DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Yeah. It was a typo that I edited perhaps right before you saw it. But for the record, 500 votes is a metric shit ton. As a point of comparison- the precinct I was at has 283 total voters.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
Yeah. It was a typo that I edited perhaps right before you saw it. But for the record, 500 votes is a metric shit ton. As a point of comparison- the precinct I was at has 283 total voters.
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
So when the vote went from 71% to 85% Bernie was suddenly behind by 1000ish in the popular vote. The the DNC gets called out by the caucus chair and says there was a mistake... it goes to 86% and Bernie is back up by 1000ish....
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
So...in the time it took me to point out a mistake that didn’t make sense, the person who made it noticed on their own, and issued a correction.
This statement by the white house is beyond words. Wow.
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
NYT has a great explainer on the vast anti-Sanders conspiracy unfolding in Iowa:
www.nytimes.com
The upshot is that completely aside from the technical difficulties, caucuses are useless, arcane, and needlessly complicated procedures with numerous opportunities for error. And this year they’re even more complex because of the new rules. Those rules, intended to provide transparency but in reality causing even more distrust in the process because they’re even more difficult to follow accurately, are in place at the insistence of...
drumroll please
...Hillary Clinton!
Nah, just kidding, it was Bernie Sanders.
Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies (Published 2020)
The mistakes do not appear intentional, but they raise questions about whether there will ever be a completely precise accounting.
The upshot is that completely aside from the technical difficulties, caucuses are useless, arcane, and needlessly complicated procedures with numerous opportunities for error. And this year they’re even more complex because of the new rules. Those rules, intended to provide transparency but in reality causing even more distrust in the process because they’re even more difficult to follow accurately, are in place at the insistence of...
drumroll please
...Hillary Clinton!
Nah, just kidding, it was Bernie Sanders.
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
NYT has a great explainer on the vast anti-Sanders conspiracy unfolding in Iowa:
Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies (Published 2020)
The mistakes do not appear intentional, but they raise questions about whether there will ever be a completely precise accounting.
The upshot is that completely aside from the technical difficulties, caucuses are useless, arcane, and needlessly complicated procedures with numerous opportunities for error. And this year they’re even more complex because of the new rules. Those rules, intended to provide transparency but in reality causing even more distrust in the process because they’re even more difficult to follow accurately, are in place at the insistence of...
drumroll please
...Hillary Clinton!
Nah, just kidding, it was Bernie Sanders.
Bernie wanted more transparency- things like the popular vote recorded. He did not push for a malfunctioning app to be used instead of the phone call system that has been utilized for years. Oh. And who was that app created by?
Drumroll please...
Former staff of Hilary Clinton
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
If the app is down and the votes are being tabulated manually, can it be blamed for the mistakes being identified by NYT?
The app is a problem for sure. The state party obviously thought (rightly or wrongly) that it was worthwhile to seek out a tool to automate some of the more demanding aspects of the new rules. Its development, testing, training, implementation, and reliability are all worth examining. But it's also a convenient scapegoat for the process failures of a dumb-to-the-point-of-being-undemocratic system for selecting a candidate.
As NYT points out, under the old method, discrepancies were hard to identify but relatively easy to fix. Here, they're easier to identify, but it still takes time to fix them, because it requires a lot of assessment around exactly where the errors lay. I don't begrudge Bernie's campaign at all for seeking transparency in the process. I do think it's disappointing to see the howling on Twitter about dirty tricks and an unjust system when the very demands for transparency are part of what is causing the problem. Own it; trust the process. A simple statement would go a long way: "We've known since 2016 that changing the way the Iowa caucuses operate would be challenging, and it's certainly frustrating that this delay has occurred. But we have faith that the safeguards and transparencies built into the system will ultimately provide us with more accurate data that we can all have confidence in." Selling the people that if you're not winning, it must be because the system is somehow disenfranchising you, may end up being a path to victory, but it does nothing to strengthen the institution of democracy.
