump." But again, it seems to me that if there is such a thing, it doesn't depend just on whether or not on the night of the caucus, a winner is announced and he or she gets to make a big victory speech that night, which convinces lots of people in New Hampshire or elsewhere how to vote. Are that many people watching then? And if the winner is announced, say today, isn't a bump still likely (assuming such a thing exists in the first place)? I don't know the answer, but this is my thinking on the matter.
  #152  
Old 02-04-2020, 02:57 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I think the Iowa bounce will probably be less than usual this year. OTOH, that was already likely, what with the caucus taking place in the middle of an impeachment trial, the day after the Super Bowl and before the SOTU address. But it won't be completely irrelevant. If Biden, for instance, faceplanted as badly as preliminary reports suggest he did, he won't be able to escape questions about that just because the results are a day or two late.

Overall I think people need to calm down a bit. It's a huge embarrassment for the IDP, and no doubt some people should lose their jobs over this. But having to wait a day or two for election results isn't exactly a catastrophe. Nobody is going to die because they had to wait a little longer than expected to find out who won.
No one's gonna die, but it's not gonna give any of the winners the bump it would've otherwise, regardless of the Super Bowl or whatever. By the time these results are announced, the SoTU will be a couple hours away, and the attention will have shifted to NH. The only news story coming out of Iowa will be how terrible the IDP is. Such a great use of campaign dollars and staff/volunteer hours! If I'm the winner (or even the second place finisher) of the caucus, I'd be fucking pissed at how many resources I wasted in this state.
  #153  
Old 02-04-2020, 02:58 PM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 10,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Finally, there was a new rule that if your candidate was viable you werenít allowed to change in the realignments. This wasnít well explained in many precincts and led to some confusion.
That is an interesting (and kind of sucky) rule.
Washington State has used caucuses (we are moving completely to primaries this year) and that's one of the things I like(d) about caucusing. Things weren't set in stone; people could change their minds after talking to others in their precinct about issues.

Other thoughts:
Counting votes at caucuses is always nuts. Even more so when it's a crowded room and a lot of people were not taught fractions very well. (This is also how I know that the US is not ready for proportional representation, or at least my precinct isn't.)

Also, who cares that there aren't immediate results? This isn't an election. The next step isn't for another 7 days. The only people who truly benefit from having the answers last night are the news media. Everyone else (the New Hampshire voters, the rest of the voters, even the campaigns themselves) are not going to be radically affected by waiting for a day or two.
  #154  
Old 02-04-2020, 02:58 PM
enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As I mentioned earlier, I have no stats on the "Iowa bump." But again, it seems to me that if there is such a thing, it doesn't depend just on whether or not on the night of the caucus, a winner is announced and he or she gets to make a big victory speech that night, which convinces lots of people in New Hampshire or elsewhere how to vote. Are that many people watching then? And if the winner is announced, say today, isn't a bump still likely (assuming such a thing exists in the first place)? I don't know the answer, but this is my thinking on the matter.
Don't forget about the news cycle. The headlines this morning should've been something like "Bernie and Pete win big, Biden stumbles." Then all day it's about analyzing and spinning the results. The headlines tomorrow morning will be about the SOTU.
  #155  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:06 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
So this is how democrats want to run health care?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
No, that's what the Obamacare website is for. Which shouldn't make you feel any better.
As opposed to waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting for Trump and the GOP to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something amazing? If you're going for a cheapshot at least aim somewhere you have an ounce of credibility.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #156  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:09 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Don't forget about the news cycle. The headlines this morning should've been something like "Bernie and Pete win big, Biden stumbles." Then all day it's about analyzing and spinning the results. The headlines tomorrow morning will be about the SOTU.
Exactly, these campaigns didn't spend tens of millions of dollars, and dedicate tens of thousands of man hours to the state of Iowa, so the results could get buried the next evening among news stories about how shitty the Iowa caucuses are.

As I said before, Bloomberg's the winner here.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-04-2020 at 03:10 PM.
  #157  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:14 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Don't forget about the news cycle. The headlines this morning should've been something like "Bernie and Pete win big, Biden stumbles." Then all day it's about analyzing and spinning the results. The headlines tomorrow morning will be about the SOTU.
Yeah, okay, but I'm saying that if you vote in New Hampshire, and if you are the type of person who would take note of a big story out of Iowa, you will be the same type to look up the results today. I don't mean to totally discount the value of a big news story the night of, but their is still plenty of time for the pundits to have at the results.
  #158  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:15 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Yeah, the Teeming Millions won't be paying as much attention as they otherwise would have, and that sucks for the winner. But donors and endorsers (the Teeming Millionaires?) will certainly be paying attention, so it still matters a lot.
  #159  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:15 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,233
Heard about some other irregularities at some precincts. Some seem pretty major.

