US Politics XVIII: the illegitimate partisan sham thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
We still don't know who performed well and who didn't perform well. I would imagine this is something that will help the people that didn't perform as well more than the candidates that did perform well.
 
It also helps Bloomberg...

I wish he was on the ballot next week in NH, just to see what would happen. Being a NH resident, I still don’t know who I am voting for.

And there’s my FYM cameo...
 
I feel like this will foreshadow both the primary and general election

A giant clusterfuck where Bernie’s side claims RIGGED!!!! over every possible issue (real or imaginary)

Election officials having infrastructure issues with software or even polling stations themselves.

No one knowing the results
 
We still don't know who performed well and who didn't perform well. I would imagine this is something that will help the people that didn't perform as well more than the candidates that did perform well.

This is an absolute joke. Whether Perez or Wasserman Shultz is running the DNC, they are as corrupt and inept as the day is long. Expect nothing less from the DNC.
 
Or....

Is it more likely that a bunch of old folk don’t know how to use technology versus some god damn conspiracy against Bernie??

They have the paper trial and all the info. They done fucked up with the app.

The bigger issue is the low turnout. Iowa is saying the levels are at 2016 or slightly below.

There isn’t any excitement for anyone in the Dem camp but the number one issue is still ‘Beat Trump’
 
Iowa has had problems on both sides — remember when Romney won in 2012 and then they were like, no wait, it was Santorum? Yeah. So the DNC certainly looks stupid, but this is also specific to Iowa and to caucuses in general. End them. In 2020 it should be ballots on the 4th Tuesday of January in IA, NH, SC, and NV. That would actually look like the D party.

And say what you will about the DNC, they haven’t bent at the knee to the will to cover up to many crimes of a demented (that narional anthem video is absolutely insulting to everyone — I can’t wait for the outrage from the right, which is of course coming, right) — wannabe authoritarian.

Time to give Mayor Pete another look? It sounds like part of his (likely?) good showing was his youth appeal, which has basically been the Bernie argument. And he’s well-liked in the Midwest. Which is also the Bernie argument. Now it’s just a matter of convincing non-white voters. Which has also been on the Bernie to-do list.

I still don’t know who I’d vote for. I really don’t. But I think freshness will matter, and that winning is about telling a story that captures emotion. And given the fact that turnout was about the same as 2016, all those non-voters who would be moved by someone anti-establishment didn’t materialize, not in the way they did for Trump on the right.

It’s a bit worrisome. We need to be honest about that.
 
For most people (and not just the Bernie fanatics) this will just not pass the smell test. These caucuses need to die a quick death.

“Mayor Cheat” is already trending.
 
https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/1224550326352650240?s=21

https://twitter.com/ericwilson/status/1224675479988396033?s=21

This should kill two birds...

No more caucus (and Iowa going first)
No technology for counting votes, straight up paper ballot. Yes it’ll take longer. News organizations will be pissed they don’t have results right away, but when they do come in they’ll be accurate.

See Bernie’s camp is complaining about caucuses yet they were the ones after 2016 that pushed back against eliminating them.

Closed primaries please
 
Last edited:
Iowa is white AF.

Pete was always going to do well there, question is how well?

Bernie almost beat Hillary in Iowa on 2016. He's going to do well, but not as well as 2016. Question is how much of a drop and where did those votes go?

Biden was never winning Iowa. If he did/does, everyone else can go home. Question is how poorly did he do? Did he finish 3rd, or is he hanging out with the Yang Gang?

Of course we don't know, because the Democrats have proven once again that they are very bad at this.

The people screaming that someone cheated are morons. Absolute morons.

Unfortunately our country has lots of morons.

In the first step in the process after an election plagued with foreign interference, both real and imagined, tin foil complaints of a rigged process, and blatant disenfranchisement? This is the worst thing that could possibly happen. It makes the DNC look absolutely inept. For good reason (they are).

Winners: Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Trump

Losers: Biden, Warren, Iowa, the DNC

Draw: Sanders

Who cares?: #yanggang
 
This country really needed a solid effort out of Iowa and this was the worst thing that could happen.

Want to really suppress interest in a system people don’t believe in already....do exactly what the Iowa DNC did.

Maybe this country doesn’t deserve democracy
 

I have to agree here. Ok, the app muddled things up. But now they can just call in the results they wrote down on paper in the first place.
Any sort of hyperbolic outrage and "sky is falling" the media can drum up, they will do it.

The same media that says, well aren't you just feeding into what Trump wants? Uh, not really, but YOU are dipshits.
 
Having said that. The caucuses. ALL of them. Have to go.
This was a huge complaint last cycle, and they have done nothing to address it.
It is a system that, for the most part in 2016 favored Bernie, so there was NO way that any change was going to be made because they would have suffered the wrath of Bernie Brigade.

But now, watching this nonsense go down live. Just head-shakingly embarrassing. I think even Sanders supporters are like - Yeah, this really is stupid.

