Iowa Caucus 2020 - MegaThread

[Elegiac]

Even with Bernie math and the satellites being worth more than they should... Pete won Iowa.

https://results.thecaucuses.org/

"This makes no sense. You can't tell me that the DNC/IDP/Hillary Clinton didn't put their fingers on the scales."

[mvaliz]

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ve-been-hacked

So in addition to being totally broken, the app was also ludicrously insecure.

Everything about this is a disaster and I'm still angry that the IDP leadership hasn't resigned in disgrace yet.

Ayn Rand flaw 101: Self Interest rule of law dictates you must blame somebody else in order to protect your own self interest.

- - - Updated - - -

Liberal vs Leftist squabbles are always interesting. One cannot survive in America without the other. The same accusations are thrown at each other. The left side of American politics should be able to disagree on issues without killing the bigger picture that unifies both.

I saw earlier that the FBI has upgraded the threat level of Domestic White Supremacists to that of being equal to ISIS.

I've been sitting here stating for the past week how there's literally a sect of Dump Supporters currently training to kill people if/when a Democrat wins the white house - and people here are squabbling over what stupid petty things their fellow member on their saide said on the internet about a candidate they like!? o_O

[Xeones]

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ve-been-hacked

So in addition to being totally broken, the app was also ludicrously insecure.

Everything about this is a disaster and I'm still angry that the IDP leadership hasn't resigned in disgrace yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...caucus-process

It does seem like there was some definite plans to attack the democratic primary.

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...caucus-process

It does seem like there was some definite plans to attack the democratic primary.

Not "attack", troll. Because that's the height of political activism for Trump supporters.

[Xeones]

Not "attack", troll. Because that's the height of political activism for Trump supporters.

It's hard for me to see "attack" and "troll" as mutually exclusive.

[jakeic]

Ohhhh, I think I got it.

Short version: Initial models are based on polling, but then their algorithm additionally calculates in actual result data as well moving forward. Is that the gist of what you're saying?

Yes.

It takes more into account, even in the beginning, but it will factor in what actually happened. It’s like shooting a basketball, you imagine a series of rings, the largest being closest to you and getting smaller, leading into the basket, the idea being you need to make the biggest ring before the smaller ones, eventually resulting in a basket. That’s what they’re doing with their model.

[eschatological]

YEP!

At this point the only thing that matters from the Iowa caucuses are optics for the candidates. So far Pete has been winning the optics game.

I'm sorry, I know no one who takes Pete seriously just because of the Iowa results.

[PACOX]

I'm sorry, I know no one who takes Pete seriously just because of the Iowa results.

I've read plenty of hot takes that do across the internet. I don't know how many of those are just people taking a victory lap though.

If I was part of his campaign I would take this momentum and run with it but NH would scare me where he doesn't have the benefit of being a bunch off people's second choice. He has to hold a first-choice majority, not something Pete has done. He isn't even close. What people need to instead of saying "hey Pete has this in the bag" is to use the Iowa results to paint Pete as the most viable unifying candidate that, in their eyes, can beat Trump. His only chance is to get people to abandon their first choice because he holds the 'consensus' among Dems.


Pete desperately needs Bloomberg to stay out of the race. He almost needs to woes with votes under 50 and minorities. Otherwise, he will continue to be 'everyone's 2nd choice' and struggle on polls.

[nonameelf]

I know one voter who already regrets their vote for him.


When this is the level intellect voting for him, I wouldn’t take him too seriously after Iowa’s results either. Then again, I doubt Iowa will even turn blue in November, so let’s focus on the results from purple states Hillary lost in 2016.

That's really sad. He shouldn't lose because he's gay. He should lose because his policies are too conservative and he has kind of a shady past working for some scummy businesses.

[kyoloco]

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ve-been-hacked

So in addition to being totally broken, the app was also ludicrously insecure.

