US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rez

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,966
Sorry if this has been covered, but what’s the source on the DNC wanting the satellite delegate distribution changed?
 

Box of Kittens

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,010
I do understand your point, and again, I don't disagree. But also this thing was a disaster from day one, and we already have evidence of a certain sect of the electorate banging the drum about rigging etc. from 2016 and beyond. Nothing was going to fix that after the initial botch job in Iowa. Regardless of what happens with it, both will continue to claim victory (as they should while trying to win) and candidates will just go forward from here. There's quite a long way to go and if they end up wanting to hang it on the result in Iowa over some minuscule number of delegates as to why they choose not to vote, then they were looking for a reason already.
And it bears repeating that like no one is arguing that any of this was handled well. To simplify a bit, the argument is over incompetence vs. rigging.
 

ChucklesB

Member
Nov 4, 2017
1,395
Considering that Bernie is behind Buttiegeg by just 3 SDEs (but expected to make up in the remaining precincts), a difference of 4 delegates is the difference between winning and losing straight up. So this reallocation can absolutely make a difference in who wins or loses.

And yes winning/losing Iowa matters as have been shown already. It's all about the narrative that you are a winner going into the next set of primaries and caucuses. Even 4 years later, you got people in this thread hoarding Clinton's win in Iowa over Sanders despite being a difference of only 4 SDEs. And now they are saying the SDE reallocation could be worth 4 delegates...

I mean it's like poetry... it rhymes.
Something something, from my point of view the Jedi are evil? I like it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,376
All the DNC had to do was give off the appearance of being competent and nonbiased. Already they've failed. Perez must go.
 

adam387

Banned
Nov 27, 2017
5,157
How much of a delegate difference is this actually going to make? It'll end up being like 4 delgates or something stupid like that and probably after everyones moved on from NH to NV.
National delegates? There will be no difference. Bernie and Pete are splitting them no matter who comes out on top.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,600
How much of a delegate difference is this actually going to make? It'll end up being like 4 delgates or something stupid like that and probably after everyones moved on from NH to NV.
It'll be completely negligible. The real value of winning Iowa is the momentum bump you get from winning, but that's been muddled now too, and no amount of recanvassing or relitigating delegate allocations is going to put that genie back in the bottle.

It's important and yet the democratic party seem to be doing everything in their power to call question on and mystify the results of a purportedly democratic process, which consequently lowers turnout regardless of what the real explanation is.

I think now is the time to be asking if the DNC really want to win.
Let me save you the trouble: the answer is yes, fucking yes, the DNC and Tom Perez and everyone in the Democratic Party wants to win. Bernie Sanders wants to win. Mike Bloomberg wants to win. Everyone* wants to beat Trump. Everyone is scared shitless of not being able to beat him. That the Iowa caucuses are a creaky structural disaster built on decades of ridiculously contorted rules is not the secret plot of a democratic establishment that prefers losing. It's just shitty and incompetent vote counting. We all still want to win.



*everyone except maybe Tulsi Gabbard
 

jeelybeans

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,801
Those Bernie people were saying things were rigged before Buttigeg even put in the request. They are seriously convinced that Buttigeg and the DNC funded the software maker to slow down the results being reported to...take the sales out of Bernie's win (excpet he didn't win or barely won?) and all of this was planned months in advance somehow...?

These people are crazy and are no better than Trump voters believing shit like pizzagate.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,472
Because the position the one guy took is absolutely ridiculous, it goes without saying (to me), and plenty of people already told him off. That shouldn’t lead us to extrapolate to all the “Bernie folk” in this thread.
These folks aren't going to listen to us, so it seems as though their own cohort should be policing their ignorance. We have many more months of this toxic BS to endure, regardless of who is the eventual nominee
 

Doof

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,429
Kentucky
It's important and yet the democratic party seem to be doing everything in their power to call question on and mystify the results of a purportedly democratic process, which consequently lowers turnout regardless of what the real explanation is.

I think now is the time to be asking if the DNC really want to win.
This has basically nothing to do with what I'm saying, but go off, chief.
 

