Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Elegiac]

I heard some state parties are getting rid of the caucus. Which is frankly absurd, because everyone knows the old saying, "Caucus by June, corn be heavy soon."

Fortunately we still have the NH primary to help us predict the seasons. If Pete sees his own shadow we're in for six more weeks of winter, remember?

[Thekri]

For those who don't want to read this wall of text, I'll break it down for you.

First the IDP gathers up a big pile of rocks, then the caucus goers all take a piece of paper from the black box, and if you pull a paper with a black spot you get sacrificed.

The one exception is if you were born under a full moon during Toyotathon.

This is the best description of the Iowa caucus process I have seen. Thank you, it is so much clearer now.

The real important part is that by this time next week, it will all be completely irrelevant. Iowa gives first impressions, that is it. Either Buttigeg can sustain in other states, or his massive expenditures in Iowa are useless. Biden could spring up in other places, or he could quickly fade out of this race. The one thing Iowa made clear, is that Iowa didn't make anything clear.

I think the only thing that is relatively certain is that either Sanders or Warren could give the nomination to the other with a single phone call. And neither will do it. Which gives the moderate candidates time to consolidate their own voting base before one of those two stubborn Senators does so.

[Elegiac]

This is the best description of the Iowa caucus process I have seen. Thank you, it is so much clearer now.

Actual photograph of the 2020 Iowa Caucus:

[kaelleria]

Fortunately we still have the NH primary to help us predict the seasons. If Pete sees his own shadow we're in for six more weeks of winter, remember?

We have Bernie's camp to thank for this hellscape. They were the ones arguing for keeping the caucuses.

[Elegiac]

We have Bernie's camp to thank for this hellscape. They were the ones arguing for keeping the caucuses.

They've already found ways to blame it on the DNC, don't you worry.

Just look at how they're freaking out about Perez requesting an audit of the caucus results. You know, that exact fucking thing they were demanding when Pete seemed to be in the lead.

Honestly, I just don't want these people anywhere near the reins of power. I don't care how much we agree ideologically, I'm not going to let a moron do my vasectomy because he has a Coexist sticker.

[kaelleria]

They've already found ways to blame it on the DNC, don't you worry.

Just look at how they're freaking out about Perez requesting an audit of the caucus results. You know, that exact fucking thing they were demanding when Pete seemed to be in the lead.

Honestly, I just don't want these people anywhere near the reins of power. I don't care how much we agree ideologically, I'm not going to let a moron do my vasectomy because he has a Coexist sticker.

The funny thing is... There's a pretty good chance that even with the SDE calculation error, Pete still wins as there doesn't appear to be enough turnout in the IA CD1 satellites to make them worth 5.2 SDEs.

Plus there are like 20 more or less pro pete counties left to count...

[Elegiac]

The funny thing is... There's a pretty good chance that even with the SDE calculation error, Pete still wins as there doesn't appear to be enough turnout in the IA CD1 satellites to make them worth 5.2 SDEs.

Plus there are like 20 more or less pro pete counties left to count...

Yep. And after the results are finalized if Bernie doesn't win they'll shift tack again and support Perez' audit. And after it fails to turn up a victory for Bernie they'll insist that Perez/the DNC had a hand in manipulating the results from the start so the audit was meaningless anyway.

There's no winning with such people save through complete submission. Loyalty to Bernie Sanders is the only and most important litmus test of "who is a progressive", as if progressive actually carries any ideological meaning when it's synonymous with a cult of personality. And the only circumstance in which their Dear Leader could possibly fail is through malfeasance.

[kaelleria]

Yep. And after the results are finalized if Bernie doesn't win they'll shift tack again and support Perez' audit. And after it fails to turn up a victory for Bernie they'll insist that Perez/the DNC had a hand in manipulating the results from the start so the audit was meaningless anyway.

There's no winning with such people save through complete submission. Loyalty to Bernie Sanders is the only and most important litmus test of "who is a progressive", as if progressive actually carries any ideological meaning when it's synonymous with a cult of personality. And the only circumstance in which their Dear Leader could possibly fail is through malfeasance.

To think... A guy who's been campaigning for 5 years with 100% name recognition and 30+ years in Congress is on the verge of losing to the 38 year old, gay former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

[Elegiac]

To think... A guy who's been campaigning for 5 years with 100% name recognition and 30+ years in Congress is on the verge of losing to the 38 year old, gay former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

And I am not surprised in the slightest. This was foreshadowed by the curious phenomenon that when people ask for a list of Sanders' accomplishments - i.e. what he has actually done in his extensive tenure - they tend to default to what he's publicly talked about or supports, rather than any acts to his name, or major collaborations, or government departments.

In short, they're literally giving away that Sanders is all talk and little substance. They fundamentally don't seem to grasp that being in government since Tsarist Russia and having nothing to show for it is not a positive quality.

