• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Thread in Sanders’ coalition:

 
Demonwolverine said:
What about Buttigieg/Warren? Either way, it'd probably be the highest combined intellect for a ticket since Clinton/Gore.
Click to expand...

Former head of a federal agency and twice elected senator playing second fiddle to a small midwestern city mayor doesn’t sound ideal to me. Policy wise it probably fits the unifying role, however It sounds less unifying because the more experienced more qualified woman has to get behind and support the younger less qualified man. I of course would support them and vote for them though.
 
birdman said:
Former head of a federal agency and twice elected senator playing second fiddle to a small midwestern city mayor doesn’t sound ideal to me. Policy wise it probably fits the unifying role, however It sounds less unifying because the more experienced more qualified woman has to get behind and support the younger less qualified man. I of course would support them and vote for them though.
Click to expand...

TITCR
 
yeah, the real takeaway here is that sanders proved a progressive can win. he should bow out now and hand his support to Warren full throated
 
MHBDemon said:
Thread in Sanders’ coalition:

Click to expand...

That's great! Hopefully the Sanders campaign can bring new voters out across the nation. Sadly, one of the problems with the current primary system is all of that effort engaging new caucasers in Iowa doesn't make a difference for the general election.

It's also a little weird that the Sanders narrative is that he went from around 49% in 2016 to 26-27% in 2020 by engaging new voters. Everything I've heard says there was similar turnout. How does the Sanders camp explain the near half of Bernie caucasers from 2016 who chose different candidates in 2020?
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
it is a little crazy how much this tracks along the narrative that the IDP (or DNC) was releasing results to Pete's benefit

NYT needle as of 9:30pm last night:

84953801_10101327536962153_4909388180446248960_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't really buy or care about this narrative. The media would have hyped Buttigieg whether he finished 1st or 2nd regardless of how close it was. Bottom line is he beat prior expectations, in that nationally he is running 4th yet in Iowa he beat Biden, Warren and came really close to beating Sanders. No matter how close the final results were/are the media narrative would have been all about Pete beating the expectations.
 
PhDeac said:
That's great! Hopefully the Sanders campaign can bring new voters out across the nation. Sadly, one of the problems with the current primary system is all of that effort engaging new caucasers in Iowa doesn't make a difference for the general election.

It's also a little weird that the Sanders narrative is that he went from around 49% in 2016 to 26-27% in 2020 by engaging new voters. Everything I've heard says there was similar turnout. How does the Sanders camp explain the near half of Bernie caucasers from 2016 who chose different candidates in 2020?
Click to expand...

A progressive can win a predominantly white caucus state? Hold the presses!!!
 
Section2mankini said:
https://apnews.com/5232ce5601996c1de440806ad30fa4fb

Rig: manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person.

Yes I watched it and I believe it. It's past incompetence at this point. It's been over 48 hours since the results should've come out. I tried to withhold judgment for as long as I could because it brings me no pleasure to criticize our institutions. It hurts whoever the nominee ends up being, and that only hurts our chances to defeat Trump. But defeating Trump is not the end-all, be-all if the institutions for picking our nominee is this incompetent, corrupt, rigged (pick your adjective).

First, the app malfunctions. Let's just call that gross incompetence and the McGowan-Halle ties just your everyday politics-as-usual corruption (which in a sane world would be talked about non-stop). Then the IDC decides to release an arbitrary 62%, and now 71% of the voter count, with zero transparency and what appears to be cherry-picking of the results (I'll attach the tweet). Then the DNC announces that it's "taking over" the accounting of the votes (link below). The same DNC that took $20 million from the Hillary campaign when it was $2 million in debt and gave her control over its operations in 2016? The same DNC that just changed the rules to allow Bloomberg on the debate stage after his $300k donation to the DNC? Come the fuck on.

