Yes, all the Sanders and Warren people will now think him an arrogant fool. After all, he only tied for first.
Adam Jentleson (Harry Reid’s former deputy chief of staff):
Yes, he did. But he didn’t claim a tie, he loudly claimed a win, and did so based on focusing myopically on one particular way of interpreting the results. Now it looks like he may not even win according to those criteria.
But historically the networks report the winner as the raw total compared with the delegate count. So if the count had worked as expected the networks would have reported Mayor Pete as the winner of the Iowa Caucuses and he would have had a powerful campaign speech in front of a TV audience (or at least they would have seen the speech on the news the next day) in which he declares victory and tells them they are on their way! On to New Hampshire! Taking the country by storm! and gotten a huge bump.
Now, his opponents including you get to call him an arrogant fool.
And Warren said wrongly that it was a close three way tie. I guess that’s a little too pathetic of a brag to make her an arrogant fool.
It’s been two days and I don’t think anyone but Bernie and Trump supporters remembers or cares what he said.
The hilarious thing is that Buttigieg is probably going to “win” Iowa but they are still thinking this “arrogant fool” thing has legs because it was closer than he implied.
Actually, all she said was that it is “too close to call.” Here’s the video of her saying that. It’s right at the beginning, then she moves on to her stump speech.
At the time, it was the exact truth. Care to revise your assessment?
Hence, fucking awesome.
But if the system had worked the way it was supposed to we would have had the results Monday night and Pete wouldn’t have claimed vicotry until and unless he’d actually won.
I don’t think Warren ever actually used the word “tie”. She said it was a close three way race. At worst, she’s guilty of choosing a politically convenient definition of “close”.
Also, it doesn’t really affect the point, but you’re wrong. Historically the media have ONLY reported the State delegate count, because that was the only information the IDP made available. Also, if they did emphasize the raw vote totals rather than the delegate count, Bernie would have been the clear winner.
I don’t actually believe that’s anything to be concerned about. But if, for the sake of argument, it is, then what’s to stop Pete from cheerfully doing likewise when he’s got some internal numbers and 0% verified results?
Do you think I misinterpreted “too close to call” as "three way tie "? I’ll see if I can find the video. In my memory, she was wearing something darker and speaking in front of the podium, so what you linked is not what I’m remembering.
I don’t know what you did, but you quoted her as saying something that did not match my memory, so I looked up the video and you were wrong, that’s all. If there’s another video of her saying something else that night, maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so.
You looked up a video. I didn’t say it was the concession/too close to call speech.
Eta: it’s possible I misconstrued a video of her talking about some other poll but it was on the news during the Iowa story. Like I said, I’ll look when I have more time.
Looks like the phone number the precinct chairs used to call in their results somehow got posted on 4chan. :mad:
Hey man, you can get all huffy if you want, but the fact is you quoted Warren as saying something and then gave an opinion that it was unflattering to her based on what you quoted. I then cited what she actually said on the night of the caucus - the full speech. Sooooo, until you find the video or transcript you were talking about, right now the only evidence in this thread shows that you misremembered or misquoted and your subsequent analysis is moot. If there’s additional evidence, go ahead and bring it and we can discuss it.
Because right now, the way I see it is that her response to the non-results was entirely factual and took a correct “let’s wait and see what the actual results are” approach that all of the candidates should have taken.
Why do you think I’m being huffy? I could be wrong. Relax.
I have a Super Tuesday Twitter bot that tracks the time series of win probabilities implied by Predict It markets for all the Super Tuesday states for Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren.
The story is pretty much the same in every state (except Vermont*) since February 3. Bumps for Bernie and Pete. Slumps for Joe and Liz.
- Vermont has always been perceived as a lock for Bernie and that hasn’t changed.
So is this election tampering?