First problem, at some caucuses the voters were instructed that if their candidate was not viable after first alignment, then they have to realign to a new candidate. They were explicitly told they could not try to join with other non-viable supporters to become viable. I know in a Marion precinct, this cost Warren a delegate for sure. Interestingly, at my precinct they encouraged the non’s to join together, but it didn’t happen.

Second problem, it seems like lots of precincts were doing coin flips when they shouldn’t have. I’m not even sure exactly when the coin flip is triggered by rule, but it seems like it should only happen when candidates have the exact same portions of a delegate. But I’m hearing of places where the fractions majorly favored one candidate but they still flipped a coin. Dumb. Hopefully the raw voter counts are getting checked and corrected at the state office, but from what I’ve heard, that seems to be where the bad math was coming from last night. One example: one precinct had 4.8 delegates for Bernie, 3.2 for Pete. Locally, they made the logical choice: Pete 3, Bernie 5. But then they called the state central office to make sure and they were instructed to flip a coin. Pete won the coin flip so it went to 4-4. So dumb.
  #160  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:18 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Yeah, the Teeming Millions won't be paying as much attention as they otherwise would have, and that sucks for the winner. But donors and endorsers (the Teeming Millionaires?) will certainly be paying attention, so it still matters a lot.
I like the point about the donors and endorsers. The other teeming millions, though? That's just my point. Most people don't even know there was an Iowa caucus last night, or give a damn.
  #161  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:20 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
As opposed to waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting for Trump and the GOP to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something amazing? If you're going for a cheapshot at least aim somewhere you have an ounce of credibility.
I was talking about the web site and its totally botched rollout, and incredibly inept management of it.
  #162  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:24 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
Washington State has used caucuses (we are moving completely to primaries this year) and that's one of the things I like(d) about caucusing. Things weren't set in stone; people could change their minds after talking to others in their precinct about issues.
Of the only other two states using caucuses this year, Nevada is also doing it this way, and I think Wyoming is as well; it's hard to tell with Wyoming as the system isn't specified clearly, but it is a "ranked choice" system (everybody lists up to five candidates in preference order), so if your first choice is viable, it's not going to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Heard about some other irregularities at some precincts. Some seem pretty major.

First problem, at some caucuses the voters were instructed that if their candidate was not viable after first alignment, then they have to realign to a new candidate. They were explicitly told they could not try to join with other non-viable supporters to become viable. I know in a Marion precinct, this cost Warren a delegate for sure. Interestingly, at my precinct they encouraged the nonís to join together, but it didnít happen.

Second problem, it seems like lots of precincts were doing coin flips when they shouldnít have. Iím not even sure exactly when the coin flip is triggered by rule, but it seems like it should only happen when candidates have the exact same portions of a delegate. But Iím hearing of places where the fractions majorly favored one candidate but they still flipped a coin. Dumb. Hopefully the raw voter counts are getting checked and corrected at the state office, but from what Iíve heard, that seems to be where the bad math was coming from last night. One example: one precinct had 4.8 delegates for Bernie, 3.2 for Pete. Locally, they made the logical choice: Pete 3, Bernie 5. But then they called the state central office to make sure and they were instructed to flip a coin. Pete won the coin flip so it went to 4-4. So dumb.
The rules say to round to the nearest integer, and even if this causes an overcount or undercount of delegates, use the amount by which each one was rounded up/down to determine who loses/gains a delegate. A coin flip should be used only if the fractions of a delegate are the same.
  #163  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:25 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As I mentioned earlier, I have no stats on the "Iowa bump." But again, it seems to me that if there is such a thing, it doesn't depend just on whether or not on the night of the caucus, a winner is announced and he or she gets to make a big victory speech that night, which convinces lots of people in New Hampshire or elsewhere how to vote. Are that many people watching then? And if the winner is announced, say today, isn't a bump still likely (assuming such a thing exists in the first place)? I don't know the answer, but this is my thinking on the matter.
The Obama Iowa bump has grown into a bit of a myth. He had already overtaken Hillary in South Carolina polls by December 2007. I guess the idea that farmland country Iowa giving its consent to a black guy with the middle name Hussein gave the narrative that it was Iowans who catapulted Obama. Reality was he was a once in a generation campaigner who excited the electorate.

