Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1252628303182

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    As a slight tangent, the right wing rag I follow, National Review, is tying this Iowa thing to Hillary Clinton, on the grounds that the people who designed the app were her 'acolytes'.

    Here's an LA Times article covering the same ground, though I will observe that since Hillary Clinton was the Democratic party's presidential nominee in 2016 virtually anyone who would be trusted by the Democrats to develop such an app likely fits the description of "Clinton campaign veteran".
  • I'm checking out various news sites. NR was next on my list.

    Believe it or not, I actually liked NR when I was growing up. Especially Bill Buckley. (And yes, I know he had some issues that I didn't realize at the time.) I just grew up to have different politics.

    Once in a while, I stop by and check it out. And once in a while, I hear news that someone there has written something that isn't in lockstep. One such was Christopher Buckley. He dared to vote for Obama, and dared more to write about it...at another site. IIRC, the title was something like "Sorry, Dad, I Voted For Obama". His dad was gone by that time; but NR forced Christopher to resign.

    Fortunately, Christopher kept writing...elsewhere.
  • They occasionally still publish articles that swim against the conservative tide.
  • I'm rather glad it happened now and so massively rather than halfway through the season. It might (per impossibile) be the last slap upside the head some people need to get their election systems into better order.

    Yeah, I know, but hope springs eternal.
  • Inapropriate use of phones and tablets is one of my pet peeves at work. There are tasks for which you absolutely have to plunk your ass down in front of a good old desktop. Usually tasks requiring accuracy handling large volumes of text and numbers ...
  • The saving grace for the Iowa caucus is all participants filled out paper ballots, so there is a paper trail they can fall back on.

    I have been hearing that this Iowa fiasco may be the death-knell of its caucus system. It is the least democratic process that should have died back in the 1800. Iowa is the least diverse state. The caucus system prevents people with families from participating. It does not allow for shift workers participants.

    A suggestion has been raised that Iowa be combined with other states in the region in a primary vote which would reflect the diversity of the party.
  • So, do people reckon working and middle class Americans feel better off than four years ago?
  • Nope.
  • So they will hear "bullshit"when Trump talks up the economy?


  • Yup.
  • excellent
  • ...depends on whether they're so desperate that they want to believe he can help them...
  • No, they will not hear the bullshit. People are not that sophisticated in their understanding of the economy and the rubbish of the "American Dream" is still deeply implanted. At least into the demographics that supported Trump in the first place. If understanding how fucked one is significantly affected the vote, neither Trump nor Brexit would have happened in the first place.
  • Well this explains a lot. Unfortunate but expected.
    'Clog the lines': Internet trolls deliberately disrupted the Iowa caucuses hotline for reporting results

    The phone number to report Iowa caucus results was posted on a fringe internet message board on Monday night along with encouragement to “clog the lines,” an indication that jammed phone lines that left some caucus managers on hold for hours may have in part been due to prank calls.

    An Iowa Democratic Party official said the influx of calls to the reporting hotline included “supporters of President Trump who called to express their displeasure with the Democratic Party.” The party official’s comments were first reported late Wednesday by Bloomberg News.

    Users on a politics-focused section of the fringe 4chan message board repeatedly posted the phone number for the Iowa Democratic Party, which was found by a simple Google search, both as screenshots and in plain text, alongside instructions.

    "They have to call in the results now. Very long hold times being reported. Phone line being clogged," one user posted at about 11 p.m. ET on Monday, three hours after the caucuses began.

    "Uh oh how unfortunate it would be for a bunch of mischief makers to start clogging the lines," responded another anonymous user, sarcastically.

    Some users chimed in, posting alleged wait times on hold, imploring others to “clog the lines [and] make the call lads.”

    Good thing the U.S. has been preparing for this kind of technological election interference since 2016.
  • Gaaaa.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    No, they will not hear the bullshit. People are not that sophisticated in their understanding of the economy and the rubbish of the "American Dream" is still deeply implanted. At least into the demographics that supported Trump in the first place. If understanding how fucked one is significantly affected the vote, neither Trump nor Brexit would have happened in the first place.

    If someone is telling you you are doing well, and you are not, it is easy to spot the bullshit. If someone is telling you you are doing badly and if you elect me I will help you in the future, it might not be so easy. If someone is telling you that the economy is doing well, but you are struggling because of [insert target group], it's also understandable, perhaps, that you don't pick the lie because of your own prejudice.