Everything about this is a disaster and I'm still angry that the IDP leadership hasn't resigned in disgrace yet.

still not as bad as W3 Reforged

[jonnysensible]

That's really sad. He shouldn't lose because he's gay. He should lose because his policies are too conservative and he has kind of a shady past working for some scummy businesses.

his entire past is cv building to become president. Hes the guy who goes to the soup kitchen to volunteer because he thinks its a good thing to have on the resume.

The dems can't win without the black vote and the black vote won't get out of bed for pete.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernard won, buttugieg spent his load, Biden has no cash, can't raise any cash, and will crawl to super super tuesday then have to bail because he has no cash and nobody wants to support his losing ass, and warren, she has plenty of cash, but will likely drop after super tuesday because she can't get enough delegates. Then Bloomberg comes in and bernard vs bloomberg to see who takes on trump.

if bloomberg gets the nom and then loses the election it will genuinely be the end of the democratic party, no way it doesnt split in those circumstances.

[Mihalik]

Liberal vs Leftist squabbles are always interesting. One cannot survive in America without the other. The same accusations are thrown at each other. The left side of American politics should be able to disagree on issues without killing the bigger picture that unifies both.

The thing is.... Historically progressives have held their noses and voted for Democrat establishmentarians over and over again as a lesser of two evils situation.

Now it seems the progressive movement has gained sufficient momentum and support, much of it due to committed activism to a great extent motivated by people like Sanders to have viable candidates in Democratic primaries and general elections (as the 2018 midterms have proven).

But instead of having a fair and square internal debate on the future direction of the Democratic party, the establishment seems hellbent on rigging the game against progressives, demand them to shut up and hold their noses again and vote whomever they are being told to vote for.

Honestly, that simply won't happen.

- - - Updated - - -

if bloomberg gets the nom and then loses the election it will genuinely be the end of the democratic party, no way it doesnt split in those circumstances.

Bloomberg getting the nomination is the end of the Democratic party either way.

That would officially make the Democratic Party the Republican Party Lite (Now with Lime and 0 calories).

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ve-been-hacked

So in addition to being totally broken, the app was also ludicrously insecure.

Everything about this is a disaster and I'm still angry that the IDP leadership hasn't resigned in disgrace yet.

As I was saying earlier... They might have just ran the whole thing in Google Docs.

[Flarelaine]

*sigh*

I think we should take polling data with an unhealthy amount of salt.

Luckily there is plenty to go around.

[Skroe]

I'm still saying one of them is going to bow out - they just want to be certain statistically that it's the right one who stays (as Iowa has shown, all of the polling up to this point cannot be trusted).

You can't tell me that those two didn't discuss this being a potential future problem for both of them going in, and haven't discussed the possibility of making the other one their VP if they do to fix it.

Based on my prediction from last year, my current bet is that in the next 2 weeks one of them (sadly most likely Liz) will bow out and become Kingmaker by endorsing the other, and the one who bows becomes VP. It's the only play that makes sense here. EDIT: I'd be more stunned if they actually did my "Tripple play" fakeout against the GOP I said last year and the one who bowed endorses Buttigege instead, but I don't quite see that happening anymore.

If they don't, then your scenario is mathematically the most likely scenario - and they both would deserve it if they, of all people, let their individual pride override their own path to victory/fixing the country together.

The thing is it's not entirely about the person. It's about the organization behind them. To put I think the most relevant part of my scenario out front again: if both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are able to tell their organizations there is a way forward, why would any one of them drop out? And the impetus to do so is unlikely until after Super Tuesday.

An interesting side effect, especially if Biden underperforms in South Carolina and Nevada and performs below expectations on Super Tuesday (New Hampshire really doesn't matter), is that getting a majority of delegates by any candidate is nearly impossible. After Super Tuesday, 38% of the delegates will have been distributed. One nominee running up the total in the remaining 62% is artificial because there is a presumption of sorts that the de facto Nominee (consider Hillary 2016) will be chosen well before all 50 states and others have had their primaries. That would create a situation where superdelegates WOULD choose again... something considered unthinkable after the post-2016 reforms.