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Did I overreact yesterday? Probably. I had also spent the prior 48 hours defending the integrity of the final count and being complementary of me experiences with Pete supporters in Iowa (among other things) on social media.
But it's also been clear from the moment that this fiasco started that they were holding off the precincts that they knew Bernie did really well in until the very end-- all while Pete spent two days claiming victory and Bernie / Warren acted like class acts. And now, just as the sattelite caucuses that Bernie mopped up were set to be released and hand victory to Bernie, Tom Perez is coming out and calling for a halt to the process / recount. NOT after the Blackhawk county fiasco, you'll note.
It's the DNC, between 2016 and now this, that is throwing a hand grenade into a belief in democracy in this country. This tweet sums it up:
"I've never seen a more blatant example of concentrated money rigging an election than Iowa Dems releasing a random percentage of the vote after self-dealing grifters tied to Clinton and Pete fucked up an election, followed by the NYT, WaPost, CNN, and MSNBC announcing 'partial results.'" --and now, right before releasing the final satellite caucus results that would have put Bernie over the top, even with all the shady BS that was being pulled, Tom Perez announces that they're going to stop and start over and need a few more days to release the final results. I'm actually fucking laughing. What a bunch of sinister and contemptible bare-faced goons these clowns are."
- Matt Stoller
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Also, there is this:
What's happening: Iowa's Party has allocated SDEs to satellites (relatively) straightforwardly: proportionally based on raw turnout DNC is interpreting the rules in a way that'd somewhat (not entirely) flatten that distribution, making it less directly linked to raw turnout. In other words they are intentionally undermining the fact that Bernie spent a huge portion of his organizing on maxing turnout at sattelite caucuses that were on a sliding scale based on turnout.
For example, my brother and I spent 10 hours in 20 degree weather trying to ensure that 200 kids would turn out at a particular location because the # of delegates for that location was worth 4-9 delegates on a sliding scale. Bernie wound up earning 8 out of 8 delegates because we came up 4 people short (of 200) with a turnout of 196.
And now the DNC is trying to lower the worth of those 8 delegates. But that's the more subtle type of gamesmanship that I expected from the DNC in their fight against Bernie and would have shrugged my shoulders at. As opposed to the rest of this nonsense.
What's happening: Iowa's Party has allocated SDEs to satellites (relatively) straightforwardly: proportionally based on raw turnout DNC is interpreting the rules in a way that'd somewhat (not entirely) flatten that distribution, making it less directly linked to raw turnout. In other words they are intentionally undermining the fact that Bernie spent a huge portion of his organizing on maxing turnout at sattelite caucuses that were on a sliding scale based on turnout.
For example, my brother and I spent 10 hours in 20 degree weather trying to ensure that 200 kids would turn out at a particular location because the # of delegates for that location was worth 4-9 delegates on a sliding scale. Bernie wound up earning 8 out of 8 delegates because we came up 4 people short (of 200) with a turnout of 196.
And now the DNC is trying to lower the worth of those 8 delegates. But that's the more subtle type of gamesmanship that I expected from the DNC in their fight against Bernie and would have shrugged my shoulders at. As opposed to the rest of this nonsense.
Last edited:
US preacher Franklin Graham dropped by every UK tour venue
A planned UK tour by US evangelist Franklin Graham is in question after every venue booked by the preacher canceled planned appearances, following an outcry over his homophobic and Islamophobic comments.
www.cnn.com
So, Franklin Grahm, a US evangelist preacher who was going to have a 7 city tour of the UK has now had all 7 venues he had originally booked cancel on him.
They have cut ties with him because of public outcry in the UK over Grahm's past homophobic sermons and the fact that he has called Islam "evil".
Kind of bad when the religious conservatives of the US don't align with the rest of the world.
The DNC is calling for a recanvass in Iowa? Is this the same thing as a recount?
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I didn't mean for any my comments to be an indictment of you personally.