ChucklesB

Member
Nov 4, 2017
1,395
These folks aren't going to listen to us, so it seems as though their own cohort should be policing their ignorance. We have many more months of this toxic BS to endure, regardless of who is the eventual nominee
Also fair, I think "allies" within each portion of the left should probably be trying to chill out their brethren or call them out when needed to keep peeps focused on the general goal of beating the orange dude. You don't need to call him a dummy or anything, but yeah.
 

Arm Van Dam

Member
Mar 30, 2019
5,363
Illinois

Double 0

Member
Nov 5, 2017
2,946
Just caught up. A bunch of you need some time away from this whole thing. Way in the weeds.

Did wonders for me.
 

umop 3pisdn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,639
It'll be completely negligible. The real value of winning Iowa is the momentum bump you get from winning, but that's been muddled now too, and no amount of recanvassing or relitigating delegate allocations is going to put that genie back in the bottle.


Let me save you the trouble: the answer is yes, fucking yes, the DNC and Tom Perez and everyone in the Democratic Party wants to win. Bernie Sanders wants to win. Mike Bloomberg wants to win. Everyone* wants to beat Trump. Everyone is scared shitless of not being able to beat him. That the Iowa caucuses are a creaky structural disaster built on decades of ridiculously contorted rules is not the secret plot of a democratic establishment that prefers losing. It's just shitty and incompetent vote counting. We all still want to win.
Tbh I'll believe it once they show an ounce of willingness to get behind the leading candidate.

This has basically nothing to do with what I'm saying, but go off, chief.
Your concern should be for this process to be conducted competently and transparently so people have no reason to delegitimize the process or results. Not people justifiably becoming disenfranchised from a shitshow public spectacle.
 

Seattle6418

Member
Oct 25, 2017
462
Brasília Brazil
Possibly all of the difference. It's not just that Sanders would lose 4 SDEs from the current count, but also that it would shrink the amount he's all-but-guaranteed to earn in the 3% left. There's still one full congressional district of satellite caucuses left to add up.

I estimated last night that Sanders would win the race by approximately 1-3 delegates. This rule change would effectively grant Pete another 4-8 delegates. To put it simply, this rule change is very likely to decide the Iowa caucuses winner.
You had a pretty good analysis last night, please take a look at the remaining precincts, because Bernie can make up 3 SDEs on those, then whatever he gets on CD1 might offset the possible rule change.

I know CDs are giving Bernie a huge bump, but people are forgetting about the other precincts.
 

Doof

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,429
Kentucky
Tbh I'll believe it once they show an ounce of willingness to get behind the leading candidate.



Your concern should be for this process to be conducted competently and transparently so people have no reason to delegitimize the process or results.
Dog the primaries aren't over yet. I want Sanders to win too but y'all are acting crazy as fuck and need to chill.

My number one concern is beating Trump. I don't think some of y'all share that, which is not good!
 

ChucklesB

Member
Nov 4, 2017
1,395
I think taking everyone on a quick trip to Mordor before bringing peeps back to the Shire will be good for most everyone at the end. The overwhelming hate of Trump is still going to be the great unifier. The man's a goblin.
 
Oct 27, 2017
559
Dog the primaries aren't over yet. I want Sanders to win too but y'all are acting crazy as fuck and need to chill.

My number one concern is beating Trump. I don't think some of y'all share that, which is not good!
For me, that will be my concern when the time comes for that to be my main concern. Now is not that time. Now it is time to select the best choice for the Democratic nomination and imo that should be Bernie Sanders.

(key words in bold-italics)
 

Captjohnboyd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,144
Your concern should be for this process to be conducted competently and transparently so people have no reason to delegitimize the process or results. Not people justifiably becoming disenfranchised from a shitshow public spectacle.
Stop framing it as thought the party writ large is trying to nefariously screw the results or election. There is no basis for it
 

bluexy

Freelance Games Journalist
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
5,181
Major news. It looks like the IDP is refusing Tom Perez's call for an immediate recanvas. Iowa will finish its current results and, as per the rules, be open to a recanvas if the campaigns request it thereafter.


You had a pretty good analysis last night, please take a look at the remaining precincts, because Bernie can make up 3 SDEs on those, then whatever he gets on CD1 might offset the possible rule change.

