|
Post by robeiae on Feb 5, 2020 9:23:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 5, 2020 11:59:45 GMT -5
More proof that the entire "caucus" system is a big clusterfuck and that they need to switch to a popular vote primary. RCP is reporting that Sanders is in the lead because of votes (if you can call people sitting in gym bleachers a "vote") but that Buttigieg has more delegates (somehow). But most other sites are reporting the lead by delegate count and not vote, showing Buttigieg in the lead. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.htmlI don't even understand how fewer "votes" equals more delegates, then again Clinton won the popular vote by roughly 3 million votes and still lost, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 5, 2020 13:27:40 GMT -5
It's been stuck on 71% ALL DAY LONG.
Conspiracy theory: the DNC is holding back the rest of the results because they'll show Biden drop into 5th, behind Klobuchar. The longer they delay--so the theory goes--the less the final tallies will hurt Biden nationally, since we'll be knee deep in New Hampshire soon.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 5, 2020 20:33:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 5, 2020 21:45:12 GMT -5
More proof that the entire "caucus" system is a big clusterfuck and that they need to switch to a popular vote primary. I'm disappointed the Iowa caucus is even legal, as it means Iowans who aren't physically present in the state can't participate. But I guess technically the DNC can pretty much do what they want, right?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 6, 2020 9:09:23 GMT -5
well you know, that is--in my view--the real problem with the primary system: the primaries are run by the two parties, who are independent, private orgs, yet States essentially service them, because of course state politicians are the party faithful.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 6, 2020 9:20:14 GMT -5
On Iowa: I don't know what to believe, anymore. I'm seeing some claims of absolute vote shifting, where reported numbers at the district level are getting changed at the state level (to Sanders' detriment, of course). The Bernie Bros are often full of shit, however, so this might all be nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 6, 2020 9:31:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2020 13:11:54 GMT -5
Dem debate in New Hampshire:
I only watched some of it, but I don't get the Sanders-love I'm seeing post-debate. He wasn't awful, but nor was he impressive. He's a one-trick socialist pony who says the same thing over and over again, regardless of the question he gets asked. Buttigieg was, I thought, pretty good. So was Klobuchar. Warren was Warren. Apparently she has yet another fucking plan to unveil. Who's advising her? Biden wasn't good, imo. And he's looking worse, week to week.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 8, 2020 14:06:57 GMT -5
Yeah, it's weird to see the Dem media somewhat trash Buttigieg recently and turn more to supporting Sanders. They've had it out for him since 2015 or so, but suddenly are backing off the hate and kind of puffing him up after Iowa. Makes them seem a bit like ambulance chasers, in that they'll quickly pivot to shifting whoever's in front, like the pedantic sycophants they often are.
But, I agree, Sanders' entire platform for the past half-decade (at least) has been a noun, a verb, and "millionaires and billionaires."
From the parts I watched, I thought Buttigieg did a mostly good job. Klobuchar got in some good shots too. I even thought Yang did better this time around but, yet again, he was pretty much ignored by the moderators. Every single debate he's been in, he has been asked significantly fewer questions, given significantly fewer chances to respond, and has been allowed significantly fewer opportunities to speak. It's not just "a little" less; it's dramatic and consistent in every debate, and this is on top of the (seemingly intentional) media blackout on him for most of last year. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but given how we know for a fact (from Wikileaks) that the DNC and progressive press has purposely tried to sabotage Bernie, it really makes me wonder if they're doing the same to Yang.
If Warren and Biden don't do well in New Hampshire, that negative momentum will likely follow them to South Carolina. So, if NH doesn't go all that well for either of them, that might be a sign that they're on the way to being done (though not a guarantee, of course). It'd be a bit odd for them to tank in Iowa, then NH, then one of them suddenly coming in top 2 in SC. By then, their campaigns will be dead men/women walking going into Super Tuesday three days later, and I don't see the momentum suddenly shifting in their directions by that time.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 8, 2020 20:31:00 GMT -5
Sanders, Warren, AOC, and all other so called socialist politicians have one especially glaring problem that im surprised isn't brought up more often.... they have all demonstrated extreme upward mobility in terms of social and financial standing under the current system which they all claim is impossible.
For the debate, Klobuchar was very solid. But she's been very solid in all the debates and I'm sure she'll continue to be largely ignored for...reasons. Warren comes off more and more fake each debate. Whatever the hot topic of the week is she is going to jump on it. Biden mistook a need to show some fire for just yelling. His line about how he knows the first names of foreign leaders was pretty sad. And he really needs to stop pretending like he's been at the forefront of all major legislation for the past four decades. I like Yang, but the establishment has already decided how well he's going to do. Sanders, as has been mentioned, is a one-trick pony. If he wins the primary I don't think he has a chance against Trump. He'll run on how shitty economic life is for most people, but I don't think the data or perception of the average American will align with that. Biden's comment about a Bernie presidency being DOA because less than a third of the House or Senate align behind his policies was completely accurate. Mayor Pete was solid I thought. I've seen a lot of commentators try to point out how weak he was, but I didn't see it. My preferences among the candidates would be Klobuchar first, mayor Pete second. All the others can go pound sand.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 8, 2020 21:56:47 GMT -5
Mayor Pete was solid I thought. I've seen a lot of commentators try to point out how weak he was, but I didn't see it. That seems to be part of the establishment's plan. He's in some ways a younger, smarter Biden. They don't want that. They want Biden, the walking stroke victim because he's familiar and status quo. Or, they want Woke-as-Fuck Warren "because intersectional feminism." So, they're gonna shit all over Buttigieg and Sanders until Biden and Warren eventually drop out. Then the MSM will do like it always does; suddenly change its tune about how "energetic and optimistic" Buttigieg is or how "progressive and populist" Sanders is, as if they didn't spend the past year trashing and trying to sabotage them both.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2020 8:53:52 GMT -5
I think it's interesting that Buttigieg is catching a lot of flak from the same sources that seemed to be all goo-goo over Beto. What is it about Beto that made him acceptable where Mayor Pete is not? Is it "because gay" (to borrow from Michael Scott)?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 9, 2020 9:04:32 GMT -5
And this is rough:
Smacks of desperation, imo. And as an independent voter who isn't voting for Trump, I gotta say that using the ACA, the Recovery Act, and the Iran deal to highlight Biden's accomplishments is...well, those are the wrong things to use.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 9, 2020 12:14:16 GMT -5
I agree. It's pretty brutal and does reek of desperation. But I'm not sure it'll actually be effective in the long run. And, after he and Warren (along with her surrogate, Clinton) have engaged in all of these character attacks, I doubt anyone (voters included) will consider any potential endorsements from them to be very credible. They seem to be pissing away any political capital they could use to leverage support for the future nominee (it ain't gonna be one of them), which only hurts the party in the long run.
|
|