This whole thing is soooooooooo bad for America and the world. It plays perfectly into Trump’s hands.
2 Likes
Yup. It also adds to the narrative that the Dems are incompetent clowns.
Come on who’s surprised the CIA claimed victory over a socialist candidate without any results?
3 Likes
Pete torching what was left of his campaign when he had a pretty great night. You hate to see it.
So looks like the Iowa caucuses were always this shady and rigged and the only thing that has changed is that there are now paper ballots and increased reporting that only served to demonstrate how shady it actually is?
9 Likes
This exactly.
This whole thing reminds me of bobman’s Apollo and Artemis thread, basically anything that relies on a huge bureaucracy in American fails bigly, just normally we don’t hear about it. The couple thousand people in charge can’t get the tens of thousands of caucus goers to follow the simple instructions because no one really knows the simple instructions. They just know that well it worked this way last time so that’s the way we’re going to do it. We’re just living in a failson world and the people in charge can’t do simple math, but also they know what results they want so if someone breaks the rules to help the get that result, did they ever really know?
1 Like
Iowa Democratic Party when they realized last night that they’re going to have to reconcile all of their numbers to make sense of their own and their precinct guys’ incompetence:
“why didn’t we just keep it like before when we didn’t have to reconcile anything? Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck”
4 Likes
Does it make sense to lock people in if their first choice was viable? Isn’t the whole point of the caucus that people can change their minds?
I think it serves to discourage stuff like we saw last night where people were strategically defecting to game the delegate counts.
1 Like
Didn’t Santorum win Iowa in 2012 but they gave it initially to Romney only to announce Santorum as winner at like 2 am? This seems like at least in part a definite Iowa problem
I heard it was a good strategic move. Whether he wins or not, the speech makes headlines and has a positive effect on his campaign. And he didn’t technically declare victory as in he won. His words were careful saying: They are moving on victorious. That could mean anything
2 Likes
That’s not true though. Social security has a yuge bureaucracy and seems to run just fine. Same with Medicare and that’s even more complicated. The post office runs just fine too. The problem here is probably just a band of wildly incompetent party hacks trying to run an overly complicated election. You can probably have either a band of wildly incompetent party hacks running the election or an overly complicated election but not both.
3 Likes
I think they announced Santorum like… weeks later
It took them 2 weeks to announce Santorum as the winner in '12.
Oh yeah you’re right like two weeks later
I don’t know much about politics, but the # of delegates that can be gained from IA is totally insignificant, right? Isn’t it all about winning the first caucus and bragging rights? Outside of optics and gaining momentum is this caucus even that important in terms of winning delegates and the eventual nomination?
Bloomberg over Biden now in predictit
1 Like
Correct. And the advantage of claiming victory in Iowa gets smaller and smaller the longer they drag this out.
What a shit show.
Even though he’s still in the single digits, this is actually a very good night for Bloomberg and a terrible one for Biden. If the DNC can’t stomach a too liberal Warren then Bloomberg and Klobuchar become their darling