I know CDs are giving Bernie a huge bump, but people are forgetting about the other precincts.
Thanks! And you could be right. I took a very general look at the remaining districts as shown by the NYT and assumed the remaining 3% would be similar to the jump that occurred between 95% and 97%. More than willing to admit that I could be very wrong. Wouldn't that be a crazy ending, that honestly would probably work out best for all parties at this point. DNC's change wouldn't effect the result, Sanders gets the win his vote count shows is earned, Pete still comes out strong after several days of campaigning.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
10,847

Wapo:Yeah, Trump didn’t learn any new lessons from impeachment
He relearned an old lesson, though: No one will stop him.
------------------
Recent history suggests that acquittals can prompt some demonstrated humility.
“I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events,” President Bill Clinton said after his acquittal following his 1999 impeachment trial, “and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and the American people.”
Some in Trump’s party seemed to think that Trump might be similarly chastened or, at least, come away from the situation a bit wiser.
“I believe that the president has learned from this case,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in an interview this week, explaining her decision to stand with Trump. “The president has been impeached. That’s a pretty big lesson.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) offered a similar sentiment.
“I think that he knows now that, if he is trying to do certain things, whether it’s ferreting out corruption there, in Afghanistan, whatever it is,” she said, “he needs to go through the proper channels.”
Trump made clear Thursday that nothing had changed at all.
------------------
The impeachment? Just Democrats trying to take him down based on his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. House Democrats, he said, “took nothing. They took a phone call that was a totally appropriate call. I call it a perfect call because it was. And they brought me to the final stages of impeachment.”
“We went through hell, unfairly,” he said at another point. For about the 80th time, he declared himself innocent of any wrongdoing: “Did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong.”
The acquittal? Another president might have been chastened by the fact that, for the first time in history, a member of the president’s own party voted to convict on one of the two articles of impeachment. Democrats were joined by Republican Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) and two independents to offer the first bipartisan impeachment rebuke of a president ever.
No lesson from that, either.
“Other than one failed presidential candidate,” Trump said, “and I call that half a vote because he actually voted for us on the other one. But we had one failed presidential candidate. That’s the only half a vote we lost."
“So we had almost 53 to nothing,” he continued. “We had won 197 to nothing. And the only one that voted against was a guy that can’t stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency.”
It’s worth noting how Trump describes both of the votes on impeachment: 53 to 0 in the Senate and 197 to 0 in the House, tallies that include only members of his own party. Democratic votes literally don’t count. (It’s not clear, by the way, why Romney’s vote against Trump should count as half a vote but his vote with Trump counts in full.)
Nothing about Trump’s comments Thursday suggested anything close to contrition. Nothing suggested that Trump had been pushed closer to how presidents have acted in the past; nothing indicated that Trump would approach his position with a new sense that boundaries existed.
Instead, speaking before allies in one of the White House’s ornate rooms, it seemed obvious that the only lesson Trump learned was to lean into how he’d been doing things all along. That, yet again, an effort to hold him accountable for his actions or keep him in check had failed and that, yet again, he was free to be even more himself.
He swore. He disparaged perceived opponents as “scum.” He made crude insinuations about two former FBI officials.
Even when he was lavishing praise on an ally things got weird. As he was offering his thanks to House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Trump went into great detail about the morning Scalise was shot in Virginia, segueing into how much blood Scalise had lost and then a play-by-play of the Congressional Baseball Game in which Scalise subsequently played.
------------------
The ones who should certainly have learned a lesson about Trump’s behavior by now are the rest of us. People like Joni Ernst and Susan Collins.
To her credit, Collins did, in a subsequent interview, indicate that perhaps her confidence in a newly changed Trump might have been misplaced.
“Well, I may not be correct on that,” Collins said.
 

umop 3pisdn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,639
so your saying the DNC should just annoint him before the primaries have finished , hell, only one has happened so far. I thought we were against the DNC favoring candidates before the process is over?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that from where I'm looking it doesn't really look like they want to win.

