Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary

[LinekersLegs]

ok maybe hyperbole from me but surely Bernie would have edged it at the least. There was back dealings going on for the 2016 race. It makes sense. Money and big business run the show and Bernie is a thorn in the side off all that and his passed make them know he’s the real deal and can’t be bought.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Caucuses are probably more vulnerable to shady dealing than primaries - or to put a positive spin on it "enthusiastic supporters influencing others". However in 2016 Sanders did much better in caucus states than he did in ones with just direct voting so it seems odd to claim that there were caucus back dealings that overall negatively affected him.

Caucuses do self select for a strange demographics - those with say two jobs can rarely spare the time which probably disadvantages him but on the other hand students seem to be slightly over-represented so think it is swings and roundabouts tbh.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

She is good at zingers

I love her more than a little bit

 

[Death]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Caucuses are probably more vulnerable to shady dealing than primaries - or to put a positive spin on it "enthusiastic supporters influencing others". However in 2016 Sanders did much better in caucus states than he did in ones with just direct voting so it seems odd to claim that there were caucus back dealings that overall negatively affected him.

Caucuses do self select for a strange demographics - those with say two jobs can rarely spare the time which probably disadvantages him but on the other hand students seem to be slightly over-represented so think it is swings and roundabouts tbh.

Id say it will come out eventually Bernie won at a canter on a recanvass. I think he will take New Hampshire.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Id say it will come out eventually Bernie won at a canter on a recanvass. I think he will take New Hampshire.

I don’t think he will as the rural areas seem to have gone surprisingly heavily fo Pete and despite
Bernie getting decent student turnout in the urban areas it didn’t seem to be much higher than in previous years to compensate. However the whole process has been grossly mishandled that hasn’t really been fair on anyone.

Agree that Sanders should win NH, he got 60% to Clinton’s 37% in 2016 so despite the more fractured field this time you’d expect him to maintain enough of that support to be a clear winner.

 

[sdk]

Id say it will come out eventually Bernie won at a canter on a recanvass. I think he will take New Hampshire.

The outcome's not as surprising as you suggest. A super close focus on Iowa as a means of getting an early boost and at least the semblance of momentum has been central to Buttigieg's strategy from the get go and it looks to have worked out for him. If Sanders' grassroots support is as extensive as it appears to be, a failure to get a clear win in Iowa won't matter.

But I'd rather Iowa weren't given such an influential position in the primary season and that the caucus system were rejected in future, as it works to shut people out of the process rather than gather them in.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Haha, I just found this article which I shared four years ago today on my FB timeline, (the site reminded of it to me via 'on this day' feature)

Not much changed, eh?

 

[abelard]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

It's an equal mix of both.

To be clear, Sanders has won Iowa, in every category, including the meaningless-but-for-some-mysterious-reason-all-anyone-is-covering SDEs.

The errors favour Buttigieg at Sanders' expense, and if they are corrected, then Sanders will win.

Of course, the Democrats are grasping at every possible straw to avoid admitting that Sanders has won (at least until after NH); the latest - “The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process” - ranks up there with "We had to bomb the village in order to save it".

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter at this point. They got what they wanted, for all the good it will do them.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Yep. The founding fathers would have been dismayed that their Republic had come to such ideas. The declaration of independence makes no mention of the right of everyone to have access to universal healthcare.

Wow. You cant seriously be an adult?

What is "wrong" with it is that something that is provided for free to some groups must pad for by someone else. By the interpretation of strict constitutionalists, this contravenes the underlying principle of America enshrined in its founding principle - the right of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" of those groups who are asked to pay for it.

If the fruits of your life and liberty are your money, and this is forcibly taken away from you in the form of taxation to pay for the welfare of others, they have taken away part of your supposedly inalienable right of life and liberty.

The US Constitution was designed to protect people from the encroachment of overbearing government by treating everyone as an equal in the eyes of the law; to protect people from the sort of thing Sanders wants to use the resources of the Government today to achieve. Hence property rights were also a core principle; the idea of limited government meant that you couldn't simply outvote someone who didn't want to give up their property rights just because someone wanted to build a railroad through their backyard (ofr example).