Before him who else got a bump winning Iowa? John Kerry perhaps. Before that ... Jimmy Carter. He actually came behind Uncommitted but as the first placed among the candidates he got media attention that was not given to him before.

Last edited by Boycott; 02-04-2020 at 03:25 PM.
  #164  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:26 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I was talking about the web site and its totally botched rollout, and incredibly inept management of it.
Yes, because surely, nearly ten years later, we should be judging the effects of the ACA primarily on whether the website worked well on rollout or not.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 02-04-2020 at 03:27 PM.
  #165  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:31 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
MSNBC running Yangís speech on tape now. ďThe Yang Gang has shocked the world so many times before!Ē

Um...when was that again?
It's great that you had so much faith and confidence in Yang's campaign and supporters that you expected his success.

But many people, particularly those in MSM or who watched MSM, were at least surprised when Yang first made the debate stage, then when he repeatedly made the debate stage, then when he raised $10M in Q3, then when he raised $16.5M in Q4, then when he raised $6.7M in January 2020. And many people are surprised that he has outlasted a bunch of seasoned politicians and continues to keep going.

I hope you continue to have the faith in Yang's continued rise that some other people may not expect.
  #166  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:32 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Yeah, the Teeming Millions won't be paying as much attention as they otherwise would have, and that sucks for the winner. But donors and endorsers (the Teeming Millionaires?) will certainly be paying attention, so it still matters a lot.
Actually, I think a lot of us small dollar donors were waiting on the results. If Pete had finished 4th and it wasnít a 4 way tie, Iíd have reservations about donating more money as thatís just not good for a campaign that threw everything into IA. Iím sure the Amy people and maybe the Warren people thought the same.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #167  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:32 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I was talking about the web site and its totally botched rollout, and incredibly inept management of it.
Yes, I know what you were talking about, and having struggled mightily with the site back in 2014 I acknowledge it was a mess. But when you support a party and a president who promised vast improvements over that system and have delivered exactly nothing, maybe you shouldn't throw stones. (pun unintended)

But this is a complete tangent so I'll drop it before it becomes a hijack.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #168  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:39 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Of the only other two states using caucuses this year, Nevada is also doing it this way, and I think Wyoming is as well; it's hard to tell with Wyoming as the system isn't specified clearly, but it is a "ranked choice" system (everybody lists up to five candidates in preference order), so if your first choice is viable, it's not going to change.





The rules say to round to the nearest integer, and even if this causes an overcount or undercount of delegates, use the amount by which each one was rounded up/down to determine who loses/gains a delegate. A coin flip should be used only if the fractions of a delegate are the same.


Thanks, that’s how I thought it should work. Whoever gets rounded down the most should earn the delegate. But I think lots of precinct captains are screwing this up. Coin flips should be extremely rare.
  #169  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:42 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
It's great that you had so much faith and confidence in Yang's campaign and supporters that you expected his success.

But many people, particularly those in MSM or who watched MSM, were at least surprised when Yang first made the debate stage, then when he repeatedly made the debate stage, then when he raised $10M in Q3, then when he raised $16.5M in Q4, then when he raised $6.7M in January 2020. And many people are surprised that he has outlasted a bunch of seasoned politicians and continues to keep going.

I hope you continue to have the faith in Yang's continued rise that some other people may not expect.
OK, he's exceeded expectations, that's certainly true. But the expectations were pretty low to start with. If you had told me that an unqualified candidate with an offbeat platform would get 4% in the national polls and prove capable of raising as much money in a quarter as Bernie Sanders raises in a week, I would have been at most mildly surprised, not "shocked". And hearing that such a candidate stayed in the race after all the serious career politicians who were polling in the low single digits folded, I wouldn't have been surprised at all.
  #170  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:46 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
The Obama Iowa bump has grown into a bit of a myth. He had already overtaken Hillary in South Carolina polls by December 2007. I guess the idea that farmland country Iowa giving its consent to a black guy with the middle name Hussein gave the narrative that it was Iowans who catapulted Obama. Reality was he was a once in a generation campaigner who excited the electorate.

