US Election Thread - Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa

[Inigima]

5 hours ago, Shryke said:

Sanders finally stopped dicking around about it.

I think he did agree to Clinton's request to hold one of them in Flint, which is good.

I'm sorry, why do you think Sanders was dicking around about it?

[Inigima]

When you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/iowa-new-hampshire-gop-voters-poll.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Looks like Iowa was even closer than anyone thought.  A missing precinct just reported for Sanders:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/some-democratic-precinct-results-unaccounted/79682184/

[TrackerNeil]

 

6 hours ago, Triskan said:

Watching the replay of this CNN thing.  Sanders is incredibly sharp not just for a 74 year old.   I'm having some serious heart versus brain stuff going on.

Why? Vote in the primaries as you feel, as long as you vote Democratic in the general, right? 

For me, I have no such concern. By the time Pennsylvania votes (in April, I believe) this thing will likely be all settled. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

When you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/iowa-new-hampshire-gop-voters-poll.html

Wow, for people who should be educated (based on jobs) they are surprisingly prone to fear mongering and rather uninformed on many issues (or one sidedly informed (Fox news style)

[TrackerNeil]

This from Slate is something I've been thinking about a lot since Monday. I know we're all supposed to think that Trump is an Iowa loser and that Rubio is a winner, but let's keep in mind that Trump edged out Rubio amongst voters. The reality-show carnival barker came in second, beating out every plausible candidate in the race except Cruz (assuming one finds him plausible). That is not, in my book, a loss.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The Big Winner of the 2016 Race: Democratic Socialism

On Monday night, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont tested out his “radical idea”—a vision of American democratic socialism—with real American voters in Iowa. Numerically, the race was a dead heat, with Clinton barely inching ahead of Sanders. It was not, in other words, the kind of explosive surge that might produce its own groundswell of enthusiasm, a victory begetting more victories. But for a candidate who had been expected to be a non-threatening bit-player in the Democratic primary, the achievement was enormous. And for Americans hoping to see a way forward for democratic socialism on their home turf, it was even bigger.

“I think it’s overwhelmingly positive,” David Duhalde, deputy director of Democratic Socialists of America, told the New Republic of Sanders’s performance. “People were pleasantly surprised at how well Bernie did. I think just the tie is a victory in itself, and it just shows how much he overcame with pretty much just volunteers, a handful of union endorsements, and a really, really good message that really resonated with people.”

Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and has been pushing to “establish an openly democratic socialist presence in American communities and politics” since 1982. But Americans who identify with the broad category of socialism have faced an uphill battle over the last several decades. Since the Cold War, socialism has been a dirty word in American politics, used more often to smear public figures like Barack Obama and Pope Francis than to identify a real set of political values and programs. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 50 percent of Americans would have a hard time voting for a self-proclaimed socialist presidential candidate, the highest rate of disapproval in a slate of hypothetical candidate identities that included Jewish, gay or lesbian, a woman, black, and atheist.

But Sanders’s candidacy has shifted the public perception of socialism—at least notional socialism—somewhat. “He’s made it easier to identify as a socialist, and for people to organize as socialists,” Duhalde said. “Our new membership rates have doubled since he’s been running. So people are willing not just to identify as socialists, but to actually make that financial commitment.”

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Looks like Iowa was even closer than anyone thought.  A missing precinct just reported for Sanders:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/some-democratic-precinct-results-unaccounted/79682184/

Does anybody have the actual, raw vote numbers for the Democrat race in Iowa? CNN has them for Republicans, but for the Democrats there are only the delegate counts.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Does anybody have the actual, raw vote numbers for the Democrat race in Iowa? CNN has them for Republicans, but for the Democrats there are only the delegate counts.

Altherion,

I wonder why they don't want to release them?

[Fez]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

I wonder why they don't want to release them?

They're never released. Eventually some pretty accurate unofficial estimates come out based on the total number of voters info that is released and the officially reported state delegate count (which is separate from the convention delegate count). But that's it.

Its because the actual vote totals are basically irrelevant to the caucus system, all that's important is which precincts are won and how many delegates the precinct is worth. Iowa Democrats basically set up a 3-stage mini-version of the electoral college and they've never cared about raw vote totals. Its likely not even something that's been collected in a single place.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Altherion,

I wonder why they don't want to release them?

Just my guess, but probably because so many people don't fully understand how the cacaus works.  It was posted up thread that the number of counties won matters as opposed to just the raw votes.  People see raw vote numbers and get upset when their canidate doesn't win.

