Martell Spy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Sanders near tie is important because it increases the chance he'll have a long term impact on the Democratic party. I agree he'll likely lose long term, but I'm somewhat surprised it's this hard fought so far. I saw the polls tightening, but they aren't always realiable. I still expected a stronger Clinton win. I also expected Trump to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Dems should just release the vote totals ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Don't hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Eh, that's kind of Trump's default position, isn't it? I'm half surprised he didn't call himself a loser. Plus, he lost by 3.3%, not .3% I mean, if Sanders had won half the coin flips he would have won. It was that close. 7 minutes ago, Commodore said: Dems should just release the vote totals ffs. It wouldn't surprise me if Sanders actually had more supporters. There have been multiple reports indicating that Sanders suffered from having his support too concentrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Well, Trump's loss can be somewhat explained by the evangelical votes. Cruz does the Santorum 2012 thing, and gathers the "Jesus votes." I think Trump's Corinthians two gaffe might have cost him dearly. To the very least it revealed the emperor had no church clothes. Hindsight is 20/20. Iowa is not that important for the GOP ticket anyway. When was the last time the Iowa winner won the nomination for the GOP? New Hampshire will be interesting. Thus far Trump has tried to emulate Reagen's nomination campaign. Skipping the final debate and risking to possibly lose Iowa etc. So it will be interesting to see if that gamble works out for Trump, too. Let's see who drops next. Probably Christie and Kasich if they can't get a result there. If Rubio gets the establishment votes again, then it's time for Jeb to throw the towel. On a seperate note, does anybody remember the Stephen King Novel The Dead Zone or the movie with Christopher Walken? Anybody else feels like Trump is the Republicans Greg Stillson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Notone said: Iowa is not that important for the GOP ticket anyway. When was the last time the Iowa winner won the nomination for the GOP? Obama and GWB won Iowa, lost NH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: I mean, if Sanders had won half the coin flips he would have won. It was that close. That's actually not true, because (big surprise!) it's a bit more convoluted than that. Clinton won county delegates with the coin flips. County delegates are roughly translated into the state delegate tally we see, which produces the ultimate national delegate estimates. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/ Similar situations played out at various precincts across the state, but had an extremely small effect on the overall outcome, in which Clinton won 49.9 percent of statewide delegate equivalents, while Sanders won 49.5 percent. The delegates that were decided by coin flips were delegates to the party's county conventions, of which there are thousands selected across the state from 1,681 separate precincts. They were not the statewide delegate equivalents that are reported in the final results. The statewide delegate equivalents that determine the outcome on caucus night are derived from the county-level delegates, but are aggregated across the state and weighted in a manner that makes individual county delegate selections at a handful of precincts count for a tiny fraction of the ultimate result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gasp of Many Reeds Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 19 minutes ago, Notone said: Well, Trump's loss can be somewhat explained by the evangelical votes. Cruz does the Santorum 2012 thing, and gathers the "Jesus votes." I think Trump's Corinthians two gaffe might have cost him dearly. To the very least it revealed the emperor had no church clothes. Hindsight is 20/20. Iowa is not that important for the GOP ticket anyway. When was the last time the Iowa winner won the nomination for the GOP? New Hampshire will be interesting. Thus far Trump has tried to emulate Reagen's nomination campaign. Skipping the final debate and risking to possibly lose Iowa etc. So it will be interesting to see if that gamble works out for Trump, too. Let's see who drops next. Probably Christie and Kasich if they can't get a result there. If Rubio gets the establishment votes again, then it's time for Jeb to throw the towel. On a seperate note, does anybody remember the Stephen King Novel The Dead Zone or the movie with Christopher Walken? Anybody else feels like Trump is the Republicans Greg Stillson? Yeah, Trump certainly has a Stillson air about him - "The missiles are flying, hallelujah!". That said, that sort of air's par for the course on the Republican right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This is caucusing? http://www.c-span.org/video/?403824-1/iowa-democratic-caucus-meeting# Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, Bonesy said: This is caucusing? http://www.c-span.org/video/?403824-1/iowa-democratic-caucus-meeting# Madness. non secret ballot like union voting, smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Fury Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 A lot of what is being called a spin here is due to most Americans not understanding how caucus works. I live in a caucus state, and have attended every year I've been of age. The coin flips are basically not going to matter, those are delegates to the county conventions, which are not equivalent to state delegates which in turn are not equivalent to national convention delegates. Iowa is not a winner take all state, and OMalley got two of their theoretical national delegates. However- those delegates are under no obligation to vote for omalley in the county caucus and the state of they become a delegate for that or the national if they become a delegate for that. Unless the party rules specifically state otherwise, delegates can vote for whoever and the numbers do shuffle a small amount because the conventions other than the national are NOT FUN. Most