    Trump is going with the first line so far. I don't think that will work. The evidence of the lie is in their daily experience. He's telling them that they are doing well NOW.
  • Gaslighting.
  • So the results from the Iowa caucuses are (finally!) in. Here is a ranked list of everyone who got delegates to the National Convention:
    1. Pete Buttigieg - 13
    2. Bernie Sanders - 12
    3. Elizabeth Warren - 8
    4. Joe Biden - 6
    5. Amy Klobuchar - 1
    6. ??? - 1

    That last item labeled '???' is there because no one is entirely sure how to award one of the delegate slots. It will almost certainly go to one of the five named candidates on the list, not some unknown. I just put it in to remind people that there are 41 pledged delegates awarded at the 2020 Iowa caucuses and so far only 40 have been assigned to candidates.

    In terms of vote totals Buttigieg did much better than expected, Warren did slightly better than expected, Sanders and Klobuchar did about as well as expected, and Biden did much worse than expected. Buttigieg and Sanders come out of this as the big winners, Buttigieg because he exceeded expectations and Sanders because he turned in strong performance while his chief rival's campaign fell apart. Biden is the big loser. He's still the frontrunner in national polling but that support is largely premised on 'electability'. As such his campaign can't afford many more setbacks like this and recent polls in New Hampshire don't look so good for him.

    Here is a ranked list of all candidates by state delegate equivalents (SDE), some arcane unit the Iowa Democratic Party uses to translate caucus results into numeric values.
    1. Pete Buttigieg - 564.0 (26%)
    2. Bernie Sanders - 562.5 (26%)
    3. Elizabeth Warren - 387.1 (18%)
    4. Joe Biden - 341.2 (16%)
    5. Amy Klobuchar - 264.2 (12%)
    6. Andrew Yang - 22.2 (1.0%)
    7. Tom Steyer - 6.7 (0.31%)
    8. Uncommitted - 4.0 (0.18%)
    9. Other - 0.69 (0.032%)
    10. Michael Bloomberg - 0.21 (0.010%)
    11. Tulsi Gabbard - 0.11 (0.0053%)

    Michael Bennet and Deval Patrick both received 0 SDEs. John Delaney was officially listed and had 0 SDEs despite having withdrawn his candidacy. Note that only for the top five on that list do SDEs translate into actual delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the only unit of currency that really matters in this contest.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No, they will not hear the bullshit. People are not that sophisticated in their understanding of the economy and the rubbish of the "American Dream" is still deeply implanted. At least into the demographics that supported Trump in the first place. If understanding how fucked one is significantly affected the vote, neither Trump nor Brexit would have happened in the first place.

    If someone is telling you you are doing well, and you are not, it is easy to spot the bullshit. If someone is telling you you are doing badly and if you elect me I will help you in the future, it might not be so easy. If someone is telling you that the economy is doing well, but you are struggling because of [insert target group], it's also understandable, perhaps, that you don't pick the lie because of your own prejudice.

    Trump is going with the first line so far. I don't think that will work. The evidence of the lie is in their daily experience. He's telling them that they are doing well NOW.
    An individual knows if they are not doing well. But if they are told that the socio-economic class they are in is doing well, they will hope they can join in and they will vote that way. Trump told an economic lie about the working class having a higher percentage economic growth than the rich during a certain period. Whilst that is the bare truth, the reality is that even with that growth, they are falling behind.
    They hear the number and they wish to believe, so they will.
    Reality has never been part of the voting pattern.
  • Perhaps voters' natural cynicism doesn't apply to Trump. We shall see if that holds. I still reckon Trump will win, but that's mostly a self defence mechanism.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    No, they will not hear the bullshit. People are not that sophisticated in their understanding of the economy and the rubbish of the "American Dream" is still deeply implanted. At least into the demographics that supported Trump in the first place.

