Democratic caucuses and primaries

carlitos said:
I skimmed the thread and did a search and didn't see this; apologies if it's repeated elsewhere. At least some of the chaos was caused by the tools at 4chan.
Click to expand...


You should apologize for being the only one tool enough to drag this here. We all saw it but the fact that not even one juicy Putin-blame story emerged was kind of a red flag.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
I wonder if Sanders is worried about that at all.

After all, given the dedication of his support base, he should have his greatest strength in caucuses (where time commitments are a significant issue), as opposed to primaries (where it would favor candidates with broader but less dedicated support). And having probably the best name recognition, he should have been a clear winner. Instead, he's almost tied.

(And no, this is not a prediction that Sanders will lose, either the nomination or the general election. Just some idle speculation.)
Click to expand...

I think he is quite worried about turnout in other states.

He figures as long as turnout is high, he will have the advantage in most states.
 
Childlike Empress said:
So on top of whatever bizarre mechanism leads to those "SDE" units, there's some very lucky rounding involved to keep the impression that MayorCheat at least won in that category.
Click to expand...

We don't need that nonsense in the Sanders side. Cut the bs.

I'm glad Sanders didn't take the CT bait from some journalists who brought up the Iowa incident.
 
Venom said:
We don't need that nonsense in the Sanders side. Cut the bs.

I'm glad Sanders didn't take the CT bait from some journalists who brought up the Iowa incident.
Click to expand...


MayorCheat is what the internet hive mind came up with due to the ridiculous machinations of the DNC. I've posted several articles with information you didn't hear in the junk news you allow into your living-room. You can ignore or pretend to ignore that, but what "the Sanders side" is you won't define. Remember that you aren't responsible for my posts and I'm not responsible for your posts.
 
Childlike Empress said:
MayorCheat is what the internet hive mind came up with due to the ridiculous machinations of the DNC. I've posted several articles with information you didn't hear in the junk news you allow into your living-room. You can ignore or pretend to ignore that, but what "the Sanders side" is you won't define. Remember that you aren't responsible for my posts and I'm not responsible for your posts.
Click to expand...

The hyperfocus and vilification of Pete Buttigieg is something that's emerged in progressive circles in the past year. Many of the prominent progressive hot takes make it seem as though they lived in South Bend and they know Pete personally. It's just sad. The danger there of course is it makes it a bit harder to take legitimate criticisms of Pete seriously.

But Pete and the Democratic establishment (whatever this means in the context of the Iowa caucus; the Des Moines Register isn't in on it) are hopelessly intertwined in our minds, so a barely tested app goes wrong, Iowa Dem officials scramble to match results and delay release, and everyone gets angry at Pete....for.....what exactly? Declaring victory? Everyone does that. It wasn't like he was 4th before the crash. They got mad at him for one of his supporters reporting that they couldn't see everyone on screen. Why though?

It'd be enough to stop there, but no, those other criticisms apparently didn't hit hard enough to satisfy their craving to get at Pete. We have to proclaim he CHEATED. Like I said, Bernie is too classy for some of his supporters.
 
Venom said:
It'd be enough to stop there, but no, those other criticisms apparently didn't hit hard enough to satisfy their craving to get at Pete. We have to proclaim he CHEATED. Like I said, Bernie is too classy for some of his supporters.
Click to expand...

Is it even possible at this point for Sanders to lose without his fan club claiming the process was rigged?
 
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
 
ahhell said:
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
Click to expand...
He's on the ballot as a Democrat.

Should any two people who list the same party on their filings be treated differently by the institutions that operate these elections?
 
Venom said:
nearly 97 percent of precincts have reported their results.

Man this is a tight final quarter.

Pete Buttigieg 550 votes - 26.22%
Bernie Sanders 547 votes - 26.07%

according to Iowa public radio
Click to expand...

I heard a radio snippet from Bernie: "Where I come from, the person who gets the most votes wins." He'll have trouble with the EC then. Caveat: I have made no attempt to understand how the Iowa caucus works.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
Click to expand...
He's on the ballot as a Democrat.
Click to expand...
True, he's currently/temporarily on the ballot as a Democrat.

Perhaps a better way to have stated it is "He's not a long-term democrat".

I don't know if I agree that it should be harder for him to become the nominee, but I can certainly understand the sentiment... long-term party members may not want to see their party 'hijacked' from the outside. "We built this party, and now this guy who doesn't want to associate with us wants to take over".
 
Venom said:
We don't need that nonsense in the Sanders side. Cut the bs.

I'm glad Sanders didn't take the CT bait from some journalists who brought up the Iowa incident.
Click to expand...

If the Dems were going to cheat I'm not sure their first choice would have been Buttigieg. But maybe I'm wrong.
 
ahhell said:
The process should be rigged against Sanders, he's not a Democrat, it should be harder for him to get the nomination on that score.
Click to expand...

If Sanders isn't a democrat, then are his supporters also not democrats? Would you be happier if he ran under a different party and took his voters support there?

I recall in 2016 a lot of anger directed towards Jill Stein and the Green Party as spoilers.

Complaining about spoilers and saying Sanders isn't a Democrat aren't consistent criticisms. You have to pick one. Would you rather Sanders ran as a Democrat or as a spoiler? I know many would prefer he just disappeared from the political stage, but that's just wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
Buttigieg is now surging in NH polling:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news...-support-with-12-point-gain-in-new-hampshire/

(Boston Globe's website is paywalled, national review is quoting it)
Click to expand...

Looks like Biden supporters are jumping ship to Pete.

This seems like a good thing for Bernie. Pete is poaching Biden's supporters, but it's not clear that he will have quite the same strong support among black voters in the South.

Fracturing the centrist wing vote is a win for Bernie. I've got my fingers crossed that Pete will take the lead as the leading centrist candidate, but some states will hold firm for Biden, making neither viable.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
If Sanders isn't a democrat, then are his supporters also not democrats?
Click to expand...
Not really sure why you think one statement (Sanders isn't a democrat) automatically leads to the other (supporters not democrats). Its certainly possible for some democratic supporters to thrown their support behind an "outsider".
Would you be happier if he ran under a different party and took his voters support there?
Click to expand...
I guess the question is, if he wasn't co-opting the machinery of the democratic party, would he even get enough support to become a spoiler?

I don't think he was a 'big name' prior to his 2016 election run, and its not like he had the financial resources to 'buy' his way into spotlight (a la Ross Perot).

Maybe if Sanders ran as an independent (or for some 3rd party ticket) he might have ended up siphoning off some support from Clinton. On the other hand, he might have also siphoned off some of the 'BernieBros' who migrated to Trump. (Plus, without the prolonged Clinton/Sanders battle, perhaps the Democrats would have been better focused on Trump.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom