|
Pinterest Mom posted:He won a single state *delegate*, not a single precinct. That means that there was one (1) place where, after the second round, he received the support of 15% of precinct attendees. No, he won 0 delegates and 1 precinct. The delegate column is the far right column.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
I know how to read, thanks. He won one state delegate at precinct convention, where delegates are elected proportionally in a two-round system with a 15% cutoff in the second round. That one delegate made their way to the state convention, where they were not numerous enough to elect a national delegate. This is the process in Iowa and in every single other caucus state in the country, I don't know where you got the idea that the "votes" column is somehow indicating first-place result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I know how to read, thanks. I wasn't saying that he came in first place. I was saying that he won a precinct (in the caucus sense of meeting the threshold) and that he received more than 1 actual vote from voters. This was all despite moving to Iowa for 2 years, sending his kids to Iowa public schools, and basically going bankrupt by paying for a house in Connecticut, rent in DC, and a house in Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
I don't even get the obsession with Iowa, it's not like winning Iowa just because it's first is very predictive of getting the nomination in a crowded field. Looking at the last few Republican primaries: 2016 - Ted Cruz 2012 - Rick Santorum 2008 - Mike Huckabee 2000 - George W Bush 1 in 4  For Democrats Iowa has picked the winner every time since 1996 so maybe the media attention from winning Iowa is helpful for Democrats, or maybe it's just a consequence of that candidate being more charismatic and/or well known. Idk it seems to me pandering to Iowa specifically to try to win there is just cargo-culting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't even get the obsession with Iowa, it's not like winning Iowa just because it's first is very predictive of getting the nomination in a crowded field. It's important because Iowa is the first winnowing of the field. If you are a 2nd tier candidate and you bomb in Iowa, then you are done. It's your chance to break out, change the narrative, raise a lot of money, and gain momentum in the time between Iowa and NH. Even the "losers" in the Republican scenario benefited massively from winning Iowa. Is there a world where Rick Santorum wins a dozen states, gets #2 in the popular vote, raises millions of dollars, gets endorsements from dozens of elected officials, and spends 5 months in the headlines where he also came in last in Iowa? It's less important if you are a "major" candidate or already have lots of name recognition, volunteers, and money. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
The last few sets of Dem primaries have had 2, 4, 3, 1 and 2 serious candidates. In that timeframe, the GOP has had multiple primaries with over 10 each. In 2020 the Dems could easily start with 25. Iowa/NH won't totally control the field but there will be less than 5 of them left standing afterwards. That's a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Even the "losers" in the Republican scenario benefited massively from winning Iowa. Is there a world where Rick Santorum wins a dozen states, gets #2 in the popular vote, raises millions of dollars, gets endorsements from dozens of elected officials, and spends 5 months in the headlines where he also came in last in Iowa?. I have no idea, because I don't know whether winning Iowa caused him to get that support, or whether the strengths he had as a candidate were the reason he got that support and also why he was able to win in Iowa. Newt Gingrich got owned in Iowa (4th place), but that didn't stop him from winning states, raising millions of dollars, and getting endorsements. I think it's very tough to say that winning Iowa actually causes you to do better, rather than you win Iowa because you are the kind of candidate who would do well anyway. If Michelle Bachman had a one-use alien mind-control device that allowed her to undetectably Jedi mind-meld the entire state of Iowa into voting for her, would old crazy-eyes have gone on to win a dozen states just because "hey who am I to argue with Iowa"? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't even get the obsession with Iowa, it's not like winning Iowa just because it's first is very predictive of getting the nomination in a crowded field. ostensibly the idea is you prove you can connect with salt of the earth dullards and it's relatively cheap to campaign there
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
not a cult posted:Not everyone, but you definitely are. I know, I'm disagreeing with you. I mean I'm not in any way but I understand how you need to frame this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I know, I'm disagreeing with you. All the framing I need is a click to your post history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
not a cult posted:All the framing I need is a click to your post history. That's enough you two.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
^^^ same time post, sorrynot a cult posted:All the framing I need is a click to your post history. I know, because I don't agree with you. That doesn't make me a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That's enough you two. Okeydoke 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1061002106088419333
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Christ almighty every mediocre CEO is gonna run for President in 2020, aren't they? Fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Christ almighty every mediocre CEO is gonna run for President in 2020, aren't they? Fuckers. Well, you never know, maybe it's possible he'll come up with a platform that really inspires the Democratic base, and quote:In an interview with CNBC in June, Schultz went on the offensive and said Democrats need to be careful with how far they veer to the left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
please refer to him as alt-universe hillary clinton's secretary of labor, thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Well, you never know, maybe it's possible he'll come up with a platform that really inspires the Democratic base, and "Hi I'm rich, and let me tell you about my plan to cut my taxes" v.947
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Well, you never know, maybe it's possible he'll come up with a platform that really inspires the Democratic base, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j276kgs2SU
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Well, you never know, maybe it's possible he'll come up with a platform that really inspires the Democratic base, and The how will we pay for it poo poo is so infuriating especially when it comes to health care. If one looks at just government spending on health care per capita across OECD countries the US already spends more. Just the portion the government pays. Once you add in private spending per capita our totals get to the about double of other OECD countries. So the US government already spends more than countries do that have single payer. And while I don't trust Congress to craft a plan to actually rein in costs it should be pretty obvious we can already afford it. The problem is absolutely not money and is all about preserving profit. That's before even getting into the fact that we control our own currency and the world uses it as a reserve currency so even if the government had to cover the private costs too it would be trivial to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Cool; the more succ-dems the
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
Even Bloomberg has to have more pull than the Starbucks guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Starbucks guy is good demonstration of how detached from the rest of the country the wealthy are in their bubbles. Like, anyone with any exposure to other non-rich people wouldn't think for a second that someone like Schultz would have broad appeal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
There is going to be an absolute clown car of center-right candidates in 2020. It will be funny if all the billionaires get shepherded off to some weaksauce kid's table debate.
