Originally posted by BrolyBlackThread is a year old. Shows you how much can happen in just a year. eg A year ago Biden was nigh a shoe-in.
Pete has no votes in this poll and he might have just won Iowa
Which is especially funny now that Biden's floundered in the first caucus, if he keeps this up and doesn't get the nomination, then Trump committed his crimes regarding Ukraine for no real reason. And that my frined is an el Oh el.
Originally posted by Robtard
If things stay the same and Sanders/Buttigeig takes 1st and 2nd, you'll get the Trumper marching orders by tomorrow to attack them, Surt.
hilariously Trump has already acknowledged the DNC and current democrats like Bloomberg are already in attack mode on Bernie, he just has to watch it unfold.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's been said that Buttigeig needed to perform here to show he's viable, if he didn't he was dead on arrival. Sanders, Biden and Warren can still go on for a bit.Bloomberg needs to go away, or put his money behind Sanders. That won't happen though, he's richer every year on the policies/ideologies Sanders is against.
Bloomberg is placing all his bets on California, because it awards more delegates than the first four combined.
And to his credit, he is pouring tons of money into down-ticket races for Democrats, even if he does not win.
What the caucuses show is that Sanders has half the support he did in 2016, and Biden and Warren are not performing to expectations. It also shows that when those candidates are not viable, their supporters flock to Buttigieg. If Klobachar, Biden, or Warrne drop out, Buttigieg will be the nominee.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Have they still not announced the winner?What a fu#king shit-show. I hate the DNC. Fu#k this stupid app... use paper ballots.
The caucus is not run by the Democratic National Committee, it is run by the Iowa Democratic Party, and they do use paper ballots. The application was only for reporting the results. If you are going to complain about something, it helps to know what you are complaining about.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I don't think it mattered to much since the distribution of delegates didn't really provide a super winner in Iowa.
It matters for each candidate in different ways.
It is proof that Biden is not as electable as first thought, and Buttigieg is more so.
It also shows that Warren is faltering, and that Sanders has even less support than four years ago.
That is the biggest take away, that Sanders has 50% fewer votes in 2020 as he did in 2019, and his campaign has not brought in an army of new voters.
And that is big, because the entire premise upon which his campaign is predicated, upon which he will be able to deliver all of his campaign promises, is that he will bring in new voters that will usher in Democratic majorities in Congress to enact his policies.
In four years, it has not happened. The blue wave in the midterm elections were all centrist or moderate Democrats that flipped previously red or purple districts. None of the liberal candidates endorsed by Sanders and his surrogates, and supported by his PACs won a single contest.
He needed to win big in Iowa to prove that even though he has not been able to do it in the last four years, he will be able to do it in the next four years, and he did not do that.
That is why his campaign released partial tally data to his supporters on Twitter. With only 40% of precincts reporting, he appeared to be leading in the count. The implication being, that his count would continue the same trajectory over the remaining 60% of the tally, and that he would be the winner.
People ***** about Buttigieg declaring victory before the official count was completed, but he had captains in every precinct, who sent the vote tallies directly to the campaign. They were able to do the delegate math, and determine he was going to winner, before the official count.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Bloomberg is placing all his bets on California, because it awards more delegates than the first four combined.And to his credit, he is pouring tons of money into down-ticket races for Democrats, even if he does not win.
What the caucuses show is that Sanders has half the support he did in 2016, and Biden and Warren are not performing to expectations. It also shows that when those candidates are not viable, their supporters flock to Buttigieg. If Klobachar, Biden, or Warrne drop out, Buttigieg will be the nominee.
I didn't know about the 50% less from 2016 regarding Sanders, that is troubling.
Buttigieg might be in 2020 what Obama was in 2008 then. Been said before.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is the biggest take away, that Sanders has 50% fewer votes in 2020 as he did in 2019, and his campaign has not brought in an army of new voters.And that is big, because the entire premise upon which his campaign is predicated, upon which he will be able to deliver all of his campaign promises, is that he will bring in new voters that will usher in Democratic majorities in Congress to enact his policies.