Before him who else got a bump winning Iowa? John Kerry perhaps. Before that ... Jimmy Carter. He actually came behind Uncommitted but as the first placed among the candidates he got media attention that was not given to him before.
This kind of thing is pretty much what I suspect, that there is no (even approaching) conclusive evidence of a bump happening on a regular basis. It strikes me as one of those things pundits like to talk about to gin up an interesting narrative, because they can't just sit around talking about percentages, although Steve Kornacki and others even tried to make that interesting last night.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-04-2020 at 03:49 PM.
  #171  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:48 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
That is an interesting (and kind of sucky) rule.
Washington State has used caucuses (we are moving completely to primaries this year) and that's one of the things I like(d) about caucusing. Things weren't set in stone; people could change their minds after talking to others in their precinct about issues.
You mean the Iowa caucus did NOT work that way? I thought that was the whole point of caucuses, to chat with fellow Iowans about the choices. (If not, why not just a primary with ranking-order ballots and be done with it?)
  #172  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:50 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
Also, who cares that there aren't immediate results?
Here's the really crazy thing, immediate results were never even on the menu. The Iowa Caucuses are a multi-step process that won't be complete until June 13, 2020.

Last night (2/3) people in 1,678 precincts elected 11,402 county delegates to represent them at the county conventions on March 3, 2020.

At those county conventions they will select 2,107 state and district convention delegates that will go to the district conventions on April, 25 2020 and the state convention on June 6, 2020.

The district conventions will select 27 delegates to send to the Democratic National Convention, and the state convention will select 14 more.

Only at the end of this process will we know which candidate is sending the most delegates to the national convention and thus who won Iowa.

They usually also calculate a number of 'State Delegate Equivalents' for all the candidates that sums to the 2,107 state delegates that will be chosen in March. This is an estimate, and things are probably going to change significantly before then. For example, a candidate who is awarded State Delegate Equivalents today may not even be in the race at the end of March.
  #173  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:51 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
If Yang gets as high as 8% of the first alignment Iowa votes, I'll be mildly shocked, as that would be significantly overachieving relative to his polling numbers. But even then, he'd be only halfway to where he needs to be to actually win delegates, and almost certainly in no better than sixth place.
  #174  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:52 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Thanks, thatís how I thought it should work. Whoever gets rounded down the most should earn the delegate. But I think lots of precinct captains are screwing this up. Coin flips should be extremely rare.
In the case you noted, Sanders's 4.8 should have been rounded up to 5, and Buttigieg's 3.2 rounded down to 3.

The "farthest away" rule is only needed where three (or more) candidates are rounded up, resulting in the total being one more than allowed. For example, if there are 9 delegates available, and three candidates get 3.65, 2.75, and 2.6, they would all round up, making it 4, 3, 3, but that is one delegate too many; they were rounded up by 0.35, 0.25, and 0.4 respectively, so the last one would lose a delegate, and the final count would be 4, 3, 2.
The only exception to the rule is, you can't lose your only delegate this way, so if it would have been 3 delegates and 1.75, 0.65, and 0.6, rounded up to 2, 1, 1, the first one would lose a delegate, making it 1 each, even though that candidate rounded up the least.
  #175  
Old 02-04-2020, 03:54 PM
What the .... ?!?! is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 4,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This does not say on which day at 4:00 p.m....
Good one! Sounds like Nadler to the house minorities about the day of hearings they were allowed.
  #176  
Old 02-04-2020, 04:00 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,320
Nevada also has a caucus and was planning on using the same ap. They just decided to ditch it.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nevad...033acec80?ncid
  #177  
Old 02-04-2020, 04:03 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Exactly, these campaigns didn't spend tens of millions of dollars, and dedicate tens of thousands of man hours to the state of Iowa, so the results could get buried the next evening among news stories about how shitty the Iowa caucuses are.