precincts can't even get volunteers to send their full amount of delegates to the county conventions at all much less ones who support the right person. So, those O'Malley delegates very well might swing either way or nowhere but they are enough to change the result. Plus, with the way the delegates are chosen and move through the system there could be a one delegate discrepancy by the time it gets to the national convention. So, without the release of straight up popular vote numbers we don't know the exact number of delegates each has until the state convention. So it is accurate for Clinton to call it a win, it is accurate for Sanders to call it a tie, and it may end up accurate to call it a Sanders win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm getting dizzy from all the spinning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 46 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: That's actually not true, because (big surprise!) it's a bit more convoluted than that. Clinton won county delegates with the coin flips. County delegates are roughly translated into the state delegate tally we see, which produces the ultimate national delegate estimates. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/ Wow. OK, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: It wasn't like she had a resounding victory. There is a 2 delegate difference, and the final vote was 49.9% to 49.6%. Both sides' spin is fair. The news just mentioned that there have already been superdelegates pledged and the actual count is Clinton: 385; Sanders 29 That accounts for about half of the available superdelegates. I find this very interesting. (something I don't think I had thought about it before) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 True. But delegates can and do change their minds, even super ones. This is a great read: https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb5ccc#.3l81qwe9l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 5 hours ago, Martell Spy said: Sanders near tie is important because it increases the chance he'll have a long term impact on the Democratic party. I agree he'll likely lose long term, but I'm somewhat surprised it's this hard fought so far. I saw the polls tightening, but they aren't always realiable. I still expected a stronger Clinton win. I also expected Trump to win. He certainly may push the overall party more towards embracing more economically leftist positions. We can hope anyway. If nothing else, maybe he'll help sink DWS and we can all rejoice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 4 hours ago, Kay Fury said: A lot of what is being called a spin here is due to most Americans not understanding how caucus works. I live in a caucus state, and have attended every year I've been of age. The coin flips are basically not going to matter, those are delegates to the county conventions, which are not equivalent to state delegates which in turn are not equivalent to national convention delegates. Iowa is not a winner take all state, and OMalley got two of their theoretical national delegates. However- those delegates are under no obligation to vote for omalley in the county caucus and the state of they become a delegate for that or the national if they become a delegate for that. Unless the party rules specifically state otherwise, delegates can vote for whoever and the numbers do shuffle a small amount because the conventions other than the national are NOT FUN. Most precincts can't even get volunteers to send their full amount of delegates to the county conventions at all much less ones who support the right person. So, those O'Malley delegates very well might swing either way or nowhere but they are enough to change the result. Plus, with the way the delegates are chosen and move through the system there could be a one delegate discrepancy by the time it gets to the national convention. So, without the release of straight up popular vote numbers we don't know the exact number of delegates each has until the state convention. So it is accurate for Clinton to call it a win, it is accurate for Sanders to call it a tie, and it may end up accurate to call it a Sanders win. Or maybe it'll be like 2012 and Ron Paul will end up with almost all the delegates despite the results because caucuses are fucking looney toons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Bonesy said: True. But delegates can and do change their minds, even super ones. This is a great read: https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb5ccc#.3l81qwe9l As we learned in 2008, the superdelegates aren't going to overturn the results of a primary or a caucus. And, yes, normal delegates can indeed change their minds, but I don't see why it is any more likely that Clinton delegates will change their vote than Sanders delegates. I think it's probably more productive to assume that all delegates will vote as they have pledged and go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Fury Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 No, but like I explained, because delegates are chosen by volunteer basis you won't necessarily get the same numbers even if nobody changes their mind. Plenty of people can't or don't want to spend their Saturday at the county or state convention, and in order for your precinct to send its full share of delegates mostly you have to take who is willing to go (I have never been to a caucus where we got our full number of delegates to agree to go, much less actually attend after the fact). So, that's going to make some sort of difference because it's not exact math we're talking about. Plus, O'Malley's delegates will very likely not be attending a boring several hour county or state convention just to vote for a guy who has already dropped out. The actual number of delegates they get at the national convention is something we won't know until after the Iowa state convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I gave no opinion as to the likelihood of them changing their minds, just said that they could. Some people sure are selective about what "we" did or did not learn in 2008 and how relevant 8 year old data is.[emoji6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.