Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rippounet

US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected

Recommended Posts

Romney is from Utah, which while still red, is not really big on Trump, this vote does not hurt him at all.

So anyone still paying attention to Iowa? There seems to be a number of data errors and they all center around Bernie losing votes. I'm still not saying they are purposely rigging anything, but they sure are blundering in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Romney is from Utah, which while still red, is not really big on Trump, this vote does not hurt him at all.

So anyone still paying attention to Iowa? There seems to be a number of data errors and they all center around Bernie losing votes. I'm still not saying they are purposely rigging anything, but they sure are blundering in that direction.

It's been entirely consistent with the overall pattern. Buttigieg has had very good organization and got a lot of people out, and he had even better on second organization - he was a lot of people's second choice. Sanders stayed remarkably consistent from first to second, but turnout wasn't what he wanted and he's had trouble getting people to switch to him on second choice. Sanders will almost certainly get the popular vote but not the total delegate votes, which is pretty well tailor made to infuriate his base and is incredibly ironic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's been entirely consistent with the overall pattern. Buttigieg has had very good organization and got a lot of people out, and he had even better on second organization - he was a lot of people's second choice. Sanders stayed remarkably consistent from first to second, but turnout wasn't what he wanted and he's had trouble getting people to switch to him on second choice. Sanders will almost certainly get the popular vote but not the total delegate votes, which is pretty well tailor made to infuriate his base and is incredibly ironic. 

I'm not saying that they are inflating Pete, I'm saying that they have been fucking up Bernie's numbers. In Polk County they were reporting 21 SDE that should have gone to Sanders for Deval Patrick. They have since corrected it, but this is still sketchy that they reported this info in the first place. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't might as well make sure they got it right the first time around. As I said, not malicious just incompetent.

Pete went up about 8 points (19%) and Bernie is up 1 (25%) in NH, with Biden losing 7 points (11%) and Warren dropping 1 (11%).

Edited by GrimTuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders will almost certainly get the popular vote but not the total delegate votes, which is pretty well tailor made to infuriate his base and is incredibly ironic.

How does that even work? As I write this, CNN says that with 97% of the vote counted, Sanders has 44,753 votes and leads Buttigieg by 2,518 votes which amounts to roughly 2% of the overall number of votes cast in the final tally (in the initial one, Sanders' lead is roughly twice as large). However, on the State Delegates tab, Buttigieg leads Sanders 26.2% to 26.1% (CBS says the same thing). Now, Buttigieg's margin of 0.1% is razor thin even compared to the rather small 3% of the vote that still needs to be counted so it's possible that Sanders gets ahead, but regardless of what happens, they'll be very nearly tied. If he keeps the lead, does Buttigieg somehow come out of this with more delegates than Sanders? Google shows them getting an equal number, but its sum of delegates does not add up to 41 so I don't know where the additional ones go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Altherion said:

How does that even work? As I write this, CNN says that with 97% of the vote counted, Sanders has 44,753 votes and leads Buttigieg by 2,518 votes which amounts to roughly 2% of the overall number of votes cast in the final tally (in the initial one, Sanders' lead is roughly twice as large). However, on the State Delegates tab, Buttigieg leads Sanders 26.2% to 26.1% (CBS says the same thing). Now, Buttigieg's margin of 0.1% is razor thin even compared to the rather small 3% of the vote that still needs to be counted so it's possible that Sanders gets ahead, but regardless of what happens, they'll be very nearly tied. If he keeps the lead, does Buttigieg somehow come out of this with more delegates than Sanders? Google shows them getting an equal number, but its sum of delegates does not add up to 41 so I don't know where the additional ones go.

Eh. Sometimes the person with the fewer amount of votes wins.

What the hell you gonna do :dunno: ?

Edited by A True Kaniggit
fewer seems more correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If he keeps the lead, does Buttigieg somehow come out of this with more delegates than Sanders? Google shows them getting an equal number, but its sum of delegates does not add up to 41 so I don't know where the additional ones go.

How it works is deeply, deeply stupid, and is an extra special stupid fun thing about the Iowa caucus that's related to the second delegate switch. Basically what it tells you is that there are a bunch of areas where Sanders wasn't viable and his supporters had to go to someone else, and he didn't make up for those losses in other places where other people had to be marked nonviable and move to him. 

As to the split, the way it works is proportional, where the delegates are given out and split to everyone that got 15% or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking on it though, a couple things come to mind.