This would in fact, be the regular case if the Democrats transitioned to a system whereby there was a regional "primary day" that encompassed, lets say, 25% of the total delegates, in place of Iowa and New Hampshire. Because that first contest would distribute 25% of the delegates widely and "all but the top two" wouldn't drop out until AFTER it. At that point either of the top two establishing a decisive lead over the other comes down to if there is profound regional differences in popularity, because again, the other 75% of the primary having primaries whereby they split the vote 51%/49% or 55%/45% isn't going to produce a winner.

Basically however you cut it, this is a system not designs for multiple candidates being in the same lane, and it filtering down to 2 major candidates after New Hampshire and no later. It works best only under largely binary primaries - Gore/Bill Bradley Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Sanders.

This field though? It basically demands a second round of ALL Primaries with just the top two, or something like that. Or ranked voting.

[Skroe]

I have to wonder, if Biden drops out, were would his voters go? Would they really got to a small town mayor?

Over Sanders? Probably. As a Massachusetts voter I will be voting for a Democratic nominee for the first time ever on Super Tuesday. Bernie Sanders is my dead last choice (well, above Tulsi of course).

I will enthusastically vote and donate for him in the general election if he gets there (I doubt it). But until that time, almost anyone is a better pick.

I plan on voting for Biden on Super Tuesday. If not him, Mayor Pete. If not him, Elizabeth Warren. If not him, I'll take a swig of whisky and vote for the clown who wasted political capital trying to rehabilitate the word "socialist".

[Skroe]

My thought is, they might go to Warren instead of Pete. Even a woman might seem a safer choice when it comes to electability than a gay man, however white he might be.

Biden can beat Trump in most scenarios. The other three can beat Trump under certain scenarios.

Personlly I give Trump a 60% chance of getting re-elected.

[Sorshen]

Iowa, where getting more votes means you lose!

[Thelxi]

My thought is, they might go to Warren instead of Pete. Even a woman might seem a safer choice when it comes to electability than a gay man, however white he might be.

I'm not sure about that. The caucuses are a weird democratic process where you are basically standing staring your neighbor in the face while you openly pledge support to different political candidates. If anything I would imagine that any homophobic tendencies would be more inhibiting in such a setting than if it were just a private voting booth, which is ultimately what the election will be.

And the New Hampshire caucuses will be very interesting to watch, because we will get to see again where people go when their candidate is not viable. In Iowa the lion's share of unviable votes went to Buttigieg and not Warren or anyone else, which at least to me was quite surprising. If that repeats itself Buttigieg might just have a much better shot at this than at least I expected.

[announced]

My thought is, they might go to Warren instead of Pete. Even a woman might seem a safer choice when it comes to electability than a gay man, however white he might be.

I wouldn't count on it. Warren is so off putting. She has literally zero charm. I would actually rank her less like able than Hillary Clinton. Sure you can hold your nose and vote for her, but are you really stoked about it?

Also, I don't see why people are against Pete. You could make the case that omg hes gay and everyone in America is homophobic but that's just not likely. Even in the south I'd imagine someone knows or has encountered a gay man before and they weren't offended by it. This Gallup poll shown here https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/...ion-rises.aspx estimates the LGBT population of Americans at around 4.5%. The real problem is Pete has no black supporters. They already went to either Bernie or Biden, and that's why he is in trouble

There is a story out how he placed 4 black supporters in front of the camera so it looked like he isn't struggling. Link https://newsone.com/3901351/mayor-pe...iowa-caucuses/

I would bet on Bernie to win, you know why? He has vigor and fire. He has the youth vote and he has the same kind of passion at his rallies that Trump has. Does Joe Biden have that? I've yet to hear from someone excited to vote for Joe Biden.

[NED funded]

Iowa, where getting more votes means you lose!

Its a caucus. Im not sure why the leftists keep bringing the more votes thing out, if it mattered they wouldnt have people in a gym standing in specific places for hours to an end.