It was speculated that with Sanders doing well with the younger voters which tend to be consentrated in college towns, but leave lots of rural areas open to Clinton, giving her more counties and more delegates despite the raw numbers

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

This from Slate is something I've been thinking about a lot since Monday. I know we're all supposed to think that Trump is an Iowa loser and that Rubio is a winner, but let's keep in mind that Trump edged out Rubio amongst voters. The reality-show carnival barker came in second, beating out every plausible candidate in the race except Cruz (assuming one finds him plausible). That is not, in my book, a loss.

Eh, I disagree. Trump underperformed while Rubio overperformed, and Trump's lose hase dented his image. It's already showing. Last night Maddow had a new PPP poll post-Iowa that had Trump at 25%, which was down from 38% pre-Iowa.

[Altherion]

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

Its because the actual vote totals are basically irrelevant to the caucus system, all that's important is which precincts are won and how many delegates the precinct is worth. Iowa Democrats basically set up a 3-stage mini-version of the electoral college and they've never cared about raw vote totals. Its likely not even something that's been collected in a single place.

But the Republicans also have caucuses and their numbers are on CNN...

In any case, I think that in an election where the result is effectively a tie and the delegates are split very nearly evenly, it's important to know who the majority actually voted for.

[Fez]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

But the Republicans also have caucuses and their numbers are on CNN...

In any case, I think that in an election where the result is effectively a tie and the delegates are split very nearly evenly, it's important to know who the majority actually voted for.

Iowa Republicans have a different caucus system.

And why? The result is likely a 29-21 delegate split in favor of Clinton (she has the six unpledged super delegates), that's all that matters.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Eh, I disagree. Trump underperformed while Rubio overperformed, and Trump's lose hase dented his image. It's already showing. Last night Maddow had a new PPP poll post-Iowa that had Trump at 25%, which was down from 38% pre-Iowa.

He just needs to win NH and the conversation goes back to where it was- he has the clearest path to the nomination. His national numbers will bump back up. If he loses NH, his support will have been proven to be largely illusory and he's cooked, his numbers will plummet.

[Altherion]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

And why? The result is likely a 29-21 delegate split in favor of Clinton (she has the six unpledged super delegates), that's all that matters.

Because, unlike with the Electoral College, the above delegate split is almost completely irrelevant: the odds of it making a difference in the overall delegate count are negligible. The vote in Iowa is much more important in measuring the attitude of the people towards the candidates and a popular vote count would be a lot more useful for that.

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Because, unlike with the Electoral College, the above delegate split is almost completely irrelevant: the odds of it making a difference in the overall delegate count are negligible. The vote in Iowa is much more important in measuring the attitude of the people towards the candidates and a popular vote count would be a lot more useful for that.

Considering how little Iowa Democrats represent the national party, much whiter, much more liberal, I strongly disagree.

What's important is how their delagtes are voting, that's all. 

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, Inigima said:

I'm sorry, why do you think Sanders was dicking around about it?

Because he's been hammering the DNC about more debates for like 6 months now. He's been bitching that they are totally trying to bury the debates to coronate Clinton. Literally like a week before this he was all "I'll show up to any debate" on Maddow.

So along comes an independant group, they make a debate time, they get a moderator, they ask the candidates to come. Clinton says sure. O'Malley says sure. Sanders immediately starts hedging and making conditions. Then, when the other candidates agree to his conditions, he demands even MORE conditions.

He's dicking around like crazy over this all of a sudden. It's like he only wants to use the lack of debates as a fundraising pitch these days.

[Shryke]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

Considering how little Iowa Democrats represent the national party, much whiter, much more liberal, I strongly disagree.

What's important is how their delagtes are voting, that's all. 

There's so many layers between the actual voters and the final delegates at the Democratic Party convention that these numbers only matter for the narrative now and the end results are who the fuck knows. 

In 2012 Ron Paul's people "stole" almost all the GOP delegates by gaming the system. Was kinda funny and utterly meaningless.

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

This from Slate is something I've been thinking about a lot since Monday. I know we're all supposed to think that Trump is an Iowa loser and that Rubio is a winner, but let's keep in mind that Trump edged out Rubio amongst voters. The reality-show carnival barker came in second, beating out every plausible candidate in the race except Cruz (assuming one finds him plausible). That is not, in my book, a loss.

I don't think the loss is in the numbers, it's in how Trump, and his team, have chosen to react to the results.  Cruz stole the night is the mantra (and while it seems kinda clear Cruz and his team were playing very dirty pool), that's Trump's focus, rather than showing people the numbers and concentrating on Rubio's surge...