Giantaxe

Please substantiate that Sanders would win if the errors were corrected.

Barring declared result corrections, I’ll take tackily correct over ironically irrelevant.

zargof

Is your Google broken?

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ed-claiming-he

Of course Buttigieg is now claiming he "officially" won, which is nonsense.

Giantaxe

There's nothing in that article to substantiate your claim that "if they ever correct the errors in the count it will likely show Sanders won on every metric". Maybe Sanders would get most "state delegate equivalents", maybe he wouldn't. Maybe we'll never know. From your link:

"We also feel confident that the discrepancies we're providing tonight, in addition to those widely identified in the national media, mean that the SDE count will never be known with any kind of certainty."

And the laughable thing is that the Sanders campaign is trying to denigrate the one metric that is used to decide delegates and highlight something that is completely irrelevant to hte delegate count - the popular vote:

"Given the rules changes we fought for that required the release of the popular vote count," said Weaver, "SDEs are now an antiquated and meaningless metric for deciding the winner of the Iowa caucus."

I'll give him the "antiquated" but he's going to have a hard time justifying meaningless given that's the sole thing delegates are based on. That's like saying the electoral college is meaningless. So what next from the "Bernie Bros"? A claim that Clinton won in '16 perhaps?

zargof

Of course the fact that the Sanders campaign provided evidence of enough errors in the count to show he would have more SDEs than Buttigieg is not enough to satisfy your unknowable standard. Give yourself another gold star.

I don't know but a system which is so confusing that the Buttigieg campaign complained that satellite caucuses were getting too much weight because the rules aren't clear might not be the best system to judge a winner.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...=election-2020

I see you still use the "Bernie Bros" pejorative to erase all the women and PoC in Sanders coalition.

Also I see no comment about Buttigieg calling himself the official winner, which is strange considering how much you value precise language.

Giantaxe

There's nothing in the article you linked to that claims those errors fall in favour of one particular candidate. In fact, the article specifically mentions the NY Times study, which says the following:

"There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

But not all of the errors are minor, and they raise questions about whether the public will ever get a completely precise account of the Iowa results."

So errors, period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/u...s-results.html

The point is not that the caucus system in Iowa is ok - I think we both agree it isn't - but the claim from Sanders' campaign chairman that somehow SDE's don't count but the popular vote does. Unless and until the system is changed, SDEs are relevant and the popular vote completely irrelevant. After the Clinton's popular vote "win" in '16, it is at least ironic that Sanders is now touting an equally irrelevant popular vote win in '20.

I'm glad that my choosing to use the "Bernie Bros" pejorative for supporters of your favoured candidate has brought you around to seeing that the use of such pejoratives might not be a bright idea.

Oh, and "still use"? Please provide evidence of my past use of this.


I would have waited, but I can see more grounds for him declaring himself the winner given he leads in the one count that matters, as opposed to Sanders' claim using the irrelvant popular vote totals. It's hardly unusual for politicians to declare themselves the winner before the result is "officially" announced.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/u...-caucuses.html

Hiro11

Dear progressives: you know who is most hoping Bernie Sanders wins the nomination? Donald Trump, that's who. 78 year old self-described "socialist" career politicians from Vermont who call for radical societal and economic change are Not. Gonna. Win.

scrubbedexpat099

Warren is having problems in Nevada

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...ign/ar-BBZJSRP
Warren's comments come after a Politico report Thursday said six staffers had left Warren's Nevada campaign because of what is described in the story as a culture that "tokenized" minority voices.

She does not seem to have figured much in Iowa.

kimilseung

I for one would like to thank the thousands of right wingers who are trying to help the left, without ilI tentions, at their own po!itical cost, by advising who will and will not be the best candidates.

scrubbedexpat099

We need to remember that in the real world progressives are a very small section of the voting population, admittedly a noisy element.

zargof

Well the internet has done the work that the IDP and DNC should have done and gone through the results and catalogued all the errors that have been found as all the data is available. I haven't personally verified the results, but the case is convincing.



I mean with so many errors with the SDE numbers it's not surprising to look at the actual voter numbers which appear to be more accurate. It's only you that considers the popular vote completely irrelevant, particularly in the media narrative which is the most important aspect of Iowa.

Are you seriously equating being mean to Presidential candidates, who are some of the most privileged people in the country, to erasing people from some of the most marginalised communities in the country? Do you not know the difference between punching up and punching down?

I was using "still use" in the sense that it was a term created in 2015 and was always problematic as it erased women and PoCs, and this has just got even worse as Sanders coalition is even more diverse in this election cycle. But yet the myth that only white guys support Sanders still persists.

Well the count that matters is the national delegates and Buttigieg leads by one right now, but I expect that will change to a tie if the ever get a confirmed and final count.

Giantaxe

Looks like this guy is a Sanders supporter. Of course thtat doesn't mean his analysis is inaccurate so I do thank you for finally producing something.

No, it's not. The media has - correctly - focused on the SDE numbers because that's what decides the delegate count. It's only Sanders that ironically wants to use the popular vote. It'll be interesting to see whether this tactic gets repeated in other states where the popular vote isn't the sole determinant of the delegate count.

If the presidential candidates were the ones that read this forum you'd have a point. Funnily enough, they don't. So the audience for the use of the "Bernie Bros" pejorative on here is exactly the same as the audience for the pejoratives that you use on here and they are thus exactly equivalent. Imo, both the bros pejorative and the ones you use merely distract from rational debate. Why do it? Why not stick to cogent arguments as to why you think your preferred candidate is to be... well,, preferred?

Well exactly. And the national delegate count from Iowa is based not on the popular vote but on... SDEs.

Giantaxe

Another very strong debate from Klobuchar tonight. I find it frustrating that she's not getting more traction but Buttigieg is. The votes from Biden's implosion have to go somewhere and they are much more likely to go to a moderate candidate than they are to Sanders or Warren. Hopefully she can at least finish ahead of Biden in New Hampshire. At this point, Biden must be praying for a win in South Carolina, where the polls still have him way ahead.

scrubbedexpat091

Too bad we don't have a nation wide primary system, would be nice if all states did it the same way, on the same day.

Unless one can vote in person on election day, by the time March comes around some of the candidates may not even be viable anymore, oh well can't take back the ballot now lol

Giantaxe

I was having this discussion tonight, namely with the current primary system it's very risky to vote before election day. In 2008 I made up my mind the night before. 2016 it was obvious who I was going to vote for. And this time around I'll probably decide the night before again. But I do have the luxury of being able to walk 100 yards to my polling station, so it's as easy as it could be for me to vote on election day. I appreciate that for others that isn't the case.

scrubbedexpat091

When I was still living in my home state, I always more or less voted on election day or very close to it. At least California doesn't wait to June anymore or whatever it used to be effectively making the primary rather useless.