cool. About the same as his support among non-white voters.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
True.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ still beat Bernie in Iowa with
I think the most notable statistic coming out of this mess is turnout. Turnout was low, about the same as 2016 despite there being way more candidates. That really brings into question Bernie's claim that he can rally the "disenfranchised" white working class and expand the electorate. That'll be an issue both throughout the primary and if he gets elected president. His plan to pass any legislation is to excite people and start a revolution, but it looks like the revolution decided to stay home.
Last edited:
can u provide a source on him having half the funds spent in iowa and a quarter of the time plz?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/breaking-time-democratic-candidates-spent-iowa-68734329
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/breaking-money-democratic-candidates-spent-iowa-68734920
From the last two posts I was curious about how much each candidate invested in Iowa, here are the statistics I could find, if someone can find a more direct source they could link it if they want. The obvious stand out in these statistics is Klobuchar, who despite spending much less than any of the other candidates did seem to get some returns from being constantly in Iowa for the past couple months. I couldn't find any substantiation for the fund and time disparity between Buttigieg and Sanders, they spent very similar amounts of money and and Buttigieg spent more time there.
I'm not really that surprised at the success of Buttigieg in a state like Iowa, which I think as the first caucus has the issue (especially in the democratic caucus) of being much whiter and older than many of the states that Democrats tend to thrive in (and the swing states that they hope to win). Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing well here indicates that they might do well in that type of environment, but I don't think that success in Iowa is necessarily indicative of enthusiasm in South Carolina or Virginia, for example. Despite his great performance in Iowa (and probable good performance in similar states in the future) I really don't think that Buttigieg can get in on what I think will be an eventual face-off between Biden and Bernie given his abysmal minority support.
Biden should do pretty well in many of the southern states that the other candidates haven't even been looking at, in many of them I can't see many candidates with the exception of Bernie challenging him. Biden as a candidate is kind of underrated, I think, by a lot of us progressives in terms of his ability to win (not his quality, in my opinion), as he has from my perspective an actual aesthetic of authenticity at times (From watching his speeches you do get the sense that he genuinely believes what he is saying, misguided as I think it is) regardless of the reality of that authenticity. This is something I don't get at all from Pete, who seems very focus group-y on a surface level (probably because he is) and seems to believe in any policy that would make Pete Buttigieg president. I think he is the weakest candidate we could nominate of the frontrunners, as his coming across as so produced and pedigreed would get him annihilated in a general.
edit: in other news in opening news stories I got 5 consecutive ads from the healthcare lobby, the propaganda war begins
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/breaking-money-democratic-candidates-spent-iowa-68734920
From the last two posts I was curious about how much each candidate invested in Iowa, here are the statistics I could find, if someone can find a more direct source they could link it if they want. The obvious stand out in these statistics is Klobuchar, who despite spending much less than any of the other candidates did seem to get some returns from being constantly in Iowa for the past couple months. I couldn't find any substantiation for the fund and time disparity between Buttigieg and Sanders, they spent very similar amounts of money and and Buttigieg spent more time there.
I'm not really that surprised at the success of Buttigieg in a state like Iowa, which I think as the first caucus has the issue (especially in the democratic caucus) of being much whiter and older than many of the states that Democrats tend to thrive in (and the swing states that they hope to win). Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing well here indicates that they might do well in that type of environment, but I don't think that success in Iowa is necessarily indicative of enthusiasm in South Carolina or Virginia, for example. Despite his great performance in Iowa (and probable good performance in similar states in the future) I really don't think that Buttigieg can get in on what I think will be an eventual face-off between Biden and Bernie given his abysmal minority support.
Biden should do pretty well in many of the southern states that the other candidates haven't even been looking at, in many of them I can't see many candidates with the exception of Bernie challenging him. Biden as a candidate is kind of underrated, I think, by a lot of us progressives in terms of his ability to win (not his quality, in my opinion), as he has from my perspective an actual aesthetic of authenticity at times (From watching his speeches you do get the sense that he genuinely believes what he is saying, misguided as I think it is) regardless of the reality of that authenticity. This is something I don't get at all from Pete, who seems very focus group-y on a surface level (probably because he is) and seems to believe in any policy that would make Pete Buttigieg president. I think he is the weakest candidate we could nominate of the frontrunners, as his coming across as so produced and pedigreed would get him annihilated in a general.
edit: in other news in opening news stories I got 5 consecutive ads from the healthcare lobby, the propaganda war begins
I think it's fair to say that both Bernie and Buttigieg did well in Iowa. Buttigieg needed a win here to show that he's a stronger candidate than he was initially given credit for, and it looks like he's getting that. Bernie needed to finish ahead of Warren and Biden, and it looks like he's getting that.
I'm not sure how well Buttigieg can take advantage of the momentum Iowa is supposed to bring, given that he's not doing well among people of color. His success in Iowa won't translate to success in states with high African-American populations (the Deep South) or states with high Hispanic populations (California, Arizona, Texas etc.) Buttigieg could perform better than previously expected in New Hampshire, though, especially since he's shown just how much he can beat the polls.
