Iowa Caucuses (or Cauci?)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, the Dems preemptively rigged the game so Pete Buttigieg would have a three thousandths more of a delegate than Sanders. Because Pete has been their guy all along.

JasonHarvesterdancer: What dummies, they think it is a conspiracy theory. What it really is is a different conspiracy theory.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yes, the Dems preemptively rigged the game so Pete Buttigieg would have a three thousandths more of a delegate than Sanders. Because Pete has been their guy all along.

JasonHarvesterdancer: What dummies, they think it is a conspiracy theory. What it really is is a different conspiracy theory.

Those democratic overlord meanies need to be contained!

 

[Elixir]

Those democratic overlord meanies need to be contained!

That mean Nancy is picking on me again!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You don't know which theory I'm pushing and which I'm rejecting.

 

[Jarhyn]

You don't know which theory I'm pushing and which I'm rejecting.

Because you speak ambiguously in an attempt to "own the libs", abandoning civility in disrespect for clear, rational discussion.

Personally, I do not think civility is the correct response to uncivil tactics that shit on the very idea of rational discourse; rational discourse was developed as an alternative to the use of force, and so I feel when someone unilaterally abandons civility, the appropriate response is the use of force in the context

 

[lpetrich]

Progressive Lawmakers Says DNC Chair Must Be ‘Held Accountable’ For Iowa Debacle - Hispolitica

“What’s happened in Iowa is a complete disgrace and someone needs to be held responsible,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY) said in the Capitol on Friday.

She stopped short for calling on Perez to be ousted, saying a “a conversation needed around taking responsibility for Iowa and ensuring that this bungled process never happens again.”

She had earlier referred to what happened as a "hot mess", and in a recent Instagram story, she stated that nobody is taking responsibility for it, "which risks it happening all over again."

Ocasio-Cortez fellow squad member, Rep. Ilhan Omar(D-MN) said Perez “should be held accountable” for what happened in Iowa.

“I would say Tom Perez should be held accountable for this failure,” Omar said. “I believe it all starts from the top. There are things that Tom should do and should have done. If this was happening in my home state, we would be having a serious conversation about what accountability would look like for our own chair.”

Co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, called the Iowa fiasco a “national embarrassment” that has already had serious consequences on the primary race. She said Sanders’s rival Buttigieg declared victory in Iowa with the official results still outstanding and managed to raise more than $2.5 million this week.

“I’m sure there is shared blame to go around. I don’t think we should blame just one person,” Jayapal said. “But Tom Perez is the head of the DNC, and I do think that there clearly was not the process in place to make sure all these [protocols] were going to be followed.”

 

[laughing dog]

The Iowa Democratic Party embarrassed itself with its caucuses. Maybe that will cause the rest of the US to rethink the Iowa Caucuses relevance/usefulness.


What comes out of this is that in Iowa, and only Iowa so far, that to Democrats in Iowa, there is a whisker's difference between PB and Sanders, and the rest of the candidates have significantly less support.

What I found interesting from this result, is that at least from the NBC analysts, is that Sanders has virtually no support from the demographic with the traditionally highest voter turnout - those over 65.

 

[Politesse]

The Iowa Democratic Party embarrassed itself with its caucuses. Maybe that will cause the rest of the US to rethink the Iowa Caucuses relevance/usefulness.


What comes out of this is that in Iowa, and only Iowa so far, that to Democrats in Iowa, there is a whisker's difference between PB and Sanders, and the rest of the candidates have significantly less support.

What I found interesting from this result, is that at least from the NBC analysts, is that Sanders has virtually no support from the demographic with the traditionally highest voter turnout - those over 65.

They are the most susceptible to anti-Communist scare tactics.

On the other hand, you'd think they would have the most trouble with a well'armed homosexual in the White House, too. Has Iowa changed since I last visited?

 

[ZiprHead]

What I found interesting from this result, is that at least from the NBC analysts, is that Sanders has virtually no support from the demographic with the traditionally highest voter turnout - those over 65.

What I find interesting is two of the top three candidates are progressives... in Iowa.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I found interesting from this result, is that at least from the NBC analysts, is that Sanders has virtually no support from the demographic with the traditionally highest voter turnout - those over 65.

What I find interesting is two of the top three candidates are progressives... in Iowa.

That is the trouble with Iowa, few data points.

Argument 1: Progs were two of top three! Yea Progressives!

Argument 2: Mods took the majority of the vote. Yea Moderates!

What Iowa tells us is that Yang, Gabbard, Yang, Steyer, Yang, and Yang’s campaigns are finished. On to NH.

 

[laughing dog]

The Iowa Democratic Party embarrassed itself with its caucuses. Maybe that will cause the rest of the US to rethink the Iowa Caucuses relevance/usefulness.


What comes out of this is that in Iowa, and only Iowa so far, that to Democrats in Iowa, there is a whisker's difference between PB and Sanders, and the rest of the candidates have significantly less support.