I started to write a longer post, but it didn't go anywhere. We're all tired. Any one of these candidates is enough of a decent human being that I wouldn't be ashamed of them occupying the office of president for a few years. That's where I'm at: tired and ashamed, and sort of sick of the venomous clawing at each other that all of this inspires.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
IDK I’ll vote for if my arm is twisted, but Biden has a history of this Burisma stuff going back to credit card companies before the 2008 crash. His sons have had it easy. Those Bankruptcy law he pushed for did a lot of damage.
Sonicpharmacist
Well-Known Member
A million times this. I’m tired of all the infighting. I haven’t completely decided on a candidate, though I do have a couple I like better than others. They ALL have good qualities, and they ALL have not-so-good qualities. That being said, I will vote for any single one of them come November. If Warren wins the nomination, I will support her. Same said for Sanders, Buttigieg, Biden, Bloomberg, and even Tulsi. Any one of them. BUT if Biden (or anyone else) wins? Then I will be vociferous in my anger at their policies.
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
If there’s one thing they say about the Biden family, it’s that they always had it easy.
TrainFan73
Frothy
Wtf, he won and he’s still attacking people involved including people in his administration.
From the Washington Post:
he also jokingly stated that he could shoot someone in the street and get away with it, only to pretty much do the political equivalent of just that. It’s not a joke and we have to stop taking for granted that what would seem like a joke from rational people are not such from him.
I’m embarassed that he’s our “leader”
From the Washington Post:
he also jokingly stated that he could shoot someone in the street and get away with it, only to pretty much do the political equivalent of just that. It’s not a joke and we have to stop taking for granted that what would seem like a joke from rational people are not such from him.
I’m embarassed that he’s our “leader”
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
I'm absolutely shocked...
...that the media reported on that as if it were a surprise. It is literally the only thing I could be certain he would do with the remainder of his presidency.
I'm starting to see Trump 2020 campaign stuff around Salem.
Everyone who is displaying Trump 2020 stuff is going overboard making their display loud and clear.
Earlier this week I saw nice new Ford 150 with at least 20 bumper stickers between the tailgate and the back cab windows.
The biggest key message I have been seeing is people are not identifying as either Democrat or Republican, but rather "American"
For example, Trump 2020 banners and bumper stickers I have seen have the messaging:
No doubt in my mind they people with this rhetoric vote Republican, and not just for Trump.
What I don't get is why they are trying to claim being an "American" verses affiliated with a political party. Can someone explain that to me?
As for wanting their county back. I assume this is xenophobia against immigrants.
Everyone who is displaying Trump 2020 stuff is going overboard making their display loud and clear.
Earlier this week I saw nice new Ford 150 with at least 20 bumper stickers between the tailgate and the back cab windows.
The biggest key message I have been seeing is people are not identifying as either Democrat or Republican, but rather "American"
For example, Trump 2020 banners and bumper stickers I have seen have the messaging:
No doubt in my mind they people with this rhetoric vote Republican, and not just for Trump.
What I don't get is why they are trying to claim being an "American" verses affiliated with a political party. Can someone explain that to me?
As for wanting their county back. I assume this is xenophobia against immigrants.
Trumps approval rating is at an all time high in this weeks polls after the Senate acquitted Trump in the impeachment trial.
Some polls have him as high as 49% approval rating. The most legit polls have him at 44% approval rating.
In any event, the news is watch out. Trumps base is loud and creating a movement. The democrats have create a big movement to overcome the electoral college. Because as things stands poll wise, while democrats might have a slight lead popular vote, Trump dominates the electoral college.
Move evidence that it needs to go.
Some polls have him as high as 49% approval rating. The most legit polls have him at 44% approval rating.
In any event, the news is watch out. Trumps base is loud and creating a movement. The democrats have create a big movement to overcome the electoral college. Because as things stands poll wise, while democrats might have a slight lead popular vote, Trump dominates the electoral college.
Move evidence that it needs to go.