In any case, Iowa was a disaster for the Biden camp. Biden needed that momentum and he didn't get it.
I'm not sure how well Buttigieg can take advantage of the momentum Iowa is supposed to bring, given that he's not doing well among people of color. His success in Iowa won't translate to success in states with high African-American populations (the Deep South) or states with high Hispanic populations (California, Arizona, Texas etc.) Buttigieg could perform better than previously expected in New Hampshire, though, especially since he's shown just how much he can beat the polls.
In any case, Iowa was a disaster for the Biden camp. Biden needed that momentum and he didn't get it.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
People strutting around about Pete edging out Bernie in Iowa so far like this wasn't a thing that happened:
It's almost as if Bernie doing well in a state as "progressive" as Iowa is actually a really good sign for his campaign, instead of a bad one.
It's almost as if Bernie doing well in a state as "progressive" as Iowa is actually a really good sign for his campaign, instead of a bad one.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Let me get this straight.
You're saying that Iowa is super homophobic, so it's a really good sign for the old, straight, white dude who underperformed his polling instead of the gay candidate who won and is being specifically discriminated against in the video?
"Here's a woman who wants to literally rescind her vote for Pete because of his sexuality, so it's a miracle that Bernie only slightly underperformed!" Does that really make sense in your head? Or in anyone's head, for that matter?
Between this and your "Biden obviously cares the least about LGBT people specifically because he places the most emphasis on LGBT issues" comment... it's like you live in opposite land.
Last edited:
While Iowa is itself a purplish state overall, the democrats of Iowa actually are, on average, more progressive than democrats in most other states, one anecdotal, utterly clueless homophobic Pete voter aside. It's tough to tease this out in exact numbers, since it's all self-reporting in polls, but Iowa democrats describe themselves as more liberal than democrats in other states. Historically, progressivism came out of the midwest, so this shouldn't be shocking.
The last Emerson poll for Iowa had a split of 25% Very Liberal, 36% Somewhat Liberal, 39% Moderate/Conservative.
The latest Emerson poll for New Hampshire has a split of 25% Very Liberal, 28% Somewhat Liberal, 47% Moderate/Conservative.
You can also compare that to a recent Nevada poll had the breakdown of 20% Very Liberal, 35% Liberal, 41% Moderate/Conservative.
This is all to say that, assuming people self-report such a vague preference like this accurately, and assuming that people actually vote based on that preference and not other factors, that Bernie is likely to actually perform better in Iowa than he will in other states. Those are hefty assumptions obviously, and I don't expect it to actually hold true, since I think everyone expects him to do better in NH than he did in Iowa.
But I'm just trying to say don't call Iowa "progressive" sarcastically and claim the voter demographics/preferences in the state are in some way are bad for Bernie.
The last Emerson poll for Iowa had a split of 25% Very Liberal, 36% Somewhat Liberal, 39% Moderate/Conservative.
The latest Emerson poll for New Hampshire has a split of 25% Very Liberal, 28% Somewhat Liberal, 47% Moderate/Conservative.
You can also compare that to a recent Nevada poll had the breakdown of 20% Very Liberal, 35% Liberal, 41% Moderate/Conservative.
This is all to say that, assuming people self-report such a vague preference like this accurately, and assuming that people actually vote based on that preference and not other factors, that Bernie is likely to actually perform better in Iowa than he will in other states. Those are hefty assumptions obviously, and I don't expect it to actually hold true, since I think everyone expects him to do better in NH than he did in Iowa.
But I'm just trying to say don't call Iowa "progressive" sarcastically and claim the voter demographics/preferences in the state are in some way are bad for Bernie.
So now 92% reporting...
Sanders winning the popular vote "first choice" by a wide margin
Sanders winning the realignment "final vote" as well
Pete slightly ahead in SDEs
Sanders and Pete both at 11 delegates, with Warren at 5, and everyone else at 0.
Maybe Iowa will be a tie? It looks like the missing precincts favor Sanders though, so he still might be able to eke out a win. I guess what really matters is the metric by which a "win" is considered.
Sanders winning the popular vote "first choice" by a wide margin
Sanders winning the realignment "final vote" as well
Pete slightly ahead in SDEs
Sanders and Pete both at 11 delegates, with Warren at 5, and everyone else at 0.
Maybe Iowa will be a tie? It looks like the missing precincts favor Sanders though, so he still might be able to eke out a win. I guess what really matters is the metric by which a "win" is considered.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-live-forecast.html
Here's a full forecast if anyone's interested. Right now w/ 95%, they're predicting Pete has a 99% chance of winning SDEs, and Bernie will most likely win the final popular vote. Projected pledged delegates are 14 for Pete, 12 for Bernie. Seems kind of high for Pete, but we'll see.
Here's a full forecast if anyone's interested. Right now w/ 95%, they're predicting Pete has a 99% chance of winning SDEs, and Bernie will most likely win the final popular vote. Projected pledged delegates are 14 for Pete, 12 for Bernie. Seems kind of high for Pete, but we'll see.
