Sorry if this has been covered, but what's the source on the DNC wanting the satellite delegate distribution changed?
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.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.
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.
Go back to bed, we still don't have full Iowa results.Finally caught up to the present in this thread.
I'm so fucking tired.
National delegates? There will be no difference. Bernie and Pete are splitting them no matter who comes out on top.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.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.
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.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.
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.
I wasn't sleeping, I was working. :(
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.
CNN and Bloomberg citing anonymous sources.Sorry if this has been covered, but what's the source on the DNC wanting the satellite delegate distribution changed?
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.
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
"I have nothing to hide on this or any of the many accusations Democrats made during the last campaign," Hawley told The Star Wednesday, pointing to his decision to release internal emails with his consultants during his final month as attorney general in 2018.
Jesus Christ at Iowa and the DNC. I don't know about any conspiracy, but how did you not have this shit worked out months ago?
This really is it- we're watching the end of caucuses.
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.
This has basically nothing to do with what I'm saying, but go off, chief.
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.
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.
.@PramilaJayapal has paved the way for a bolder, more representative Congress that truly looks like our America. She has championed progressive policies, while never failing to listen to, learn from, & lift up the next generation of leaders. I am so proud to earn her endorsement.
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!
Bad case of Yangrene. Had to cut it out.
Tbh I'll believe it once they show an ounce of willingness to get behind the leading candidate.
Tbh I'll believe it once they show an ounce of willingness to get behind the leading candidate.
Stop framing it as thought the party writ large is trying to nefariously screw the results or election. There is no basis for itYour 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.
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.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.
Tbh I'll believe it once they show an ounce of willingness to get behind the leading candidate.
"Yangrene is such a terrible way to go!" - narrator from Leisure Suit Larry 6 while getting a game over
lol, Butti getting no love538 updated their primary predictor:
Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?
FiveThirtyEight's polls and forecast for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary election.projects.fivethirtyeight.com
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?
Stop framing it as thought the party writ large is trying to nefariously screw the results or election. There is no basis for it
I don't think it would have been a good idea for the DNC to get behind Joe Biden.
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)
No there actually isn't.There's a point where incompetence appears (or effectively becomes) nefarious regardless of their speculative & metaphysically-inaccessible intentions
The DNC reeeeeeeeally wishes Biden was the leading candidate.I don't think it would have been a good idea for the DNC to get behind Joe Biden.
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.