Jump to content
Stefani Tee
politics

2020 New Hampshire Democratic Primary

Featured Posts

DeluluSwine
4 minutes ago, Florin said:

Bernie didnt won Iowa. He had more votes.

oh okay, i just saw everyone saying he won it

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
1 hour ago, Florin said:

Apparently the number of voters in the state is larger. So even if it seems that it was a good turn out, it was a similar procentage as in the past.

Also, comparing 2020 to 2008 doesnt say that much, because NH is an open primary. Republican leaning independents really had to make a choice in 2008 in what primary to vote, while in 2020 they knew that their vote is important only on the democratic primary. 

It is really complicated and probably republicans are happier than the democrats with NH numbers.  :icega:

 

What are you talking about? My entire comment is comparing the turnout among Iowans between 2020 and 2016. Your original comment was the reason that Iowa had a lower turnout than NH was the idea that Iowa has turned more red. 

I don't mean to be rude, but I do want to mention that one of the reasons you and I constantly get into arguments is because you never follow linear and logical conversations. You go in circles about everything, even when it's not bernie vs whomever. 

I can only guess but I'm assuming you're thinking that what I said previously was why the total number of people who showed up in Iowa was lower than NH, but you would be wrong. I'm referring to the fact that IA had low turnout relative to 2008 whereas NH broke the 2008 record. Sure, you can make an argument that the open primary allowed more republican/independents to vote in NH so that's why their turnout was so high, but what my original question was why was turnout lower in IOWA.

To your point, comparing Iowa to NH is meaningless because it's not apples to apples comparison but comparing IA to IA is an apples to apples comparison and the state going more red in presidential elections doesn't seem to be why the turnout is lower. So it has to be something else. As I indicated earlier, I think it has more to do with the fact there were too many choices. There is a book I read in college called, "Paradox of Choice" years ago. They did an experience with 2 Jam stands (1 stand with a handful of flavors and 1 stand with many colors). While more people went to visit the 2nd stand with more flavors, the stand with fewer flavors made more sells. So the implication is that more people were drawn to the idea of having a choice but they would rather refuse to buy than to decide. My guess is that the turnout in Iowa was lower because there were so many choices. Many people chose to stay home than to vote because of their own indecision. I could be entirely wrong but I can't think of another reason that makes sense. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-More-Less-Revised-ebook/dp/B000TDGGVU

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
33 minutes ago, DeluluSwine said:

how is pete in the lead if bernie apparently won both iowa and new hampshire

@Florin is not exactly correct. Both Pete and Bernie campaigns have requested a limited recanvass. The Iowa democratic party is going to have those results I think on Monday. The Bernie campaign has signaled that they may ask for a recount in the future depending on the results. Just because CNN and MSNBC is all too eager to claim Pete is the winner does not make him the winner as of today. But What is true is as of right now, Pete has more SDE's than Bernie does by about 3 whereas Bernie won both the first alignment and second alignment popular vote by 6k and 2k votes respectively. 

 

With NH, because the margin of victory was 2%, Bernie and Pete got the same number of delegates even though Bernie got almost 4K more votes. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeluluSwine
2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

@Florin is not exactly correct. Both Pete and Bernie campaigns have requested a limited recanvass. The Iowa democratic party is going to have those results I think on Monday. The Bernie campaign has signaled that they may ask for a recount in the future depending on the results. Just because CNN and MSNBC is all too eager to claim Pete is the winner does not make him the winner as of today. But What is true is as of right now, Pete has more SDE's than Bernie does by about 3 whereas Bernie won both the first alignment and second alignment popular vote by 6k and 2k votes respectively. 

 

With NH, because the margin of victory was 2%, Bernie and Pete got the same number of delegates even though Bernie got almost 4K more votes. 

this american system is so confusing :messga: i hope bernie wins though

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
3 minutes ago, DeluluSwine said:

this american system is so confusing :messga: i hope bernie wins though

It's still early in the process. There's a lot of political calculations being made by all the candidates trying to keep bernie from winning. I suspect the race will ultimately come down to Bernie vs Bloomberg. The question that remains to be answered is if Bloomberg can buy off enough americans to vote for him so he wins the nomination outright or with the help of the all other non-bernie people with delegtes (Pete, Warren, Klobuchar). Meanwhile, since Bloomberg isn't in the race until Super Tuesday, the moderates best hope is to make sure Bernie doesn't win NV and SC. If Bernie wins those two, I don't think even Bloomberg's money is going to get him the nomination as the primary is mostly a momentum game. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeluluSwine
2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

It's still early in the process. There's a lot of political calculations being made by all the candidates trying to keep bernie from winning. I suspect the race will ultimately come down to Bernie vs Bloomberg. The question that remains to be answered is if Bloomberg can buy off enough americans to vote for him so he wins the nomination outright or with the help of the all other non-bernie people with delegtes (Pete, Warren, Klobuchar). Meanwhile, since Bloomberg isn't in the race until Super Tuesday, the moderates best hope is to make sure Bernie doesn't win NV and SC. If Bernie wins those two, I don't think even Bloomberg's money is going to get him the nomination as the primary is mostly a momentum game. 

what how is this even allowed

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Florin
23 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

What are you talking about? My entire comment is comparing the turnout among Iowans between 2020 and 2016. Your original comment was the reason that Iowa had a lower turnout than NH was the idea that Iowa has turned more red. 

I don't mean to be rude, but I do want to mention that one of the reasons you and I constantly get into arguments is because you never follow linear and logical conversations. You go in circles about everything, even when it's not bernie vs whomever. 

I can only guess but I'm assuming you're thinking that what I said previously was why the total number of people who showed up in Iowa was lower than NH, but you would be wrong. I'm referring to the fact that IA had low turnout relative to 2008 whereas NH broke the 2008 record. Sure, you can make an argument that the open primary allowed more republican/independents to vote in NH so that's why their turnout was so high, but what my original question was why was turnout lower in IOWA.

To your point, comparing Iowa to NH is meaningless because it's not apples to apples comparison but comparing IA to IA is an apples to apples comparison and the state going more red in presidential elections doesn't seem to be why the turnout is lower. So it has to be something else. As I indicated earlier, I think it has more to do with the fact there were too many choices. There is a book I read in college called, "Paradox of Choice" years ago. They did an experience with 2 Jam stands (1 stand with a handful of flavors and 1 stand with many colors). While more people went to visit the 2nd stand with more flavors, the stand with fewer flavors made more sells. So the implication is that more people were drawn to the idea of having a choice but they would rather refuse to buy than to decide. My guess is that the turnout in Iowa was lower because there were so many choices. Many people chose to stay home than to vote because of their own indecision. I could be entirely wrong but I can't think of another reason that makes sense. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-More-Less-Revised-ebook/dp/B000TDGGVU

Why you have to be so dramatic? 

No, you didnt compare in your last comment 2020 with 2008, but you did post in earlier comments that the turn out was higher than in 2008. So you did make that comparison. 

I posted more information on the subject in general, not only about your last post, because that data changed my opinion on how good or not the turn out was. 

If u dont find it as important, it's ok. As I've said its complicated and you can look at the numbers from another angle than me. 

 

 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispering
3 hours ago, DeluluSwine said:

how is pete in the lead if bernie apparently won both iowa and new hampshire

Because Iowa is called for Pete right now, not for Bernie. Both candidates have called for a partial review so it could change.

These two small states aren’t worth many delegates. The primary will have a ton of delegates coming by Super Tuesday. (In three weeks) That’s when we will have a much better idea of who is going to lead the primary. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...