As I said before, Bloomberg's the winner here.
Bloomberg is now in 2nd place to win the Democratic nomination in the prediction market Predictit- just behind Sanders and in front of Biden.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-04-2020 at 04:06 PM.
  #178  
Old 02-04-2020, 04:26 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Bloomberg has a strong offense. We need to see how good his defense is. That hasn't been tested yet since he's been left alone to focus on Super Tuesday while everyone else has been in Iowa. It will come though. Things like Stop & Frisk and his endorsement for Bush at the GOP Convention 2004 will be brought up. If he gets through that, does well on Super Tuesday then hard to see how he gets stopped.
  #179  
Old 02-04-2020, 04:51 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Bloomberg has a strong offense. We need to see how good his defense is. That hasn't been tested yet since he's been left alone to focus on Super Tuesday while everyone else has been in Iowa. It will come though. Things like Stop & Frisk and his endorsement for Bush at the GOP Convention 2004 will be brought up. If he gets through that, does well on Super Tuesday then hard to see how he gets stopped.
Just a brief, somewhat humorous note about something Chris Christie* said on the Stephanopolous show on ABC this past Sunday about Bloomberg. He was talking about how no one would vote for somebody like him, who would just willy-nilly switch parties just to get elected. Why, who can trust somebody like that?! Of course, Christie forgot to mention that Bloomberg won the mayorship in New York City after doing just that, when he famously switched parties to run as a Republican.

But I agree that the issues you raise are very valid, and that's what Christie should have focused on. In fact, he might have done that too, can't remember.

*A guy I actually find fairly likable, now that he's not the governor of New Jersey, a state I had the pleasure of living in back then.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-04-2020 at 04:53 PM.
  #180  
Old 02-04-2020, 04:53 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Good old Pete 'I definitely didn't work for the CIA' Buttigieg trying to steal the limelight with all the confusion going on and completely undermining a Sanders victory, I guess the good thing is Bidens results are looking disasterous, he isn't a viable candidate.
There's some chatter going on that the Buttigieg campaign heavily financed the failed app.

I didn't go to mine because I wasn't feeling well (still aren't) and now I'm kind of glad I didn't attend.

Last edited by nearwildheaven; 02-04-2020 at 04:54 PM.
  #181  
Old 02-04-2020, 04:58 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
This is an embarrassment for Iowa and an unfortunate event for whoever ends up winning.

If the app didn't work, then the state coordinator should be demanding that the county coordinators get an Excel spreadsheet together. The thing could have been counted completely by 11pm last night.

And the winner was cheated out of his (maybe hers, but almost certainly his) bump as he was not able to give a victory address to his cheering supporters in Iowa with headlines this morning about his victory. That gets media coverage, gets more small donors and gives some big mo going into NH.

The delegate count doesn't matter, so it is not important that Santorum won in 2012 on election day (instead of Romney) and that Paul ultimately got more delegates. All of that information was at least out there in the press and Romney and Santorum could spin a razor tight race how they wanted. Nobody was allowed that here.

***Iowa guy speaking now...about to release 62% of the results.
  #182  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:04 PM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,975
CNN now says that with 95% of precincts reporting, it's:

Buttigieg 26.9%
Sanders 25.1%
Warren 18.3%
Biden 15.6%
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #183  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:08 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
Official Iowa results with 62%:

Pete: 31.9%
Sanders: 29.7%
Warren: 21.7%
Biden: 18.5%
Klobuchar: 15.0%

Last edited by UltraVires; 02-04-2020 at 05:09 PM.
  #184  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Official Iowa results with 62%:

Pete: 31.9%
Sanders: 29.7%
Warren: 21.7%
Biden: 18.5%
Klobuchar: 15.0%
That adds up to more than 100%.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #185  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:12 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
^^^

This is very confusing
  #186  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:12 PM
Dr. Drake is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Official Iowa results with 62%:

Pete: 31.9%
Sanders: 29.7%
Warren: 21.7%
Biden: 18.5%
Klobuchar: 15.0%
Which adds up to 116.8%

I hope it's your typo and not Iowa's.
  #187  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,793
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blo...-election-live

According to the 538 live blog, Sanders is ahead in the first choices and the post allocation votes, with Buttigieg ahead in state delegate equivalents. If this holds up for the full reporting, I'm sure both will claim victory.

I'm glad Biden appears to be in 4th by all measures.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-04-2020 at 05:14 PM.
  #188  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:14 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Huh? 538 reports Sanders 26, Pete 25, Warren 21, Biden 13, Klobuchar 12. Because rural districts are slightly overrepresented, Buttigieg will actually come away with a small lead in delegates won. And this is with 62% of the vote counted and no clue as to how representative that 62% might be.
  #189  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:14 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Which adds up to 116.8%

I hope it's your typo and not Iowa's.
https://results.thecaucuses.org/

I did an Excel cut and paste. Maybe I'm wrong.
  #190  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:14 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
^^^

This is very confusing
MaxTheVool's numbers appear to be based on the State Delegate Equivalents with 62% (not 95%) of the precincts reporting. Not sure where iiandyiiii's numbers come from; they could be from one of the two raw vote totals, but I don't see statewide totals for those anywhere yet.
  #191  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:15 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
Nope, it was me.