[kaelleria]

And I am not surprised in the slightest. This was foreshadowed by the curious phenomenon that when people ask for a list of Sanders' accomplishments - i.e. what he has actually done in his extensive tenure - they tend to default to what he's publicly talked about or supports, rather than any acts to his name, or major collaborations, or government departments.

In short, they're literally giving away that Sanders is all talk and little substance. They fundamentally don't seem to grasp that being in government since Tsarist Russia and having nothing to show for it is not a positive quality.

Anyone who was actually paying attention to Iowa on the ground knew that Pete was consistently outdrawing Sanders outside of Des Moines... Same thing is happening in NH. It's going to be tight.

[Elegiac]

Anyone who was actually paying attention to Iowa on the ground knew that Pete was consistently outdrawing Sanders outside of Des Moines... Same thing is happening in NH. It's going to be tight.

Yep. For Sanders, this is not a good look.

But I'll be real: people are overstating Pete's viability because of Iowa. It's literally just a function of Biden failing and Pete defaulting into the centrist slot - if he wasn't running, we might have seen a similar thing from Klobuchar. It doesn't change the fact that the electoral math simply isn't there for him at the moment by virtue of, again, the South.

What happens in lily-white Iowa needs to stay in Iowa.

[Gestopft]

In short, they're literally giving away that Sanders is all talk and little substance. They fundamentally don't seem to grasp that being in government since Tsarist Russia and having nothing to show for it is not a positive quality.

I dunno; I consider being one of the only non-Neoliberals in Congress for decades to be a positive quality. I see his lack of major legislative achievements as more to do with the fact that he has been, ideologically, on an island- which is why most of his work has been to get amendments to other bills through, as he was noted for being quite good at.

Biden on the other hand has plenty of major accomplishments: some decent stuff in there to be sure, but I'm sure you know the list of lowlights and the devastation they have wrought. Sanders' greatest accomplishment (in terms of the election) right now seems to be being on the other side of Biden's handiwork.

[Milchshake]

Yep. For Sanders, this is not a good look.

But I'll be real: people are overstating Pete's viability because of Iowa. It's literally just a function of Biden failing and Pete defaulting into the centrist slot - if he wasn't running, we might have seen a similar thing from Klobuchar. It doesn't change the fact that the electoral math simply isn't there for him at the moment by virtue of, again, the South.

What happens in lily-white Iowa needs to stay in Iowa.

Seriously, Iowa was made for Bernie. Thats why his camp fought so hard to keep the caucuses there.

Polls a whole week prior illustrated this.
Bernie voters were supposed to be highly motivated to caucus.
Biden voters were very unmotivated to caucus, but highly motivated to vote in a primary.

Trying extrapolate the Iowa Caucus to the remaining primaries is problematic.



Validated Primary goer: Biden +8
Validated 2018 voter: Biden +4
Self-reported past caucusgoer: Biden -4
Self-reported 2016 caucusgoer: Biden -10

[Elegiac]

I dunno; I consider being one of the only non-Neoliberals in Congress for decades to be a positive quality. I see his lack of major legislative achievements as more to do with the fact that he has been, ideologically, on an island- which is why most of his work has been to get amendments to other bills through, as he was noted for being quite good at.

Uh huh.

And how's he supposed to do exactly the opposite of that in four years when he hasn't managed it over the span of decades?

"Sanders is on an ideological island" is meaningless in a big tent party. The Democratic Party is not a hive mind.

Biden on the other hand has plenty of major accomplishments: some decent stuff in there to be sure, but I'm sure you know the list of lowlights and the devastation they have wrought. Sanders' greatest accomplishment (in terms of the election) right now seems to be being on the other side of Biden's handiwork.

:thumbs up: Good thing I'm not pointing to Biden's record as a defense of him as a candidate and think his viability is a result of racist cynicism.

Not sure what that has to do with the fact Bernie has nothing to his name.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously, Iowa was made for Bernie. Thats why his camp fought so hard to keep the caucuses there.

Polls a whole week prior illustrated this.
Bernie voters were supposed to be highly motivated to caucus.
Biden voters were very unmotivated to caucus, but highly motivated to vote in a primary.

Trying extrapolate the Iowa Caucus to the remaining primaries is problematic.

-snip-

Validated Primary goer: Biden +8
Validated 2018 voter: Biden +4
Self-reported past caucusgoer: Biden -4
Self-reported 2016 caucusgoer: Biden -10

In the biggest twist of irony, the winner of the Iowa caucus was the push to abolish the Iowa caucus.

I wonder if Iowa's doing primaries in the Berenstein universe.

[bmjclark]

Seriously, Iowa was made for Bernie. Thats why his camp fought so hard to keep the caucuses there.