Thank God the Sanders campaign had the foresight to ask their own volunteers to keep track of the results without telling the IDP or the DNC. My growing suspicion, as much as it pains me to say, is that the DNC and the IDP are either (1) intentionally delaying releasing the results at an arbitrary point to prop up Pete, or more cynically, are (2) trying to manipulate the results in a way that doesn't clash with the Sander's campaign's internal polling. Please provide me with a more logical or reasonable explanation at this point. I really would like to believe it's something else.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-democratic-party-anticipates-releasing-majority-caucus-results/story?id=68744850
Click to expand...

Hard to argue now it wasn't both. But Bernie is almost too gracious and likely won't bring up these issues even though it'd be great for his campaign if he went scorched earth. Unlike Mayor Cheat, who got the last Des Moines Register poll canceled because he complained his name wasn't on one (one!) survey, Shadow, "victorious."

Now consider if the situation were reversed and how the media would've treated Bernie if he did what Mayor Cheat did. And you'll have your answer whether the deck is stacked against Bernie. Bernie has to "over-win" for this reason, and I think he'll do it.
 
BillBrasky said:
Ok this is basically everything the Bernie “conspiracy” folks were predicting. That the data being released earlier was cherry picked to spin a positive narrative for Pete. You also now have previously released precinct data which is different than the data being released by the Iowa DP. And guess who is missing votes? Bernie.

You Tammany bros have no problem with this? Its not suspicious at all?
Click to expand...

And I'm the unhinged lunatic with no credibility. Right Christopher, centerdeac?
 
birdman said:
I don't really buy or care about this narrative. The media would have hyped Buttigieg whether he finished 1st or 2nd regardless of how close it was. Bottom line is he beat prior expectations, in that nationally he is running 4th yet in Iowa he beat Biden, Warren and came really close to beating Sanders. No matter how close the final results were/are the media narrative would have been all about Pete beating the expectations.
Click to expand...

Yep. If the results we have now had come out on Monday, the narrative would definitely be about how Bernie won as expected and Pete greatly outperformed expectations. And both would have probably given the same speeches they game Monday. So you could argue both were hurt because there's more attention on how Iowa screwed up than how either performed.
 
birdman said:
I don't really buy or care about this narrative. The media would have hyped Buttigieg whether he finished 1st or 2nd regardless of how close it was. Bottom line is he beat prior expectations, in that nationally he is running 4th yet in Iowa he beat Biden, Warren and came really close to beating Sanders. No matter how close the final results were/are the media narrative would have been all about Pete beating the expectations.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if you buy or care about that narrative. Pete got a huge, undeserved media bump over 2 days because he claimed to be victorious and the media gladly ran with it, claiming Pete won. Very different from results being properly released and him finishing second. Now he's +8 in the New Hampshire poll. Damage done.
 
I was fairly certain Warren would win the nomination back in the fall. Now I would think Bernie has a 75% chance of winning, 15% chance for Bloomberg :)mattryan: ) and 10 percent for the field.
 
birdman said:
I don't really buy or care about this narrative. The media would have hyped Buttigieg whether he finished 1st or 2nd regardless of how close it was. Bottom line is he beat prior expectations, in that nationally he is running 4th yet in Iowa he beat Biden, Warren and came really close to beating Sanders. No matter how close the final results were/are the media narrative would have been all about Pete beating the expectations.
Click to expand...

I'm more impressed with the mathematic improbability of it all
 
PhDeac said:
Yep. If the results we have now had come out on Monday, the narrative would definitely be about how Bernie won as expected and Pete greatly outperformed expectations. And both would have probably given the same speeches they game Monday. So you could argue both were hurt because there's more attention on how Iowa screwed up than how either performed.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about what the narrative would've been. Pete's speech likely would've been similar. Bernie's almost certainly not. The last two days of the Pete Won narrative is what propelled him to +8 in the New Hampshire poll. Hard to argue Pete was hurt. Bernie would've most certainly had a surge of his own if the results were handled properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top