Pete: 26.9%
Sanders: 25.1%
Warren: 18.3%
Biden: 15.6%
Klob: 12.6%
  #192  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:16 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,694
SS Biden has hit an iceberg and also hit with 2 torpedoes if he ends up 4th when all votes are in.
  #193  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:17 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nope, it was me.

Pete: 26.9%
Sanders: 25.1%
Warren: 18.3%
Biden: 15.6%
Klob: 12.6%
That's official Iowa with 62%. No more drinking and Excel at 4pm for me!
  #194  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:18 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
CNN now says that with 95% of precincts reporting, it's:

Buttigieg 26.9%
Sanders 25.1%
Warren 18.3%
Biden 15.6%
How well was Biden expected to perform, prior to last night?
  #195  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:18 PM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 16,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
The DNC has nothing to do with Iowa. Next conspiracy, please.
Then why did the last headline I check read "Iowa Democrat Party Chairman promises results by late afternoon'?

Sorry, my Party screwed me last time around and I'm beginning to suspect a repeat isn't out of the question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Thatís an interesting and uncommon mix!
I'm a rather uncommon person?

Deep down I'm probably more the socialist side of Libertarian probably so -------- seeing a few very nice places where Sanders and Bloomberg overlap isn't that odd. Sanders is a slightly more aggressive approach but ............

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

I'm glad Biden appears to be in 4th by all measures.
Well at least I have something to pin my hopes on.
  #196  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:29 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
Then why did the last headline I check read "Iowa Democrat Party Chairman promises results by late afternoon'?
The Iowa Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are two separate organizations.
  #197  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:29 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
Then why did the last headline I check read "Iowa Democrat Party Chairman promises results by late afternoon'?

Sorry, my Party screwed me last time around and I'm beginning to suspect a repeat isn't out of the question.




I'm a rather uncommon person?

Deep down I'm probably more the socialist side of Libertarian probably so -------- seeing a few very nice places where Sanders and Bloomberg overlap isn't that odd. Sanders is a slightly more aggressive approach but ............



Well at least I have something to pin my hopes on.
The DNC isnít the same thing as the Iowa Democratic Party.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #198  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:36 PM
Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Just a brief, somewhat humorous note about something Chris Christie* said on the Stephanopolous show on ABC this past Sunday about Bloomberg. He was talking about how no one would vote for somebody like him, who would just willy-nilly switch parties just to get elected. Why, who can trust somebody like that?! Of course, Christie forgot to mention that Bloomberg won the mayorship in New York City after doing just that, when he famously switched parties to run as a Republican.

But I agree that the issues you raise are very valid, and that's what Christie should have focused on. In fact, he might have done that too, can't remember.
Yeah not only has switching parties worked for somebody, but the very guy it's being brought up in reference to. I'm sure it figures into Bloomberg's own calculations, that it worked for *him*.

But that doesn't mean Bloomberg is right. Mayor of even a big city is a relatively non-partisan job, 'there's no Democrat or Republican way to pick up the garbage' is attributed to Bloomberg's distant predecessor as GOP mayor of NY, LaGuardia. OTOH presidential primaries are probably the most ideologically oriented election contests there are. Practicalities and personalities still enter in obviously, but the party is also in part determining it's ideological 'soul' in the platform of the person it's also naming party leader.

I don't see any likely point where Bloomberg would become 'unstoppable' to get the Democratic nomination. He's just too been too different ideologically from where the party is now, as in typical primary voters, even if he's genuinely moved left on a number of issues over the years. Nor like older actual Democratic politicians who supported stuff which Democrats generally did, but are now anathema to many primary voters, can he say at least 'I was with you'.
  #199  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:38 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,974
I don't want to be hyperbolic and say that the Democrats are doomed, but if the Dems were playing in a Super Bowl, it would remind me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgfkFcVG8zc
  #200  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:52 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blo...-election-live

According to the 538 live blog, Sanders is ahead in the first choices and the post allocation votes, with Buttigieg ahead in state delegate equivalents. If this holds up for the full reporting, I'm sure both will claim victory.
All the news sources that I've looked at are putting Buttigieg's delegate win front and center, while burying Bernie's popular vote wins. I have little doubt that we'll be hearing complaints about this from the Bernie crowd soon, and loudly, and often.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017