Polls a whole week prior illustrated this.
Bernie voters were supposed to be highly motivated to caucus.
Biden voters were very unmotivated to caucus, but highly motivated to vote in a primary.

Trying extrapolate the Iowa Caucus to the remaining primaries is problematic.



Validated Primary goer: Biden +8
Validated 2018 voter: Biden +4
Self-reported past caucusgoer: Biden -4
Self-reported 2016 caucusgoer: Biden -10

It's not so much that he had problem getting first choice voters, he had a problem getting second choice voters. He had a 6000 vote lead on buttigieg before the second round happened, then pete picked up 6k and bernie picked up 2k. Bernie was still in the lead for popular vote (which obviously doesn't matter), but he did lose ground there.

Ironically he would have done a lot better in a normal primary this time around most likely.

[Gestopft]

Uh huh.

And how's he supposed to do exactly the opposite of that in four years when he hasn't managed it over the span of decades?

Oh, I've already said I wouldn't expect too much in the way of transformative policies from...well...any Democratic president. My point was simply that his lack of major legislation is mostly due to his ideology being different- which is why he's focused on smaller things in his time in Congress. To say that he's been ineffective is simply wrong- he still does things despite (or perhaps due to) the lack of a consensus (even within the Democrats) for the transformative kind of 'big' legislation he'd like to do.

[mvaliz]

We have Bernie's camp to thank for this hellscape. They were the ones arguing for keeping the caucuses.

Source for this claim?

Because I think it's far more likely the DNC and/or state execs chose that format despite anything Bernie Supporters did/do/said.

Likewise, wasn't it this stupid app failure and not the actual Caucus procedure they normally use the cause of the problems?

[Elegiac]

Oh, I've already said I wouldn't expect too much in the way of transformative policies from...well...any Democratic president. My point was simply that his lack of major legislation is mostly due to his ideology being different- which is why he's focused on smaller things in his time in Congress. To say that he's been ineffective is simply wrong- he still does things despite (or perhaps due to) the lack of a consensus (even within the Democrats) for the transformative kind of 'big' legislation he'd like to do.

Okay.

Now, considering this is a race in which there are multiple choices who do actually have transformative shit to their name, why is Bernie the best option?

- - - Updated - - -

Because I think it's far more likely the DNC

Once again: folks, please just automatically report people when they say this.

The DNC controlling the Iowa caucus is a conspiracy theory.

[mvaliz]

This is the best description of the Iowa caucus process I have seen. Thank you, it is so much clearer now.

The real important part is that by this time next week, it will all be completely irrelevant. Iowa gives first impressions, that is it. Either Buttigeg can sustain in other states, or his massive expenditures in Iowa are useless. Biden could spring up in other places, or he could quickly fade out of this race. The one thing Iowa made clear, is that Iowa didn't make anything clear.

I think the only thing that is relatively certain is that either Sanders or Warren could give the nomination to the other with a single phone call. And neither will do it. Which gives the moderate candidates time to consolidate their own voting base before one of those two stubborn Senators does so.

Hehe, got to admit - that line made me snicker. ;P

I'm still betting on one of them (most likely Warren, sadly) will drop and immediately endorse the other at some point. It's only a matter of "when"... and yes, that's despite the supporters of the two fighting eachother for some unfathomable reason (well played, Russia) as it's pretty clear that Bernie/Warren are still good friends and I'm certain they both went into this with this understanding.

I said it early last year that those two have set themselves up to be Kingmaker the moment one takes a knee, and I'm almost betting that's by design...

...

...almost. :P (I always leave 10% room for doubt, so I can continue learning if I'm wrong :P)

- - - Updated - - -

Originally posted by Elegiac
Honestly, I just don't want these people anywhere near the reins of power. I don't care how much we agree ideologically, I'm not going to let a moron do my vasectomy because he has a Coexist sticker.

How is that quote any different from the very people you accuse? Especially since it's Bernie running, not the people you're throwing hatred at.

...and dafuq does having a "coexist sticker" make the Doctor operating on you any more/less valuable? Fuck me, that's damn near Dump Supporter level prejudice if I ever read it! >_<

[Elegiac]

How is that quote any different from the very people you accuse? Especially since it's Bernie running, not the people you're throwing hatred at.

Because my opposition to them is based on a lack of apparent competence?

Y'all aren't entitled to my vote just because you're left wing.

...and dafuq does having a "coexist sticker" make the Doctor operating on you any more/less valuable? Fuck me, that's damn near Dump Supporter level prejudice if I ever read it! >_<

I specifically didn't say "doctor", because that is my point.

I would go to a doctor for a vasectomy because they are qualified to do so even if I disagreed with said doctor ideologically. I do not think Bernie, by virtue of him repeatedly associating himself with questionable people in his campaign among other reasons, is qualified to be President.

It's literally a function of ability. Not belief.