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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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" And obviously he does legitimately have issues in the minority community to fix.