Either:

Clinton was so absurdly unpopular that literally anyone running against her in Iowa could have gotten, like, 40% or so

or

Sanders somehow is barely squeaking by a mayor of a small town despite getting nearly 50% of the votes in 2016 which bodes ill for his overall popularity and his ability to convert others to his cause

Could be both too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think that Biden and Warren both missed their chance by not running in 2016. Either of them could have walked away with the nomination, since it turned out Clinton was a paper tiger. Plus, Warren running in 2016 would have meant that Sanders doesn't run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton wasn't a 'paper tiger'. She beat an unexpectedly substantial opponent in Sanders, and won the popular vote nationwide. That's not to say that Warren in particular might not have done well against her if she'd run, but let's not get carried away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Clinton wasn't a 'paper tiger'. She beat an unexpectedly substantial opponent in Sanders, and won the popular vote nationwide. That's not to say that Warren in particular might not have done well against her if she'd run, but let's not get carried away. 

Or, she barely squeaked by an outsider candidate with zero support among elected party officials (who also started out with almost zero name recognition), and lost the general election to the least popular major-party candidate in history. I shudder to think how Rubio-Clinton (or Kasich-Clinton, or Walker-Clinton...) election would have looked like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Or, she barely squeaked by an outsider candidate with zero support among elected party officials (who also started out with almost zero name recognition), and lost the general election to the least popular major-party candidate in history. I shudder to think how Rubio-Clinton (or Kasich-Clinton, or Walker-Clinton...) election would have looked like.

Sanders 'started out with almost zero name recognition'? Even I had heard of him, and I'm not from the US. 

There's a very good argument that Clinton would have done considerably better against a more 'regular' Republican opponent such as Rubio or Kasich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, mormont said:

Sanders 'started out with almost zero name recognition'? Even I had heard of him, and I'm not from the US. 

There's a very good argument that Clinton would have done considerably better against a more 'regular' Republican opponent such as Rubio or Kasich. 

Here's a poll from April 2015, showing that 58% of Democrats had never heard of Sanders: https://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/most-democrats-see-a-good-chance-of-supporting-clinton-many-possible-rivals-are-not-well-known/

Another poll from March 2015 showed 24% name recognition (lowest in the presidential field) and zero net favorability: https://news.gallup.com/poll/181949/clinton-favorability-familiarity-bests-2016-contenders.aspx

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Here's a poll from April 2015, showing that 58% of Democrats had never heard of Sanders: https://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/most-democrats-see-a-good-chance-of-supporting-clinton-many-possible-rivals-are-not-well-known/

Another poll from March 2015 showed 24% name recognition (lowest in the presidential field) and zero net favorability: https://news.gallup.com/poll/181949/clinton-favorability-familiarity-bests-2016-contenders.aspx

So... 24% name recognition among all voters, and 42% among Democrats - not zero?

Since the second poll doesn't list O'Malley, and O'Malley has lower recognition in the first, I think it's technically arguable whether Sanders had the lowest in the field (and he does appear to be pretty much tied with Webb even in the second poll). But I get that he didn't have as high recognition as Warren, which definitely goes to the original point that perhaps that was her moment. 

Still, I think it's very exaggerated to describe Clinton as a 'paper tiger'. She was a substantial candidate. I said at the time and still feel that it would have been better for her to face more opposition in the primary, though. This time around, there's certainly been more of a competition, but the remaining field of candidates, well... it's been said by many that it's not inspiring, and I would agree. The same can be said of the field the Republicans put forward in 2016 - lots of candidates, few were any good. It's reasonable to say that if this is what modern primaries look like, it doesn't reflect well on the parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Altherion said:

If he keeps the lead, does Buttigieg somehow come out of this with more delegates than Sanders? Google shows them getting an equal number, but its sum of delegates does not add up to 41 so I don't know where the additional ones go.

Looks like Buttigieg and Sanders are gonna come out of this tied in terms of pledged delegates at 11.  In terms of "SDE's" Buttigieg only has a negligible 4 point lead right now, and all we're waiting on with results is from the "satellite" caucuses in the first (congressional) district.  Based on Bernie's advantage/performance in those contests, even the SDE's may end up being a tie.  But regardless, they're gonna translate to a tie in the pledged count.  