What I found interesting from this result, is that at least from the NBC analysts, is that Sanders has virtually no support from the demographic with the traditionally highest voter turnout - those over 65.

They are the most susceptible to anti-Communist scare tactics.

Or maybe they see an inflexible person who sees the world in black and white with no grey area.

On the other hand, you'd think they would have the most trouble with a well'armed homosexual in the White House, too. Has Iowa changed since I last visited?

No. As a state, Iowa does not seem perturbed by gays. I believe it was one of the first states in the Midwest to approve of homosexuals adopting children. It began issuing same sex marriage licenses in 2009. See  LGBT_rights_in_Iowa for more detail.

 

[Politesse]

Or maybe they see an inflexible person who sees the world in black and white with no grey area.

In Sanders? He is very consistent in his principles, I'll give you that. But I don't see where you get "no grey area", he has made a lot of compromises on those principles over the decades. You know, he nearly lost his famous Bros when he endorsed Clinton in 2016. A much more "flexible" response, IMO, than what he got from her in response, even at the time. So I'm inclined to see an element of Red Scare in that impression also, if it is commonplace.

No. As a state, Iowa does not seem perturbed by gays. I believe it was one of the first states in the Midwest to approve of homosexuals adopting children. It began issuing same sex marriage licenses in 2009. See  LGBT_rights_in_Iowa for more detail.

Doesn't square with my experiences as a traveler (Iowa never struck me as being much different than any of its neighbors in that particular respect) but I am glad to hear it. I haven't spent much time there either, perhaps I should!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You don't know which theory I'm pushing and which I'm rejecting.

Because you speak ambiguously in an attempt to "own the libs", abandoning civility in disrespect for clear, rational discussion.

I am very clear. I think the Democratic Party tried to rig the caucus, and messed up, getting neither the actual results nor the results they wanted. I don't think it was the Russians, I don't think it was the Ukrainians, I don't think it was 4chan hackers, I don't think it was the Chinese, I don't think it was the Iranians, I don't think it was Trump.

You made it clear you think it is absolutely someone other than the Democratic Party. Thus you can't even identify which theory I'm pushing and which I'm rejecting.

Is it because you think the Democratic Party is too good to try to rig the caucus, or too good to fail if they did try?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And neither of you have evidence implicating a conspiracy.

 

[laughing dog]

Or maybe they see an inflexible person who sees the world in black and white with no grey area.

In Sanders? He is very consistent in his principles, I'll give you that. But I don't see where you get "no grey area", he has made a lot of compromises on those principles over the decades. You know, he nearly lost his famous Bros when he endorsed Clinton in 2016. A much more "flexible" response, IMO, than what he got from her in response, even at the time. So I'm inclined to see an element of Red Scare in that impression also, if it is commonplace.

I doubt he is capable of changing his ideas - he has been spouting the same idealistic ideas for decades.

 

[Trausti]

Don't know why anyone would need a conspiracy theory. Incompetence will do. Come on, they're Democrats.

 

[Politesse]

Or maybe they see an inflexible person who sees the world in black and white with no grey area.

In Sanders? He is very consistent in his principles, I'll give you that. But I don't see where you get "no grey area", he has made a lot of compromises on those principles over the decades. You know, he nearly lost his famous Bros when he endorsed Clinton in 2016. A much more "flexible" response, IMO, than what he got from her in response, even at the time. So I'm inclined to see an element of Red Scare in that impression also, if it is commonplace.

I doubt he is capable of changing his ideas - he has been spouting the same idealistic ideas for decades.

I don't see having consistency in goals and being rigid or inflexible in pursuing them as the same thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

You don't know which theory I'm pushing and which I'm rejecting.

Because you speak ambiguously in an attempt to "own the libs", abandoning civility in disrespect for clear, rational discussion.

I am very clear. I think the Democratic Party tried to rig the caucus, and messed up, getting neither the actual results nor the results they wanted. I don't think it was the Russians, I don't think it was the Ukrainians, I don't think it was 4chan hackers, I don't think it was the Chinese, I don't think it was the Iranians, I don't think it was Trump.

You made it clear you think it is absolutely someone other than the Democratic Party. Thus you can't even identify which theory I'm pushing and which I'm rejecting.

Is it because you think the Democratic Party is too good to try to rig the caucus, or too good to fail if they did try?

No, I made it clear that I think it is both. You attempt to paint that as excusing one of the two groups, both of which I implicate.

By ignoring the clear fact that I am implicating both, you disrespect me, the process of rational discourse, and your foolish arguments reflect back on yourself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't know why anyone would need a conspiracy theory. Incompetence will do. Come on, they're Democrats.

Haw haw haw! Haw haw! Dems are stupid. *wipes tear from eye*. You can’t find comedy like that at The Onion. Dude, you need to start a blog.

 

[PyramidHead]

It ain't over yet