Beyond that. The first 4 primaries should be Ohio, FL, NC and NV or AZ. START with the states that are have a real make up of the electorate and then move onto the more homogeneous states.
 
yes surely the reason the iowa democratic party insists on keeping the caucuses going is not because it heaps an absurdly disproportionate amount of money and media attention on iowa every four years, it's because they're scared of the bernie bros.
 
yes surely the reason the iowa democratic party insists on keeping the caucuses going is not because it heaps an absurdly disproportionate amount of money and media attention on iowa every four years, it's because they're scared of the bernie bros.

Believe what you will. But the first state is going to get all the same money and attention whether the process is an inane caucus scenerio, or a legit private vote primary process.

There was so much shouting of Rigged! and the DNC is corrupt! BS last time around, that there was no way they were going to change anything and get that going again.

The funny thing is that Bernie was the one complaining about the Iowa results last time, and it was the reason the DNC changed rules this time. So that they broke out all of the 3 levels of numbers, so it was more transparent. So yes, they did bend to what the Sanders campaign was angry about.
 
the 2016 caucuses favoured bernie, so bernie complained and they changed the rules, but they won't make any changes to the caucuses because they're scared that the bernie bros would be mad.

sure, that makes sense.
 
On another note.
McCaskell said last night that Bloomberg already has a ground operation in Missouri. 1000 people on the ground already in Missouri. A state that went for Trump by over 18 points.

Whatever happens in these first 4 states, I think that Super Tuesday will bring a lot of unknowns that nobody can predict. Bloomberg is now at 14% nationally in the latest polls, I think in third place...

My only hope is that if Bloomberg ends up losing in the end, that he will continue to keep these resources available to whoever gets the nomination.
 
the 2016 caucuses favoured bernie, so bernie complained and they changed the rules, but they won't make any changes to the caucuses because they're scared that the bernie bros would be mad.

sure, that makes sense.

Yes, exactly. They changed to rules to appease Sanders. He wanted the results of the initial votes to be listed as well, so even if he lost the delegate count, he could say, yeah, but i won the overall vote.

So like I was saying, the DNC, contrary to the complaining from Sanders supporters and Michael Moore, actually took a step to make Sanders happy, which in the end made it a much more confusing and lengthy process. They didn't say, Oh man, BERNIE MUST BE STOPPED! We have to ditch these caucuses that give him a leg up over our traditional, corporate, oligarch loving, hand-picked favorite.
 
lol it's legitimately hilarious how much of a big bad nefarious boogeyman bernie sanders and his supporters are to some of you here. somebody who endorsed him once farted in an easterly direction which means that bernie is secretly trying to rig north carolina and the DNC won't do anything about it because they're terrified of bernie bros trolling them on twitter.
 
Last edited:
The extra counting they're doing is at the request of Sanders, after he complained that he should have won in 2016. There's no debating that.

But the extra counting is not what's fucking this up. A bunch of old dudes trying to use an app without proper training is what is fucking this up. It has nothing to do with Sanders complaints from last time.

The extra counting is making the process take longer, but it isn't the cause.
 
Last edited:
What most of us are afraid of is his small non expanding base of supporters hijacking another election season

The initial numbers from Iowa aren’t good for turnout


https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1224710860624605186?s=21


https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1224710861786316803?s=21

The real issue may end up being that people aren’t excited about any candidate

warren was a viable candidate so the vast majority of people who would have had sanders as a second choice did not have to switch.
 
The attack ads already write themselves: “you want these people in charge of your health care?”

I agree that this will blow over and no one will think about it in a week, but it is ominous. Democrats have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and Trump is set to have a good week with SOTU and then his non-acquittal by a rigged jury that he will frame like he’s Nelson Mandela.

If anything, my shift in candidate preferences (as of today) is towards “new” faces who are for a public option and not MFA — Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg.

But, I also agree that this is just stupid Iowa, land of the white and the old. So I realize I’ll probably feel differently in a month.
 
I for one am just relieved at the calm and reasoned reporting we are getting this morning while waiting for the results.

So before any results have been seen, my understanding are that the big takeaways are:

1. Biden finished so badly. Maybe like 13 or 14th out of 11. It is just an utter nightmare scenario for his campaign. Ol' Joe will be lucky if he can climb out of bed this morning. Where he should head straight to a therapists office to discuss his existence and why he ever thought he could run in the first place. Maybe even go back and look at if he really won his Senate races, because how could someone that did THIS badly actually win any election.

2. Democracy is dead. Democrats have now destroyed every primary after this and Trump should be declared the winner now and let the Dems save face.
 
The extra counting they're doing is at the request of Sanders, after he complained that he should have won in 2016. There's no debating that.

But the extra counting is not what's fucking this up. A bunch of old dudes trying to use an app without proper training is what is fucking this up. It has nothing to do with Sanders complaints from last time.

The extra counting is making the process take longer, but it isn't the cause.