TheBalor fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Nov 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
Imagine Bernie wiping the floor with Howard Schultz in a debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Imagine Bernie wiping the floor with Howard Schultz in a debate. imagine bernie physically scrubbing the floor with howard schultz's face 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
Imagine Bernie being talked over by Avenatti and losing the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:ostensibly the idea is you prove you can connect with salt of the earth dullards and it's relatively cheap to campaign there To put a little bit of a nicer coat on this, Iowa is a good test of a candidate's ability to generate grassroots enthusiasm and by virtue of having a ton of different media markets covering very few people, is comparatively more difficult to astroturf. The nature of their caucus and how retail politicking is rewarded in the state makes it friendly to underfunded but energetic candidates, so if a candidate can't win over voters there, and hasn't been able to fundraise big for later contests, it gives everyone cover to ignore them going forward. Iowa may not be particularly relevant regarding who wins, but it is very relevant for who does not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Imagine Bernie being talked over by Avenatti and losing the primary. Yeah, I doubt Avenatti is going to last long. It’s pretty easy to pick out how fake he is with a second’s thought. He’s a joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Yeah, I doubt Avenatti is going to last long. It’s pretty easy to pick out how fake he is with a second’s thought. He’s a joke. I also don't think Avenatti would so easily walk over Bernie, or Joe Biden. Few things are more obstinate than old white men who feel like someone is talking out of turn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Yeah, I doubt Avenatti is going to last long. It’s pretty easy to pick out how fake he is with a second’s thought. He’s a joke. Where have I heard this before...? There was this guy, Ronald Lump or something? Yeah, total clown, everyone here liked to joke about him. It's good the voters saw right through him, and he lost his parties nomination, like the transparently self-interested reality tv star he is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Where have I heard this before...? There was this guy, Ronald Lump or something? Yeah, total clown, everyone here liked to joke about him. It's good the voters saw right through him, and he lost his parties nomination, like the transparently self-interested reality tv star he is. I don't think this is a very good analogy, because Donald Trump had the benefit of being willing to be openly, publicly racist, and a Republican primary electorate that wanted to lap that poo poo up. Democratic primary voters want different things and though Avenatti is good at shittalking on Twitter, he doesn't have anything to offer them in terms of policy or services. He'll get up on a debate stage and try to act like a tough guy and then say something gross to one of the women and the entire Democratic electorate will scoff at him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Where have I heard this before...? There was this guy, Ronald Lump or something? Yeah, total clown, everyone here liked to joke about him. It's good the voters saw right through him, and he lost his parties nomination, like the transparently self-interested reality tv star he is. There was an article about him, the one where he said that the next candidate had to be a white guy. People focused on that line, but there was a way more revealing quote in there, imo. Avenatti said that people had been talking about him running for a long time, and he had just started to think that maybe the situation required it. "A long time" Nobody had heard of the dude three months ago. He's suffering from the same time dilation everyone else is, but in his case it's hyper-accelerating his Messiah Complex. I don't think how well Avenatti will do in the primaries is the question. The question is, will Avenatti even get to the primaries? I fully expect by like, July 2019 he'll have moved to a compound in Guyana or sailed a yacht called "Future President-for-Life" directly into a hurricane in some confident attempt to own Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
trump is the id of conservatism, Avanatti is just a dumb gently caress grifter
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Eh, I've read people on these forums that fell for his messaging before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Eh, I've read people on these forums that fell for his messaging before. While you have successfully proven that goons are very dumb, the average voter is not extremely online in the way most of us are. They probably won't see Avenatti as some badass, he'll just be another douchey white guy that thinks he's god's gift to
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Avenatti doesn't really have much to offer people. The Decorum fetishists won't vote for him because he's too rude, and the leftists will prefer Bernie. Avenatti's demographic is a very narrow overlap of never-Bernie white people who call Trump "Cheeto in Chief"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
I don't know, the "I will fight for you!" messaging can resonate with people in the current political environment. Especially if the rest of the field consists of establishment candidates mealy-mouthed "bipartinsanship" and "both sides" platitudes and a single old man still believing in decorum with a laser focus on a couple of strong economic issues and like three speeches total he keeps playing on loop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:I don't know, the "I will fight for you!" messaging can resonate with people in the current political environment. Especially if the rest of the field consists of establishment candidates mealy-mouthed "bipartinsanship" and "both sides" platitudes and a single old man still believing in decorum with a laser focus on a couple of strong economic issues and like three speeches total he keeps playing on loop. Ok when you put it this way I'm a little bit worried but I still think Avenatti is too manifestly slimy to get traction with the Democratic base.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Reading the Avenatti toxx thread in C-SPAM can give an early insight into this. Sure, it's all "ironic", but we all know how that ends up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 20:14
|
|