I agree with you that if you google "Iowa results" right now the AP source they're using has to be off.  The 11 each number sounds about right - Sanders and Buttigieg are both at about 26% of SDE's and 11 is ~ a quarter of the overall pledged delegates.  The additional ones will go first more to Warren than what it's saying on google right now, and then both Biden and Klobuchar will pick up the rest as well - whereas google/AP has them at zero at the moment.  I suspect the reason for this discrepancy is because the "at large" delegates have yet to be distributed - gotta wait for the results to be finalized before doing so. 

ETA:  Yeah, looking into it, the google results are only reporting the "district" level delegates, which are 27 - that conforms to the 27 they have between Buttigieg (11), Sanders (11), and Warren (5).  Then there are 9 "at large" delegates and 5 "PLEO" delegates for Iowa that add up the their total 41 pledged delegates.  Both of those are gonna be distributed proportionally.  I honestly forget if you need to hit the 15% threshold statewide in order to get those or not in Iowa - the rules vary by state - so maybe Klobuchar will get some or maybe she won't since she's at ~ 12% statewide.  Either way, you can do the math there and the pledged delegate results are gonna be about the same distribution as what you see right now - just with at least Biden going from zero to 2 or 3.

Anyway, all that shit is inside baseball and doesn't ultimately matter.  The importance of Iowa is momentum, which was curtailed with the fuck ups Monday night.  Even in a regular cycle, any possible pledged delegate difference between Buttigieg and Sanders is rather trivial - they would and should be described as co-winners.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Thinking on it though, a couple things come to mind.

Either:

Clinton was so absurdly unpopular that literally anyone running against her in Iowa could have gotten, like, 40% or so

or

Sanders somehow is barely squeaking by a mayor of a small town despite getting nearly 50% of the votes in 2016 which bodes ill for his overall popularity and his ability to convert others to his cause

Could be both too!

I think it shows just how weak a candidate Biden is. Buttigieg obviously capitalized on the Senator candidates being stuck in D.C., but Biden couldn't (Klobuchar should be pretty pissed because I'm sure she could have picked up some votes at Biden's expense).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mormont said:

Sanders 'started out with almost zero name recognition'? Even I had heard of him, and I'm not from the US. 

There's a very good argument that Clinton would have done considerably better against a more 'regular' Republican opponent such as Rubio or Kasich. 

It is absolutely fair to say Sanders started with zero name recognition, and to those who did know him, it seemed like a joke. This frumpy guy with messy hair was running?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Here's a poll from April 2015, showing that 58% of Democrats had never heard of Sanders: https://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/campaign-2016-modest-interest-high-stakes/most-democrats-see-a-good-chance-of-supporting-clinton-many-possible-rivals-are-not-well-known/

Another poll from March 2015 showed 24% name recognition (lowest in the presidential field) and zero net favorability: https://news.gallup.com/poll/181949/clinton-favorability-familiarity-bests-2016-contenders.aspx

 

Here's a fun daily show clip dealing with Bernie first announcing in 2016.

Either way, I think Iowa is good for Bernie, and NH and Nevada are likely going to create huge momentum for him. What's after that? South Carolina? I predict he'll crush there, and by then, he'll have gone ahead and given all pragmatic moderates notice to stay home in November so they can craft their lies later about how they did hold their noses, and they just don't know how Trump got re-elected. 

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DMC said:

Eh, according to Morning Consult, he's still +13, and just above majority - 51% approval.  That should be just fine for an incumbent.  In comparison, Tim Kaine is at +11 and 45%, and I have zero worries about him winning his next election.  West Virginia is different than Virginia, no doubt, but I wouldn't be scared, or even too concerned, by the numbers if I was Manchin.  Definitely not worth inviting the wrath of leadership and risking the money they can provide you.

The bolded leaves a lot to be discussed. West Virginia is the most bizarre state in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Here's a fun daily show clip dealing with Bernie first announcing in 2016.

Either way, I think Iowa is good for Bernie, and NH and Nevada are likely going to create huge momentum for him. What's after that? South Carolina? I predict he'll crush there, and by then, he'll have gone ahead and given all pragmatic moderates notice to stay home in November so they can craft their lies later about how they did hold their noses, and they just don't know how Trump got re-elected. 

Actually, I think it would be kinda bad for Sanders if he sweeps NH, NV, and SC. Because if he did that, it proves that the other candidates are non-viable and gives Bloomberg his opportunity to unite everyone who doesn't want Sanders. Whereas if Sanders does well, but doesn't dominate, than some of the other candidates stick around, Bloomberg doesn't get his shot, and things stay divided. Sanders instead slowly racks up a delegate lead, much like Trump in 2016, and around April everyone realizes that there's no stopping him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...