2020 Iowa Democratic Caucus

[Bt1 5,213]

4 hours ago, Economy said:

I get that it was important but what I'm saying is, is it a State with a high concentration of his supporters?

 

Cuz even if he does energize his base, if it's not a state with a high percentage of his voters this might not be surprising

 

And my perception is that Iowa is a mostly middle class white State. My apologies if I'm wrong about that tho. I'll just go and Google it now

Biden has this problem. His support with black voters doesnt mean anything in Iowa and NH. It also didnt help that it was a caucus. Certain demographics wont and cant stay hours to support a politician. 

However, if Pete could do it, Biden should have been able to do it. He has a serious problem with this difference. 

[Bt1 5,213]

I dont understand Bernie supporters being so upset at a 2% difference. 

Give to Pete the applause he deserves. No one was looking for him Monday morning and he did it. 

It doesnt even matter if Bernie gets in front of him. These are incredible numbers for him. 

[sarahb 17,188]

[Nikolai Barrow 1,337]

3 hours ago, Florin said:

I dont understand Bernie supporters being so upset at a 2% difference. 

Give to Pete the applause he deserves. No one was looking for him Monday morning and he did it. 

It doesnt even matter if Bernie gets in front of him. These are incredible numbers for him. 

I think the thing is that it's not about him deserving the win like it's the Oscar's and we're being poor sports. Pete is very corrupt taking so much money from billionaires in "smoke filled wine caves" as Warren said. Who's interests do you think he's going to look after if he wins? The average person or the billionaires who got him there? 

In the end it's exciting that Bernie has second or first place and it puts him in a good position to continue. But Bernie Sanders supporters are just nervous because they know the establishment will do all they can to stop him from winning.

[Bt1 5,213]

15 minutes ago, Nikolai Barrow said:

I think the thing is that it's not about him deserving the win like it's the Oscar's and we're being poor sports. Pete is very corrupt taking so much money from billionaires in "smoke filled wine caves" as Warren said. Who's interests do you think he's going to look after if he wins? The average person or the billionaires who got him there? 

In the end it's exciting that Bernie has second or first place and it puts him in a good position to continue. But Bernie Sanders supporters are just nervous because they know the establishment will do all they can to stop him from winning.

Biden also had the money and didnt win, so yea, Pete deserves the applause.

Other than that, you can have your opinions. But at the end of the day, voters will decide was it is important for them and who they like more. No one can control that. That's why the "establishment " narrative is getting exhausting. 

Trump also had this "establishment" narrative and then he won. So yea, get the votes. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

Just wanted to mention this in the thread. 

Bernie did win the popular vote on both the first and final alignments. In other words, Bernie did get the most votes out of the entire caucus. The reason Pete has won more delegates than Bernie is due to a statewide math problem. 

Say there were 300 people in a room. Say a precinct has 6 delegates. Say Bernie got 120 votes. To get the state delegate equivalents you multiply the votes Bernie has by the number of delegates and then divide it by the number of total people in the room. In my example here, Bernie would get 2.4 delegates. In caucus delegate allocation, they do not do decimals but they round up or down. So in my example, Bernie gets 2 delegates. Let's say Pete got 80 votes. This means he would get 1.6 delegates. So he gets 2 delegates as well. So even though Bernie got 40% of the vote in a precinct and Pete got 26.6% of the popular vote, they both got the same number of delegates. The reason Pete got more state delegates is that in the states that Bernie won big, the number of popular votes he received was not enough votes to get that rounded up delegate and he lost most of those to Pete. 

This is how Bernie technically won the Iowa caucus but for all intents and purposes the media are saying that Pete is the actual winner of the caucus. Due to rounding. Let that sink in. 

[Bt1 5,213]

31 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

 

This is how Bernie technically won the Iowa caucus but for all intents and purposes the media are saying that Pete is the actual winner of the caucus. Due to rounding. Let that sink in. 

What media? If you would actually watch mainstream media like CNN, you would have seen that they explained this multiple times.

 

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

STILL at 71%????  

