Giantaxe

"They seem to have put" sure sounds like intention, especially as you failed to mention it was done by a draw.

Three tiers based on polling. Four in top tier (1 minority), Six in second tier (2 minority), 10 in third tier. Can't see how statistically those splits would have made that outcome more likely.

scrubbedexpat099

I think we actually agree, maybe.

I had not looked at the details and certainly have no intent to do the maths but it was not as you explained random, the minorities were not evenly spread between the groups so what happened was more likely than in a truly random draw.

Like I said I doubt it was intentional. Perhaps consequential. Politics seems full of such issues, the intent is one thing, the outcome another.

Actually the whole process has produced odd results, well most of those in say the top 15 would have made it anyway but certainly some benefited from the particular way the rules were written, Marianne Williamson who has certainly made things interesting and who I doubt I would have ever heard of otherwise.

Not so much now but I have always like playing games and reminds me of some games that I really liked but once you knew them really well had design issues that I doubt the Authors ever considered that basically made them unplayable. The more complicated the rules the more likely this was likely to happen.

johnwoo

When it comes to wack jobs, look no further than the current resident of the White House.

Giantaxe

Instead of stating that as a fact, please explain the logic of how that is the case.

The process is called "seeding", based on poll results, and is hardly a radical concept.

scrubbedexpat099

I can see it but explaining it...

Wish my Maths skill was up to calculating the odds of this happening with and without the seeding...

Somebody set this system up, well probably several people, and going back to my game analogy they had some sort of vision as to why they did it and how they expected it to work, probably not what has happened.

Giantaxe

They seeded based on polls and the result was exactly that - a seeded division of the contestants with the top and middle seeds split evenly between the two debates.

scrubbedexpat099

Bernie Sanders' unionized staffers clash with campaign over guarantee of $15 an hour

(CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders is a staple on the front lines of the labor fight, leading the charge in Washington and around the country to raise the minimum wage for workers to $15 an hour. But within his own campaign, which unionized earlier this year, tense discussions over pay have spilled out into public view.

The dispute threatens to undermine Sanders' political message and, if it were to escalate, his ability to credibly advocate for workers around the country currently engaged in their own struggles to negotiate higher wages and better working conditions.

Ooops

Steerpike

It's a bit more nuanced than you might want - the staffers ARE paid minimum wage or above, but the issue is about the number of hours worked by salaried workers. - https://www.vox.com/2019/7/20/207008...wage-staff-pay
What just might blow up here is that 'salaried' has been a tool to get people to work longer hours without pay for a long time, and some states (CA) have made it extremely difficult to categorize positions as being salaried for this reason. So while Bernie can definitely claim to be paying > minimum wage, he could fall afoul of other laws - and be liable for back-pay.

I always assumed campaigns such as Bernie's were all volunteer forces; obviously not.

scrubbedexpat099

You are quite correct, Bernie has announced he is reducing their hours. Not sure if this means he is taking on more employees.

AOC I see is now seeking Reparations for Migrant children. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ly-separations

The US has a “lifelong commitment” to the children it separated, she said, adding: “I believe we have responsibility to provide mental healthcare services to those children for the rest of their lives.”

zargof

So at what point is Diamond Joe going to drop out?

Will it be when he finishes 5th in Iowa, or will it be before then?

scrubbedexpat099

I think it is too early to say but there are so many ways he could be attacked, shame they do not have some sort of prize for participating.

Giantaxe

I hope he and Bernie don't win the nomination, but I don't see either of them dropping out any time soon, if ever.

Oh, and latest polls are showing Biden having rebounded from the aftermath of the first debate:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...atic/national/

zargof

Sure Biden has rebounded some, but to a lower level than prior to the debate. Now there is another debate coming up and I don't see Biden performing much better this time.

Also look at the numbers beyond the top line and it doesn't look good for Biden. All he has going for him is electability and I don't see that holding for him particularly as the voters get to know Warren and Harris more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs...s-and-sanders/

Giantaxe

His and Sanders' poll numbers are both slightly lower than the polls taken immediately before the first debate, Biden's by slightly more. Which is what you'd expect given the name recognition of those two in comparison to many of the rest. Biden is not a good debater, so it's certainly going to be interesting to see what happens poll-wise after this next debate. Otoh, he is unlikely to be broadsided this time around in the manner he was by Harris in the first debate.

Given the opponent, electability is a huge issue for many Democrats. I would certainly like to think you are right in regards to Warren and Harris, but I am not convinced that someone who was vice-president for eight years is going to lose that mantra easily.

johnwoo

Looking at the 2002 electoral map we can see which States the candidate has to appeal to.
Any Democratic Candidate is likely to win California, WA or OR. No matter how many votes they get it will make no difference to the outcome.

https://www.270towin.com/