Stop framing it as thought the party writ large is trying to nefariously screw the results or election. There is no basis for it
There's a point where incompetence appears (or effectively becomes) nefarious regardless of their speculative & metaphysically-inaccessible intentions.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,818
User Banned (1 week): antagonizing other users
“Bernie bro”, “rose twitter”, “leftist”, “liberal”, “neolib shill”. EVERY FUCKING DAY. This community is rotted.
 

Doof

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,429
Kentucky
For me, that will be my concern when the time comes for that to be my main concern. Now is not that time. Now it is time to select the best choice for the Democratic nomination and imo that should be Bernie Sanders.

(key words in bold-italics)
And that's fine! Spreading conspiracies and THREATENING PEOPLE WITH TRUMP is not fine. That's what I'm talking about. Jesus fuck.
 

adam387

Banned
Nov 27, 2017
5,157
So, let me make sure I have this all straight, because I am old and I have a lot of kids and they literally drain your brain power:

The DNC decided to listen to Bernie's supporters and make the Iowa caucus more transparent by agreeing, without opposition, to the rule change to make it a requirement that the IDP report the raw vote totals before and after realignment. At the same time, or relatively shortly thereafter, the DNC also did : waves arms magically : so that Pete would not become the DNC Chair. They loved their boy Pete so much they had to stop him from being chair. The Iowa Democratic Party decided to hire someone who had no business developing an app to develop an app specifically so they could somehow rig the results against Bernie Sanders. On caucus night, the IDP/DNC decided to destroy their own reputation, have literal hundreds of caucus sites fuck up, and refuse to report results until such time as they could rig this in favor of Pete. So, instead of outright rigging it for Pete, and not Biden who most of THE ESTABLISHMENT wants, they decide to throw the whole thing into chaos. Literally ruining Iowa's reputation and making it so it is very, very unlikely this dumbass state will ever go first again. Then, after days of confusion, they go OH SHIT THE RIGGING WE DID WASN'T ENOUGH, so now we need Tom Perez to come in and say that the extremely esoteric rules that we used to allocate Satellite Caucus results (a thing we've never, ever done before on top of never having to report popular vote totals) are possibly wrong. And all of this has gone off without a hitch, because Democrats are so good at literally everything, we can manage to rig a caucus with a literal paper trail. Because that totally sounds like Democrats. When I think "Democrat" I think "highly competent."
 

Boke18

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,073
I will say. DNC and Perez aren't really doing themselves any favors by even doing something like this. It even gives well reasoned people the thought that "something" is going on.
 

Captjohnboyd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,144
There's a point where incompetence appears (or effectively becomes) nefarious regardless of their speculative & metaphysically-inaccessible intentions
No there actually isn't.

Your saying their intentions are "metaphysically inaccessible" should be a clue to not pretend to divine them by ascribing malice. You can argue that ineptitude equals damage. That's a fair assessment. But to come in here posting that "it's basically An evil plot even if they don't mean it to be" is disingenuous and not based on anything factual. Stop it.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,522
USA
The 538 updates on Sanders are incredibly encouraging, but we're only through one primary (and not even that, really). I feel like their model is overreacting like crazy. But god I hope this is the direction we're going. I think we need a couple more states under our belt to start solidifying things.

Extremely hopeful for a Sanders victory!
 

umop 3pisdn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,639
No there actually isn't.

Your saying their intentions are "metaphysically inaccessible" should be a clue to not pretend to divine them by ascribing malice. You can argue that ineptitude equals damage. That's a fair assessment. But to come in here posting that "it's basically a every plot even if they don't mean it to be" is disingenuous and not based on anything factual. Stop it.
Them being metaphysically inaccessible makes them irrelevant in this case.

This degree of incompetence beggars belief even by the standards of democrats, making mere incompetence not feel entirely satisfying as an explanation but ymmv.

Maybe if this was more transparent it wouldn't be so rife for reasonable speculation, which is what we do in metaphysics fwiw! An injunction against ever knowing the facts of metaphysical problems doesn't stop us from venturing our best guesses lol.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,964
At least the IDP will not be forced into Perez' order of delaying the results.

Let the full results come in so we can analyze and then a challenge can be made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.