In four years, it has not happened. The blue wave in the midterm elections were all centrist or moderate Democrats that flipped previously red or purple districts. None of the liberal candidates endorsed by Sanders and his surrogates, and supported by his PACs won a single contest.
He needed to win big in Iowa to prove that even though he has not been able to do it in the last four years, he will be able to do it in the next four years, and he did not do that.
That is why his campaign released partial tally data to his supporters on Twitter. With only 40% of precincts reporting, he appeared to be leading in the count. The implication being, that his count would continue the same trajectory over the remaining 60% of the tally, and that he would be the winner.
People ***** about Buttigieg declaring victory before the official count was completed, but he had captains in every precinct, who sent the vote tallies directly to the campaign. They were able to do the delegate math, and determine he was going to winner, before the official count.
In 2016 there were only 2 candidates in the Iowa caucus for the democrats, this year sanders competed with 9 that have actually gathered votes on the caucus page. I don't think Bernie undershot expectations, Pete had a good night though. It also seems as though the turnout was very similar to what it was in 2016.
It will be more telling in upcoming states because Pete's polling with latinos and blacks has been in single digits and if that doesn't change he can kiss Texas, California, Nevada goodbye.
If there is any take away from the Iowa caucus it's that Biden is a dud right now except in South Carolina.
Right now the delegates are 11 for pete and bernie, 5 for warren the rest 0.
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't know about the 50% less from 2016 regarding Sanders, that is troubling.Buttigieg might be in 2020 what Obama was in 2008 then. Been said before.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I think that has everything to do with Elizabeth Warren (and other progressive-ish candidates like Gabbard and Yang) being in the race, and people assuming their policies are exactly the same, except that Warren is a few years younger than Bernie and also gets support of the "It's time for a woman to be president!" identity politics crowd. I'm sure if she and the others dropped out, the majority of those supporters would find their way back to Sanders. I hope they drop out soon, and that she makes amends with Bernie.
Ha watch Bloomberg just buy enough ads and get enough delegates in Texas and California to be a threat for the Democratic front runner.
Texas is around 288 delegates and California around 435.....Bloomberg could just totally avoid the first few states to avoid the scraps and go all in for the big win states.
To SnowD and EI,
Fair enough there, 2016 was an entirely different playing field with only three candidates total, forgot about that.
Guess we will have to see when people start dropping, who siphons up the votes.
Bloomberg really seems like a DINO. Wouldn't be surprised if he's in this to assist Trump, if he can't win it. Trump's feed-the-rich policies help people like him.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The caucus is not run by the Democratic National Committee, it is run by the Iowa Democratic Party, and they do use paper ballots. The application was only for reporting the results. If you are going to complain about something, it helps to know what you are complaining about.
Oh, I'm sure the DNC has nothing to do with it. 🙄
Originally posted by Robtard
To SnowD and EI,Fair enough there, 2016 was an entirely different playing field with only three candidates total, forgot about that.
Guess we will have to see when people start dropping, who siphons up the votes.
Bloomberg really seems like a DINO. Wouldn't be surprised if he's in this to assist Trump, if he can't win it. Trump's feed-the-rich policies help people like him.
Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, and the establishment media don't give a f*ck about us. They only care about retaining and expanding their own power, wealth, and influence.
Bloomberg has casually switched political affiliations from Democratic to Republican to Independent and back to Democratic in last 20 years. That doesn't really seem like the pattern of someone with firm political values and vision; that seems more like a pattern of personal convenience. He's pretty much paid to play in the next round of Democratic debates, in spite of not meeting the minimum unique donor quota, by spending hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money on campaign ads and donating $300,000 to the DNC...who suddenly and all too conveniently felt the need to change the rules in order to allow Bloomberg into the debate, when no such luxury was offered to other candidates.
Bernie or bust.