That's about the most convoluted argument I've ever heard.

 

[abelard]

Wow. You cant seriously be an adult?

All libertarians are 13-year-old boys (regardless of their actual age or gender)

 

[Charlie Sweet]

What is "wrong" with it is that something that is provided for free to some groups must pad for by someone else. By the interpretation of strict constitutionalists, this contravenes the underlying principle of America enshrined in its founding principle - the right of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" of those groups who are asked to pay for it.

If the fruits of your life and liberty are your money, and this is forcibly taken away from you in the form of taxation to pay for the welfare of others, they have taken away part of your supposedly inalienable right of life and liberty.

The US Constitution was designed to protect people from the encroachment of overbearing government by treating everyone as an equal in the eyes of the law; to protect people from the sort of thing Sanders wants to use the resources of the Government today to achieve. Hence property rights were also a core principle; the idea of limited government meant that you couldn't simply outvote someone who didn't want to give up their property rights just because someone wanted to build a railroad through their backyard (ofr example).

Right. You've wound me up here with your incomprehensible twist of logic.

You seem to have this completely the wrong way around.

The founding fathers (ignoring their questionable morals) and all those pilgrim ships etc (same) were only viable and sustainable on the basis of collective endeavour, effort and security.

When the first ship landed the group of batty eyed wacko religious nuts didn't then all head off in random different directions inland did they? They didn't all file off as individuals/family groups to make their existence on their sole endeavours? Rubbish. They came together in a tight knit community each looking out for each other (in theory).

Taking another example of immigration - when centuries later great hordes of Irish and Italians landed on American shores they survived as part of a very close community sharing work, food and enterprise.

This libertarian concept of individual endeavour and reward is insane - both in justification and its manifestation in today's society.

Would be curious to know the proportion of libertarians that are not one of white, middle aged, overweight or 'christian'.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

All libertarians are 13-year-old boys (regardless of their actual age or gender)

13 year old boys who were never taught to share in primary school or beforehand

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

This is my favorite quote from the Jefferson Memorial. I always think of this when I hear the crazies talk about how nothing should change from how it was written or contemplated by the Founding Fathers. The second amendment comes to mind. Also this bizarre healthcare argument.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

[dwightschrute]

All libertarians are 13-year-old boys (regardless of their actual age or gender)

Isn't that also the age libertarians want the age of consent lowering too?

 

[LinekersLegs]

It's an equal mix of both.

To be clear, Sanders has won Iowa, in every category, including the meaningless-but-for-some-mysterious-reason-all-anyone-is-covering SDEs.

The errors favour Buttigieg at Sanders' expense, and if they are corrected, then Sanders will win.

Of course, the Democrats are grasping at every possible straw to avoid admitting that Sanders has won (at least until after NH); the latest - “The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process” - ranks up there with "We had to bomb the village in order to save it".

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter at this point. They got what they wanted, for all the good it will do them.

I agree that the “incorrect math on worksheets cannot be changed“ is ridiculous, despite that being in the original rules.

The reason why SDEs are being focused on (in a non “everything is rigged against Sanders“ view) is that is what Iowa has historically been decided on. Should the % figures also be considered in any analysis - for me yes but then I prefer straight vote primaries rather than caucuses anyway as I find them too exclusionary and unrepresentative.

But As @Ruairi77 pointed out there are similarities to the electoral college vs popular vote - all the campaigns knew it would be SDEs that decided the winner going in so it is an understandable metric to focus on as the SDEs give a better representation of how a campaigns handled their caucus organization and Pete did a surprisingly good job, especially in the rural areas.

The latter point is one that Sanders supporters seem unwilling to contemplate preferring instead to complain about the (admittedly) awful process. I hope the Sanders campaign itself however is doing a better job of trying to understand what happened there.

On the plus side hopefully this chaos means that Iowa loses its position as first primary - it is a grossly unrepresentative state to assess the national popularity of candidates, particularly of Dem voters. New Hampshire isn’t much better but at least it has this going for it.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Meanwhile Bloomberg really thinks his last minute apology for this policy that he supported for years will be convincing?!