Your next 2020 Democratic presidential primary thread: Now we're serious

Thank you for the fp, sic,

paper ballots would allow for a recount on this

for that matter I've always found the painting in Picard's ready room to be rather lame
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41kat8xhScL.jpg

lol

wrong thread or idk any more

yeah whoops

can't believe how badly the iowa dem tech team screwed up the individual painting meter data

Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, Volume II
Edited and translated by Joseph A. Buttigieg pic.twitter.com/pUc02EnDeZ

— Viewpoint Magazine (@viewpointmag) February 4, 2020

That ready room painting is titled "Klobmentum."

And the artist's name? Albert Marley.

Think about it.

let's all meditate to the enterprise engine noise

"Are we still somehow stuck at 62%?"

BI has had a higher percentage for hours which showed Sanders edging out Pete. Either CNN don't give fuck now that Trump is talking or ...whatever.

me on this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofMJ6cwzLM

who is the more left candidate: 2008 obama or 2020 buttigieg

similar verbal pudding

Is this supposed to mean something? https://t.co/0Xo6vzVwcq

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) February 5, 2020

i have a translation here

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fliberalbionicelbow.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F01%2Ftrumpnation-the-smiler-fucks-with-you.png&f=1&nofb=1

(i got banned from going live on facebook for a month after posting that image during the uk election btw)

^^ that looks more like Rory S.! #plotthickens

the end is the beginning is the end

So bernie won a decisive victory in the first round, but then they had a second round and he still was winning, but then they gave extra weight to rural counties so he narrowly fell short (for now). Awesome. Just like when Hillary won by three million votes but President Caligula was sworn in anyway.

I suspect when the supposedly larger/less-rural caucuses finally get counted it will be a slight lead for Bernie in all senses but the delegate count will probably be a tie or like a difference of 1 so it hardly matters now. Still, the idea that anyone is reporting this as Pete "leading" in any real sense is hilarious. Whatever, onto NH and elsewhere.

I’m sure there might be other cases where electoral weirdness helps bernie but that isn’t the point. These arcane rules put people off the political process.

Pete’s victory lapping is pretty obnoxious.

The whole caucus process is arcane and bothersome and probably helping Sanders, yes

Also, Pete B is awful, yes

You can't spell BELONGING without some of the letters in BUTTIGIEG

going to be fun as hell watching liberals who've been (correctly)screaming bloody murder about the EC for the last 3 years all the sudden be real cool with extra weight in rural counties

It's really really funny if Buttigieg wins, but misses the usual Iowa bounce because of the screw up :) I really can't see any path for him from here on out, South Carolina is going to go for Sanders if Biden collapses.

I think in the past they have only released the state-delegate equivalent percentages, but this year they have also released the first and second alignments. This was done in the interest of transparency, but if it turns out that one candidate wins the SDE % without having won either of the alignments (as may well happen with Buttigieg), then I think it invites distrust of the caucus process (and perhaps the party generally).

Isn't that a good thing, though? Caucuses are awful

these are only my ~feelings~ but idk seems like the arbitrary "importance" grafted onto the iowa caucus by the media has been pretty diminished by this total fuck up

It doesn't fucking matter who "wins" Iowa. It's a trivial number of delegates. There is no meaningful difference between having 1% more or having 1% less because this is not an election, only a tiny part of one. It means as much as who "wins" a particular county in a governor's race.

What does matter is who looks they have a real campaign and who looks like they're done. What we learned is that none of Sanders, Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg are done. And I thought Warren and Buttigieg might look done after Iowa.

Bloomberg apparently has ads out with clips of Obama praising him. Great.

I mean it "matters" in the sense that the media makes it matter but it doesn't matter in terms of my assessment of whether the candidates are fundamentally good at talking to people and getting their votes.

I could definitely see a cascading effect from Biden's poor performance in Iowa. It already looks like Bernie is going to take NH, but if Biden finishes 3rd or 4th there I could see that severely diminishing his chances of taking Nevada (where it looks like he's slightly leading according to the most recent polls). If he goes 0 for 3 in the first three states I've got to think that will damage him badly in South Carolina, which he obviously absolutely has to win or else he might as well just drop out.

get ready for Buttiboomberg!

meanwhile if Pete finishes a strong second in NH maybe he steals Nevada or performs well there and all of those positive results prevent him from embarrassing himself in SC and suddenly he's either the favorite or neck-and-neck with Bernie. lot of threading the needle there though.

https://i.gifer.com/origin/fc/fc4d658abf49a3b7958f62d9d186bbe0_w200.gif

xp

and after he gets flayed in the general the Left will be blamed and I’ll wake up to “I got U babe” until I die

maybe he steals Nevada

i don't see it, then again i should never try to predict these things

If Bernie loses to Trump, the left will be blamed forever ("See? We should have run a less extreme candidate!").

Contrariwise if Biden (or whoever) loses to Trump, the "center" will be blamed forever ("See? We should have run a candidate who excites the base and offers change!").

The only alternative to these two scenarios is to... I dunno, win? Like, maybe try obtaining power through electoral victories.

tbh when the centrist loses i think the left will still be blamed

correct

but it’s OK because the Democratic candidate is going to win

Josh Marshall on the question of Iowa turnout:

As I noted below, President Trump’s rising poll numbers have my attention. They are worrisome. But there’s been another critique floating around since last night and that is that it’s a bad sign for Democrats that turnout at the Iowa caucuses was just on par with 2016 rather than the high numbers from 2008. (The Post’s Karen Tumulty makes the argument here.) I don’t have to remind you 2008 turned out better than 2016. But I’m pretty confident that this conventional wisdom is wrong. Normal turnout in Iowa is just fine in terms of what it might say about November. Here’s why.

Turn out is driven by people’s investment in the outcome of that election. But let’s focus on what that mean – that election, in this case the primary election. One thing I noticed in all the caucus coverage last night was that universally people were saying they were happy to support any of the candidates in November.

We’ve all seen that Democrats consistently and overwhelmingly say their first priority is a candidate who can beat President Trump. Certainly Sanders especially but also Warren have very enthusiastic supporters. But my sense at least is that Democrats are mainly champing at the bit to get a chance at voting out President Trump. You see this in poll after poll – not just the toplines but the internal measures of Democratic enthusiasm and focus.

I feel confident about this because I expected there to be normal turnout for just this reason. It didn’t make sense to me that commentators expected 2008 type results rather than 2016 type results. For most Democrats the first, second and probably third priority is ending President Trump’s presidency. By that measure, this level of turnout strikes me as unsurprising and not worrisome.

if Bernie loses to Trump, the largest issue on the table is how to keep the organization going. OFA (Obama for America, then Organizing for America, Organizing for Action) notoriously tried to spin off into a group to keep public support for the policy agenda engaged but ended up diminishing or becoming basically a DNC subgroup they had no idea what to do with

if grassroots organizing groups aren't continually engaged, and helping to boost downticket races not just in 2020 but every election following, then we're back to 2009 and 2013

^^^absolutely otm

Contrariwise if Biden (or whoever) loses to Trump, the "center" will be blamed forever ("See? We should have run a candidate who excites the base and offers change!").

yeah, when a centrist loses it's always because of a particular flaw about that particular candidate. Dukakis was doofy, Al Gore was an exaggerator, John Kerry was a flip flopper, Hillary was...perfect, but Bernie wounded her.

I don’t like mayor cheat, but it is cool that rural Iowa seems to have embraced a gay candidate.

Of course the only reason a leftist candidate ever loses is bc of moderate perfidy

I’m just joking—I don’t think he cheated