    Plus why wouldn't the evangelicals punt on Trump for a chance of another SC seat?
  • Re evangelicals:

    Because they fear for their immortal souls if they again support a man who thinks he's the second coming?
  • The man who pays lip service to God is superior to those godless, commie bastards who want to kill babies and turn churches into satanic compounds or worse: mosques.
  • True for some LB... How do we deal with this?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    True for some LB... How do we deal with this?
    By calling out the hypocrisy. By owning the high road.It won't work for everyone, but it might work for just enough people.
    But, honestly, the solution is getting the fucking stupid younger generations to vote. There are more than enough people to vote the bastard out of office if they would just go to the polls.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    NPR's On The Media had a very interesting, three-part program on how the American primary system developed today. If you have the time, give it a listen.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    True for some LB... How do we deal with this?
    By calling out the hypocrisy. By owning the high road.It won't work for everyone, but it might work for just enough people.
    But, honestly, the solution is getting the fucking stupid younger generations to vote. There are more than enough people to vote the bastard out of office if they would just go to the polls.

    I think you're right on the getting new voters thing. I am also in favor of using the Dark Arts of sloganeering to do that - vague policy statements that can be interpreted in a number of ways. I'm a firm believer in getting into power first, and then implementing the program that in your judgement is best for the country. If your judgement is sound, you will get re-elected.

    A difficulty for the Americans at least is the hyper-polarisation of Congress. I don't think Americans are generally as divided as the twitterverse and the media would have us believe. There are hyper-partisan people for sure, but I suspect that most Americans do indeed just want to get on with their lives.

    I rather think that the calling out thing is being done, what with Muller, impeachment and people counting the lies and misstatements in the media. People will listen eventually I hope.
  • The Iowa Democratic Party has now released the official allocation of Iowa delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
    1. Pete Buttigieg - 14
    2. Bernie Sanders - 12
    3. Elizabeth Warren - 8
    4. Joe Biden - 6
    5. Amy Klobuchar - 1

    Pretty much what I listed last time, with that undistributed delegate going to Buttigieg. The various campaigns have until 1:00 pm Central Time today to ask for a recanvas of any precincts they want recanvassed.

    In other election news Joe Walsh has ended his campaign for the Republican nomination, leaving only Donald Trump and Bill Weld as contenders.
  • New Hampshire totals coming in. So far (22:12 EST)

    Sanders 26%
    Buttigieg 24%
    Korbechar 20%
    Warren 9%
    Biden 8%

    Turn out up 18% over four years ago.

    Biden left the state before the vote was in, going to South Carolina.
  • None of this is good. Divided loyalties are not not good. Too many people will be too butt hurt that "their" candidate didn't make the final cut and not vote.
  • CBS News is projecting Bernie Sanders winning in New Hampshire.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    None of this is good. Divided loyalties are not not good. Too many people will be too butt hurt that "their" candidate didn't make the final cut and not vote.

    I disagree. All the candidates have said no matter what Trump has to be defeated.

    The mere fact that Democratic turnout was so high also suggests that we are coming on strong.

    What should also be mentioned is that in the last election Clinton beat Trump by only 2,500 votes. Trump really wants to turn New Hampshire red this go around. Yet, in the Republican primary, while Trump handily won it (109,000), a total of 17,000 votes went to other Republican candidates--which means there could be significant dissension among the Republicans.

    Total delegates won by Sanders 9
    Total delegates won by Buttigieg 9
    Total delegates won be Korbachar 6

    Yang has now dropped out, as well as Bennett.

    Biden now has to win South Carolina just to stay in the race.|


  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Double post
  • For those who want the overall delegate breakdown:
    1. Pete Buttigieg - 23 (+9)
    2. Bernie Sanders - 21 (+9)
    3. Elizabeth Warren - 8 (+0)
    4. Amy Klobuchar - 7 (+6)
    5. Joe Biden - 6 (+0)

    The first number is the total number of delegates gained so far. The number in parentheses is the number of delegates added tonight from the New Hampshire primary. To put it in terms of delegates needed to get a majority:
    1. Pete Buttigieg - 1.2%
    2. Bernie Sanders - 1.1%
    3. Elizabeth Warren - 0.4%
    4. Amy Klobuchar - 0.4%
    5. Joe Biden - 0.3%

    In short, the Democratic primary is a marathon, not a sprint. Onward to Nevada!
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    None of this is good. Divided loyalties are not not good. Too many people will be too butt hurt that "their" candidate didn't make the final cut and not vote.