I'm in no way saying that the new rules are the issue here. Just saying that it was made clear before the caucuses started that these rules, with multiple layers of numbers now being reported are going to make an already confusing process even more confusing.

And to DaveC. People wouldn't think of Sanders (and supporters) as a big bad boogie man, if they hadn't done things to earn that reputation. How many people here have stated their concern of what would happen if Sanders came in second again this time around? It's not baseless, and I think it would do good for that campaign to do a little self reflection, but I'm not betting on that.
 
If anything, my shift in candidate preferences (as of today) is towards “new” faces who are for a public option and not MFA — Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg.

Then the reality is that you have to support Bloomberg.

Buttigieg is not just an empty suit IMO, but has basically ZERO support among non-white voters. He is DOA and shouldn't even be considered as a viable candidate.

Klobuchar will do very poorly in all the upcoming early states and won't have the money to compete much further beyond that. She's also a poor public speaker and like the female version of Tim Kaine. I can't imagine who would be excited to vote for her.

Bloomberg has already bought himself to 4th place with very little effort (but a lot of $). We laugh about his last minute efforts but he may actually pull this off if the moderate voters consolidate around him. And there are a hell of a lot of country club Republicans-in-hiding who would absolutely vote for him.

Joe Biden is a total disaster and should exit stage left ASAP.
 
Then the reality is that you have to support Bloomberg.

Buttigieg is not just an empty suit IMO, but has basically ZERO support among non-white voters. He is DOA and shouldn't even be considered as a viable candidate.

Klobuchar will do very poorly in all the upcoming early states and won't have the money to compete much further beyond that. She's also a poor public speaker and like the female version of Tim Kaine. I can't imagine who would be excited to vote for her.

Bloomberg has already bought himself to 4th place with very little effort (but a lot of $). We laugh about his last minute efforts but he may actually pull this off if the moderate voters consolidate around him. And there are a hell of a lot of country club Republicans-in-hiding who would absolutely vote for him.

Joe Biden is a total disaster and should exit stage left ASAP.

IF, Joe really did do poorly last night. And if Pete did very well, that is bad for Joe. One, this will get people in NH to shift over from Joe to Pete, possibly Bernie. And then by the time super tuesday comes along, Pete and Joe will be both have their moderate lane lunch eaten by Bloomberg. And like you said, Amy won't have the resources to make it much farther.

So then you may get yourself to a race with Sanders and Bloomberg at the top and Biden, Pete, and Warren a distant 3,4,5.

The pluses I see for both Sanders and Bloomberg are this.

Sanders is a fighter. He is still sharp enough to debate well, and he plays a lot of the same tricks that Trump does which is a good thing. Also he has a supremely loyal base which helps, and he has been doing much better with minority voters this time around.
Con for Sanders: He can be boiled down to a 2 word label by Trump. Crazy Socialist. Unamerican, blah blah. And that will stick with a lot of people.

Bloomberg. Let's face it. He has the money and resources. He has put out really good ads thus far. He is also putting lots of money into downballot races. He is also someone that I think could dismantle Trump on the debate stage. He's got the sort of tough, get things done persona that appeals to moderate repubs, while not being one of the most disgusting people on earth.
Con: Trump, in most hypocritical terms will hit him on stop and frisk. Maybe call him something really catchy like "Stop and Frisk Mike" :huh: And obviously he does legitimately have issues in the minority community to fix.
 
The pluses I see for both Sanders and Bloomberg are this.

Sanders is a fighter. He is still sharp enough to debate well, and he plays a lot of the same tricks that Trump does which is a good thing. Also he has a supremely loyal base which helps, and he has been doing much better with minority voters this time around.
Con for Sanders: He can be boiled down to a 2 word label by Trump. Crazy Socialist. Unamerican, blah blah. And that will stick with a lot of people.

Bloomberg. Let's face it. He has the money and resources. He has put out really good ads thus far. He is also putting lots of money into downballot races. He is also someone that I think could dismantle Trump on the debate stage. He's got the sort of tough, get things done persona that appeals to moderate repubs, while not being one of the most disgusting people on earth.
Con: Trump, in most hypocritical terms will hit him on stop and frisk. Maybe call him something really catchy like "Stop and Frisk Mike" :huh: And obviously he does legitimately have issues in the minority community to fix.

I really think that we have to seriously start considering that it will be one of these two guys.

Bernie's problem, if it comes down to this, is that everyone assumes that Warren's votes will consolidate around him eventually. But a lot of Warren's supporters are upper middle class white voters who, frankly, I think would vote in significant numbers for Bloomberg.

And if he can buy himself the nomination, then to be frank, it doesn't matter how much Trump is fundraising. Between Bloomberg's cash and all the D money flooding in (+ the Mitt Romney type Republicans who would vote for him), we really could be seeing a bought presidency here. Which is completely anti-democratic, but I'm willing to bet most people can live with the idea if the orange menace is gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom