Primary exhaustion

jamie

Seems like at this point - we mainly need the primaries to actually happen.

Who's vote needs to be swayed at this point?  Does the ground game change anyone's mind?  Will we have a clear front runner on Super Tuesday?


nohero

There still are undecideds.  Lots of people don't focus until their own state primary is coming up.

Not everyone acts like us.  cheese


jamie

i suppose so.  I'm just anxious to get a candidate so that we can start campaigning against the orange guy.


Smedley

Finally we’re in the actual primary season with stuff coming fast and furious. It was getting a little old being x number of months until Iowa.


Klinker

The Iowa/New Hampshire paradigm is toxic and need to go. It is flawed in exactly the same way as the Electoral College.  Valuing minority opinions is important.  Letting a minority rule the country is undemocratic and immoral.  

Rural white people should be granted power in exact proportion to their numbers.


Morganna

Klinker said:

The Iowa/New Hampshire paradigm is toxic and need to go. It is flawed in exactly the same way as the Electoral College.  Valuing minority opinions is important.  Letting a minority rule the country is undemocratic and immoral.  

Rural white people should be granted power in exact proportion to their numbers.

 Agreed and I think the disaster that occurred in the Iowa Caucus, will make it easier to break the news to them that we need a shake up.


mrincredible

From what I've been hearing there are still some swings happening in the polls. I am glad we finally are playing for marbles though.

I wonder: should there be a real tight race as the primaries draw to a close, will there be any attempt to reexamine the Iowa results.


Klinker

Morganna said:

 Agreed and I think the disaster that occurred in the Iowa Caucus, will make it easier to break the news to them that we need a shake up.

The thing is that the Iowa Caucuses have been either (charitably speaking) broken or (realistically speaking) corrupt for decades.  The Sanders campaign documented multiple instances in 2016 where Sanders won the local caucus but Clinton was awarded the delegates.  This years review has found similar problems.

The Caucus needs to go and the Iowa primary needs to be held in early July for a couple of cycles.


Klinker

Does anyone know whether the allegations of fraud in the 2016 California Democratic primary were ever resolved? As I recall, the results obtained after a recount differed pretty dramatically from the results announced initially (although the ultimate result remained the same). Given the profile of this years contest, it would be nice if the process was beyond reproach.


STANV

We can talk about changing the nominating process after we get through this year's election. Let's keep the focus on that.


mrincredible

Klinker said:

Given the profile of this years contest, it would be nice if the process was beyond reproach.

This is what I'm worried about.

Let's say it's June and Bernie Sanders has barely enough delegates to win the nomination at the first round at the convention. Joe Biden is a close second. Would Biden's campaign go to the courts and demand recounts and recertification of the Iowa rallies?

Or do they back off and say "the process was the process, let's get him elected President now." I could see a situation like this causing deeper division in the party, and also dragging the process further along at a time when the party needs to pull together behind the nominee.

I found this article from 2016 kind if interesting:

How Predictive Are Iowa And New Hampshire? https://www.npr.org/2016/01/31/465016222/how-predictive-are-iowa-and-new-hampshire


Klinker

mrincredible said:

Let's say it's June and Bernie Sanders has barely enough delegates to win the nomination at the first round at the convention. Joe Biden is a close second. Would Biden's campaign go to the courts and demand recounts and recertification of the Iowa rallies?

Or do they back off and say "the process was the process, let's get him elected President now." I could see a situation like this causing deeper division in the party, and also dragging the process further along at a time when the party needs to pull together behind the nominee.

I found this article from 2016 kind if interesting:

How Predictive Are Iowa And New Hampshire? https://www.npr.org/2016/01/31/465016222/how-predictive-are-iowa-and-new-hampshire

 Given Biden's sense of entitlement, I am sure his handlers would be tempted but, given how far behind he was in Iowa, its hard to see how he would benefit.


mrincredible

Klinker said:

 Given Biden's sense of entitlement, I am sure his handlers would be tempted but, given how far behind he was in Iowa, its hard to see how he would benefit.

Well let's say Buttigieg kinda flames out. He can shift his pledged delegates to another candidate. So if he's shifted them to Biden then Biden has an incentive to scrap for every delegate so a couple more from Iowa might change the balance. It's an unlikely scenario I know.

It could go the other way too. What if Sanders misses the brass ring by a handful of delegates? You don't think there would be some intense protest that the Iowa results were a mess and need to be reevaluated? I personally fear that scenario a little more. If Biden edged out Sanders by a couple of delegates I think there would be accusations of corruption and lots of Sanders supporters would be looking third party.

(This where Klinker writes "If Great Uncle Grabby wins the nomination it's definite corruption. He's too old, conservative and stupid to win.") 

wink


Klinker

mrincredible said:

(This where Klinker writes "If Great Uncle Grabby wins the nomination it's definite corruption. He's too old, conservative and stupid to win.") 

wink

 You have mistaken me for our dear departed Nan.  I am all to aware of the fact that GUG may win the nomination (although that is looking less likely with each passing day).  My problem is that the guy can't win the General.

He is, as you say, too old, to conservative and just too damn stupid. Trump will serve him on a platter with his coke head son stuffed in his mouth.


Klinker

That's why it is our duty, as patriotic Americans, to make absolutely sure that Biden is not the nominee.  

If we get to June and the race is a dead heat between Klobuchar and Biden, I pledge right now that I will go door to door to canvass for Klobuchar.


drummerboy

blurty bidish dash derp


ml1

if there's exhaustion, I'd chalk a lot of it up to the repetitious horse race-type coverage.  The superficiality of following polls, and debates in which 12 candidates each get about five minutes to answer stupidly framed questions (often using GOP framing no less), post debate analysis of who "attacked" whom, and all the other nonsense that goes with our election coverage can be numbing.  

But most people probably aren't paying much attention to any of it, which is why the polls have been so flukey for the past year.  Biden was riding high, probably based almost entirely on the VP experience on his resume.  As soon as people in Iowa and NH started getting ready to make up their minds, his support has eroded.  I suspect the same thing will happen in most states except SC and a few other states dominated by more conservative African-American voters.

So I guess what I'm saying is that this process is only exhausting for the few of us who are paying attention.  To most everyone else, it's still new.


mrincredible

Okay I'm heading back over to the 2020 Candidates Thread to avoid thread diffusion.


STANV

The Iowa results are in!!!!

Updated results from the party show Buttigieg with 26.2 percent of state delegate equivalents, compared to 26.1 percent for Sanders. Elizabeth Warren (18 percent) was third, and Joe Biden (15.8 percent) was fourth.

According to the state Democratic Party, Buttigieg is projected to win 14 delegates to the national convention this summer in Milwaukee, while Sanders will get 12 delegates. Warren will receive eight delegates, Joe Biden will get six, and Amy Klobuchar will receive a single delegate.


mrincredible

Everything is happening exactly as I foretold.


nohero

STANV said:

The Iowa results are in!!!!

Updated results from the party show Buttigieg with 26.2 percent of state delegate equivalents, compared to 26.1 percent for Sanders. Elizabeth Warren (18 percent) was third, and Joe Biden (15.8 percent) was fourth.

According to the state Democratic Party, Buttigieg is projected to win 14 delegates to the national convention this summer in Milwaukee, while Sanders will get 12 delegates. Warren will receive eight delegates, Joe Biden will get six, and Amy Klobuchar will receive a single delegate.

 Last week, the line from the Bernie partisans was that Tom Perez was trying to "rig" the Iowa caucuses by suggesting a recanvass of the results.  That was when they thought they convinced people that Bernie won.

Now that people are looking at delegate numbers as the measure, this week the Bernie people are asking for a recanvass of some precinct results.  Never mind their attacks and accusations last week.


STANV

There are over 4000 Delegates at the National Convention. Spending one second recanvassing in Iowa to switch one or two Delegates is a total waste.


Morganna

Heard Amy raised $3,000,000 after the debate. 


mrincredible

STANV said:

There are over 4000 Delegates at the National Convention. Spending one second recanvassing in Iowa to switch one or two Delegates is a total waste.

You say this now.

Based on the proportional division of delegates it could be significant in the future. Depending on how many candidates can keep the resources flowing to maintain their campaign, a couple of delegates could be significant at th finish line, when Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are the last two standing and are just a few delegates apart. 

The candidates who have some delegates but drop out get to decide where those delegates go. So maybe a recanvass shows that Sanders actually has 14 delegates, Buttigieg has 12 and Biden has 5. Presumably Sanders gives those delegates to Warren when he drops out. So she gets 2 from a recanvassing.

Yes it's a crazy scenario but not impossible.


BG9

nohero said:

 Last week, the line from the Bernie partisans was that Tom Perez was trying to "rig" the Iowa caucuses by suggesting a recanvass of the results.  That was when they thought they convinced people that Bernie won.

Now that people are looking at delegate numbers as the measure, this week the Bernie people are asking for a recanvass of some precinct results.  Never mind their attacks and accusations last week.

That's not the only inconsistency from Bernie:

Perez announced last month that he would allow candidates to make the debate stage in late February if they met either a polling threshold or won national party delegates in Iowa or New Hampshire. Perez dropped a requirement that forced candidates to attract thousands of grass-roots donors, which Bloomberg would not meet since he does not accept donations.

Sanders has been blunt in his condemnation of the move.“I think it is an outrage,” he told reporters Thursday. “I guess if you’re worth $55 billion, you can get the rules changed.”

Other Democratic insiders have tried to paint the Sanders complaints as politically expedient. Along with other candidates, they say, the Sanders campaign supported a change to the debate rules in December that would have allowed candidates to qualify with either polling or donors, as part of an effort to allow Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to join the Jan. 14 debate. That change, which Perez did not accept, would also have cleared the path for Bloomberg.

Bernie is complaining that the rules were changed to get Bloomberg into the debates. Yet, Bernie in Dec wanted to change the rules which then would have allowed Bloomberg in.

The thing is, this public whining by Bernie and his campaign only helps the Republicans. Is he trying for a repeat of 2016 where many Bernie supporters refused to vote for Clinton? Instead of public whining, work it out internally.

“What’s said in the family stays in the family,” - Paul Ryan.

STANV

mrincredible said:

You say this now.

Based on the proportional division of delegates it could be significant in the future. Depending on how many candidates can keep the resources flowing to maintain their campaign, a couple of delegates could be significant at th finish line, when Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are the last two standing and are just a few delegates apart. 

The candidates who have some delegates but drop out get to decide where those delegates go. So maybe a recanvass shows that Sanders actually has 14 delegates, Buttigieg has 12 and Biden has 5. Presumably Sanders gives those delegates to Warren when he drops out. So she gets 2 from a recanvassing.

Yes it's a crazy scenario but not impossible.

 I don't see the arithmetic. It's difficult to imagine a candidate winning or losing the nomination at the Convention by 2 votes. But, who knows?


mrincredible

STANV said:

 But, who knows?

I think this sums up the entire 2020 nominating process. 


nohero

mrincredible said:

Amy in the lead!

 One vote for Tulsi!  

Now we know where Mr. Surovell disappeared to ...


mrincredible

nohero said:

 One vote for Tulsi!  

Now we know where Mr. Surovell disappeared to ...

 Aw c'mon. Let it rest.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.