And as if there weren't already errors, we've got more...
Honestly I hope one of the takeaways from the whole debacle is get rid of the caucus system forever. Just do ranked choice primaries. Done. So much simpler and more accessible.
Edit: Actually reading into this I think it has to do when the number of delegates can't be represented accurately, so they round up the decimal that's highest, even if it's below .5 ... which seems pretty asinine but whatever, another reason the caucus system sucks.
Honestly I hope one of the takeaways from the whole debacle is get rid of the caucus system forever. Just do ranked choice primaries. Done. So much simpler and more accessible.
Edit: Actually reading into this I think it has to do when the number of delegates can't be represented accurately, so they round up the decimal that's highest, even if it's below .5 ... which seems pretty asinine but whatever, another reason the caucus system sucks.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the correct math here is the following:
204 is the correct denominator, and 15% the correct threshold because they elect >= 4 delegates, so the threshold of 31 is correct.
The second alignment results show Klobuchar at 30, then crossed out because that is still below viability.
Those 30 Klobuchar people seem to have decided not to realign and likely left. It seems 3 other people also probably left after the first alignment.
That leaves the 171 people divvied up into the 4 viable candidates, and that math too was done correctly.
This then left only 5 assigned delegates in a precinct that had to assign 7.
Because caucuses are arcane and dumb to begin with, that 7 was predetermined and so could not change. The other 2 delegates have to go SOMEWHERE.
The rules then say that in this case you give them to whomever is closest to rounding up. In this case, that meant an extra one delegate each to Sanders and Buttigieg at .3039 and .2990, respectively.
Like, this is literally what the rules of the Iowa Caucus are. It's not a conspiracy ?_?
It's really shameful for this reporter to not have done 5 minutes of due diligence to read the caucus rules.
https://acc99235-748f-4706-80f5-4b8...d/5af8f4_3abefbb734444842ae1abf985876cce8.pdf
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Amidst all of the ridiculous Bernie fan conspiracies, k-hive Twitter is actually starting to come around on Pete. Perhaps we were wrong, and he'll get more than 1% of the black vote after all. 1.5% maybe?
On another note, I really wish Liz didn't try to make a deal with the devil. Not only did it kill her campaign, but also it killed a lot of her credibility. "Wine caves, chandeliers, and closet Republicans!" just doesn't hit as hard as "I have a plan for that!"
This is a really strong clip, for example. If she stuck to this rhetoric instead of going full populist and trying to siphon from Bernie's die-hard base, then she would've been great.
On another note, I really wish Liz didn't try to make a deal with the devil. Not only did it kill her campaign, but also it killed a lot of her credibility. "Wine caves, chandeliers, and closet Republicans!" just doesn't hit as hard as "I have a plan for that!"
This is a really strong clip, for example. If she stuck to this rhetoric instead of going full populist and trying to siphon from Bernie's die-hard base, then she would've been great.
Last edited:
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
You really need to stop trying to pretend you know a goddamn thing about LGBT politics to me. Pete "Cancelled his event at a gay bar because it has a dancer pole" Buttigieg is not winning on identity politics he's winning because he's so fucking milquetoast he is basically stealth amongst the centrists who are able to forgive him his indiscretions. The only demographic he'd have any traction in amongst his own "community" would be his fellow White Gay Men, especially the rich ones.
It's so clear that you've literally no context on the history of LGBT peoples, issues, or concerns and you're literally just taking the most boring substanceless talk at face value instead of listening to quite possibly the only person you interact with from the LGBT community? Insisting I'm the one who lives in opposite land? Maybe just maybe, Joe Biden's previous record as a politician belies his sudden reversal in tone in the "conversation." Maybe just maybe Pete's actions similarly belie his own credentials as an advocate for Gay Rights, or an advocate for the Queer Community at large.
Maybe just maybe, don't assume you know everything about what you deign to talk about.
Apparently everything has been counted except for the final Satelite that went 75% to Bernie (racist bro Bernie dominated all the minority majority satellites).
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
I'm gay, you neanderthal. I have a minor in fucking LGBT/Queer studies. How about you?
Pete's record has nothing to do with the fact that your comments are just total non-sequitors.
"Homophobic state -> Easy for gay dude to win"
"Prioritizing LGBT issues -> Doesn't care about LGBT issues"
Those are nonsensical arguments. Period.
Yup, that was the joke.Please just reset the simulation now, I don't want to go on
Last edited:
EV
Banned deucer.
It was to both of you flexing your LGBTQ credentials.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Except I was responding to an allegation specifically about my "credentials" which, based on the fact that he didn't even know I'm gay, I haven't brought up before. Besides, my LGBTQ credentials had nothing to do with my argument, which had little to do with Pete Buttigieg in the first place.
Meanwhile, his entire point was "I'm gay, you don't know any gay people, and you're stupid." Don't you think you're pulling a huge "both-sides" here?