    I disagree. All the candidates have said no matter what Trump has to be defeated.
    The candidates are not their supporters.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    There's polling data on this question:
    Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democratic primary voters plan to vote for the Democratic nominee even if their candidate does not receive the nomination. Thirteen-percent (13%) say they will not vote for the Democratic nominee if their chosen candidate does not win, while 15% say it will depend on who the nominee is. Five-percent (5%) Biden supporters say they will not vote for someone else as the Democratic nominee, while 9% say it would depend on who the nominee is. Among Sanders supporters, 16% will not vote for the nominee if Sanders doesn’t win, while 30% say it depends on the nominee. No Warren supporters say they will definitely not vote for the nominee if she does not win the nomination, but 10% say it will depend on who the nominee is. Forty-two percent (42%) of Yang supporters say they will not vote for anyone else as the Democratic nominee, while 9% say it depends on the nominee.
    Source:
    https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/national-2020-biden-and-sanders-battle-in-two-way-race-for-democratic-nomination
  • So Gabbard went nowhere?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    So Gabbard went nowhere?

    According to this tweet Gabbard went to New Hampshire for 96 total days, the most of any Democratic presidential candidate. This got her ~3.2% of the Democratic primary vote.
  • Deval Patrick has suspended (translation: "ended") his presidential campaign. It was speculated when he entered the race in mid-November that it was a flanking action intended to draw New Hampshire voters away from fellow Massachusetts candidate Elizabeth Warren who at the time was at what turned out to be the tail end of a surge in the polls. Having drawn 0.4% of the primary vote in New Hampshire he seems to have failed at this task, but Warren's campaign seems to be struggling for non-Patrick reasons.
  • I very much dislike Gabbard. It's the isolationist thing, mostly.

    Not to be a broken record, I do like Warren very much. She is my favorite. But I'm concerned that she didn't do better in a state that is surely very much her territory. I know Sanders almost clean-swept the thing against Clinton, but this is a much different race. I'm wondering whether it is time for her to cut a deal and give Sanders a clean run. Its very very early, but Sanders looks like the leftist most likely...

    I almost choke on my Wheaties to call Sanders and Warren leftists. I'm listening to a podcast on the Russian Revolution right now. It really is a joke to call them anything but mildly progressive centrists. That's right up my self-identified lane, btw, as long as you don't get me started on protecting Obama's legacy.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Not to be a broken record, I do like Warren very much. She is my favorite. But I'm concerned that she didn't do better in a state that is surely very much her territory. I know Sanders almost clean-swept the thing against Clinton, but this is a much different race. I'm wondering whether it is time for her to cut a deal and give Sanders a clean run. Its very very early, but Sanders looks like the leftist most likely...

    Here’s my take on the current state of the Democratic primary.

    First, Iowa and New Hampshire are fairly small states that aren't particularly representative of either the United States or the Democratic Party. You can divine a little bit from their tea leaves, but not that much. Between the two of them they control ~1.6% of the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

    Bernie Sanders: Currently the favorite for the nomination, but not the frontrunner. (Pete Buttigieg has two more pledged delegates than Sanders.) He's the only candidate in the Democratic field to have made a strong showing in both Iowa and New Hampshire and have favorable polling in upcoming states. The downside of the Sanders candidacy is that it doesn't seem to have expanded its support much beyond its 2016 incarnation. If anything it has shrunk. In 2016 Sanders won 60% of the vote in New Hampshire. In 2020 he got 26% of the vote, pulling in about half the number of ballots despite the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary electorate being ~40,000 voters bigger than its 2016 counterpart. Yes, in 2016 Sanders had only a single (plausible) opponent but that's kind of the point. When given four plausible non-Sanders choices about half the New Hampshirites who voted for Sanders in 2016 voted for somebody else in 2020.

    Pete Buttigieg: Technically the frontrunner at this point, having two more pledged delegates than Sanders. The problem Buttigieg faces is that his support outside of mostly-white, largely rural places like Iowa and New Hampshire is a big question mark. The state-level polling for him is not encouraging, but the whole premise of Iowa and New Hampshire is that an early win there will give a candidate "momentum" and a lot of free press, boosting his performance down the line. Winning Iowa certainly boosted Buttigieg's performance in New Hampshire, his polling in that state jumping about ten points between February 3 and February 11. It's just uncertain whether this translates to other states down the line, especially since the new come-from-behind media darling seems to be Amy Klobuchar. Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that the last time anyone did a state-level poll in Nevada (the next stop on the primary/caucus tour) was mid-January.