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Florin said:

Biden also had the money and didnt win, so yea, Pete deserves the applause.

Other than that, you can have your opinions. But at the end of the day, voters will decide was it is important for them and who they like more. No one can control that. That's why the "establishment " narrative is getting exhausting. 

Trump also had this "establishment" narrative and then he won. So yea, get the votes. 

This sounds like you dont know or don't believe there is such a thing as an establishment, or that there are people whose lives are ruined by it's continued stranglehold on power  

~~~

Horus's point is salient - first and final vote alignment numbers should be more indicative of support than math, it means more actual people want Bernie than Pete, and in a general election we get one vote. This is basically the electoral college we all like to hate in action  

[Bt1 5,213]

4 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

This sounds like you dont know or don't believe there is such a thing as an establishment, or that there are people whose lives are ruined by it's continued stranglehold on power  

This is so all over the place. 

My point is simple. The establishment cant stop a candidate.  The republican establishment couldn't stop Trump to win. Bernie didnt win last time. It's his job to win this time and convince the people that he deserves their votes. And he has the money to compete with all the candidates. He just needs to win. 

 

 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

8 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Wow, what the hell? Genuinely never saw this coming. I guess it's time to pack it in, everyone.

This picture still cracks me up 

[Chromatica 7,042]

To think of how late I stayed up on caucus night to still not have the results two days later.  

[HorusRa2 5,005]

57 minutes ago, Florin said:

What media? If you would actually watch mainstream media like CNN, you would have seen that they explained this multiple times.

 

The segments I've seen did not explain it the way I just laid that out. At the end of the day, the headline is still that Pete is winning the caucus when the actual delegates that are currently going to both Pete and Bernie are the same. The real story is that Bernie won the popular vote but has the same number of delegates coming out of Iowa as Pete. Instead the framing of the election is that Pete "won." That's not really an accurate reflection of what has been released and that's part of what I take issue with. And the only reason Pete has a reason to claim victory is the equivalent of rounding. That in of itself is so insignificant that the way the pundits are talking about the caucus is just misleading. Rachel Maddow was talking last night that the caucus results showed that Bernie can't build the coalition to win based on his performance in Iowa, but that's just not true. He still won more votes than did Pete. Additionally, the argument was always that he couldn't win over voters of color but he won over 40% of the voters of color who did vote in the caucus, albeit the sample size is much smaller than the party electorate at large. However, that is an early indication that maybe Sanders has more support from people of color after all and that the so-called, "Bernie-Bro," narrative is actually a myth the media has used to constantly bag on Sanders as unelectable. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

31 minutes ago, Florin said:

This is so all over the place. 

My point is simple. The establishment cant stop a candidate.  The republican establishment couldn't stop Trump to win. Bernie didnt win last time. It's his job to win this time and convince the people that he deserves their votes. And he has the money to compete with all the candidates. He just needs to win. 

 

 

Honestly, you'll just call me off topic if I try to go into any detail about why you're wrong here, even if its related to this caucus, so I'm not gonna waste my time.

~~~~

OT: Horus is right, Bernie was able to get unengaged people into the political process, which has been his message the entire time  We need that energy to win a general election, and its a shame that there won't be stories about the minority turn out in this caucus. Muslim communities, Latinos, immigrant communities, etc. should be the focal point of this story, but instead its this damn mess because of this stupid app (and more shenanigans brewing behind the scenes). I thought liberals loved uplifting people of color too  

[MJHolland 12,725]

15 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Where did I say they were?  

This reflects bad on the DNC and the IDP. Is the IDP more immediately and directly responsible? Most likely, but Tom Perez's phone doesn't have 0 mentions, whether you think it should be addressed to him or not. There's a decent argument to be made about chain of command and leadership from the top down. The DNC does not control whether the state holds a primary or a caucus, but there was significant effort to try to hold the DNC specifically to account for a more fair and transparent caucus in states like Iowa last time in 2016-2017, so those people likely will see this as a failure of them to intervene to make sure things go smoothly again.

Perez and the DNC could not have intervened what are you talking about 

The IDP is an independent org