    Elizabeth Warren: One of the things that's impressed me about Warren is that she seems to be the only Democratic candidate with a clear idea of what she's dealing with in Trump and the Republicans. This hasn't translated into huge support in the primaries, but she's in third place at the moment behind Buttigieg and Sanders. She seems to have solid polled support in a wide variety of states, but most of it puts her in third place and there is no third prize in a primary election. I should also point out that New Hampshire isn't really "a state that is surely very much her territory". A lot of people from New Hampshire hate folks from Massachusetts. Yes, Warren is a transplant from Oklahoma but she's also a former Harvard professor. That's about as Massachusetts as you can be and still pronounce the letter R. There's a sizeable anarcho-libertarian segment of the New Hampshire population that's predisposed to Sanders, making the state more like East Vermont rather than North Massachusetts. Anyway, given the uncertainties in the system it seems a bit early to throw in the towel.

    Amy Klobuchar: A lot of my points about Buttigieg are also applicable to Klobuchar. She currently has a big media boost from her third-place finish in New Hampshire. (For some reason Warren's third place finish in Iowa didn't produce a similar spate of glowing stories.) Her support outside of mostly-white, largely rural states is still a big question mark.

    Joe Biden: His campaign is premised on his 'electability', so a fourth place finish followed by a fifth place finish erodes that presumption. Biden is also, according to polling, very popular with African-American voters who are both the backbone of the modern Democratic Party and largely absent from Iowa and New Hampshire. We'll see if moving the contest to more diverse states revives Biden's prospects.

    The Billionaires: A lot of unknowns here. Both Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg jumped in to the race too late to be serious contenders in either Iowa or New Hampshire, counting on their vast wealth to generate support in later states. Steyer has been concentrating on Nevada and South Carolina, while Bloomberg has been going after Super Tuesday states. The biggest unknown in this strategy is whether a lot of ad buys will translate to getting people to the polls. We'll find out a week from Saturday (February 22) when we see how many delegates (if any) Steyer gets out of Nevada.

    tl;dr - It's too soon to start worrying about making deals, coalition building, or strategic voting. Wait until after Super Tuesday (March 3).
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Here is Warren's tweeted summary of the dangers of Trump
    Donald Trump is shredding the rule of law in this country. His AG overruled career prosecutors to reduce the sentence for his buddy Roger Stone after Stone committed crimes to protect him. Every Republican who voted to acquit Trump for his corrupt actions enabled and owns this.

    I think it would be to the great advantage of every remaining candidate to say "right on" to that.
  • I think Tom Steyers has now dropped out of the race.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    I really like Bloomberg's styling of himself as the anti-Trump. I think that's a winning message that dumps a whole lot of bad on Trump, and is very very non-specific, so hard to form the basis of a political attack. I suspect that on policy grounds he's probably not going to be my favorite, but I do like that line. It shits all over 'no malarkey'. And I'd be happy with the proverbial drover's dog instead of Trump.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think Tom Steyers has now dropped out of the race.

    Steyer was at the 2020 National Faith Forum in Las Vegas yesterday (February 13) and is scheduled to have an afternoon "meet and greet" at the MLK Jr. Senior Center in North Las Vegas today (February 14). If he's dropped out someone should tell him to stop campaigning.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I really like Bloomberg's styling of himself as the anti-Trump. I think that's a winning message that dumps a whole lot of bad on Trump, and is very very non-specific, so hard to form the basis of a political attack. I suspect that on policy grounds he's probably not going to be my favorite, but I do like that line. It shits all over 'no malarkey'. And I'd be happy with the proverbial drover's dog instead of Trump.

    Well, there's one way in which Bloomberg and Trump are pretty darn similar. (Actually a few ways, I guess, if being rich white dudes from New York counts.)
  • Steyer's ads are still running here in California.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Bloomberg is NOT the anti-Trump. He's Trump in borrowed, badly fitting Democratic clothing. He's an oligarch and a racist.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host, 8th Day Host
    edited February 2020
    Amen, Ruth.
  • Someone else needs to borrow that line then. Its a beauty.
This discussion has been closed.