|
Well I'm off, time to
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
I just got back, pretty decent sized caucus in Des Moines. 152 people, 9 delegates. Bernie barely won my caucus with a bit under 52%, Hillary got the other 48%, literally zero votes for MOM. So, 5 delegates for Bernie from my caucus. (pathetically, the chair had a printed statement from the MOM campaign, she asked if anyone wanted to read it, no one did, so she quickly read MOM's pitch to a room full of people who were not interested)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:How do these things not turn violent? There are always 1 or 2 nuts that everyone politely ignores. As long as the chair seems to be running things fairly and the count is accurate, 99% of us just want to get this silly thing over with and go home.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Oh also, quick anecdote. At my caucus, the age difference was stark. There were a few young Hillary voters and a few older Sanders voters, but they were the exception.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
This right here on MSNBC is the big problem for Bernie. This precinct they are looking at is overwhelmingly Bernie territory, but they don't have many delegates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
holy crap, that looks exhausting. I'm glad my caucus was done in 45 minutes. Not having any MOM or uncommitted voters so that every group was viable made it go quicker.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:Be careful about getting excited about Bernie's 2% gap. His support is extremely centralized, which clips how many delegates he can get, and winning delegates is what actually wins the election. That is not the vote total. The vote total is not even reported out of the precincts, that is the % of delegates won.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
wow, that huge fieldhouse of people had only 6 delegates? My precinct in DSM (152 people showed up) awarded 9 delegates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
It seems like out of all the people who were supporting longshots in the polls (Bush, Huckabee, Fiorina, etc), roughly half of them looked around when they walked in, saw no other supporters, and decided to vote for Cruz or Rubio. Trump is nobody's 2nd choice, so he doesn't benefit from this change of heart
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
LOL, woops. A Bernie Sanders commercial just ran in DSM
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:I hope you people making TRUMP STUMPED remarks enjoy this Cruz speech. lol, Cruz is unelectable. If he's the nominee, the GOP will be annihilated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:None of these people are electable. Rubio would be a dangerous opponent. He hides his terrible conservative beliefs well, and has a reasonably compelling life story to sell.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
MSNBC went "gently caress this, we're going to Hillary". Fox is confused, went split screen but kept Cruz's audio
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
It makes more sense now why its taking forever for some precincts. At my precinct, we all showed up, someone said she was the temporary chair and its now time to nominate a permanent chair to run the caucus. She knew what she was doing, so we obviously picked her, and she carried on with all the rules and procedure on how to run it. Now, imagine we all show up somewhere, sit down, 7 pm comes and goes, and we're uncomfortably staring at each other going "uhhh, now what?" Eventually someone tries to figure out how to run a caucus, maybe someone else protests because no one with any semblance of authority (even if temporary) came in here, and it ends in a total clusterfuck, everyone goes home, and no one calls the Iowa Democrat party with any results.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:If Iowa is going to continue using a caucus, the Democrats have to start using the method that the GOP does. I will say that the GOP caucus is quick, efficient, and clear. In and out in 20-30 minutes, boom, done. When the Dems don't have a contest, I register as a republican for a day and its easy. The way the Dems do it in Iowa is a pain in the rear end, and takes forever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
If you take out the 3 precinct delegates Clinton won by a coin flip, Sanders would be up by 1 single precinct delegate right now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
There's only 10 precincts left uncounted, but given that Clinton is up by 0.3% on precinct delegates, she probably "won" the Iowa caucus if we absolutely have to split the razor-thin margin and declare a winner. Not counting unbound superdelegates, its pretty much a tie though, they should get about the same number of voter-chosen state delegates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:TBF the coin flip thing is mind-bogglingly idiotic and deserves its fair share of condemnation. You can't award half a delegate. Someone has to win, how else do you break a tie other than a coin flip? Northjayhawk has issued a correction as of 03:38 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Is there any reason why they shouldn't just drop a contested delegate, send one less? Yes. That precinct earned that delegate because of the percentage that voted democratic in the last election. (The Dems in Iowa reward precincts who vote democrat and punish precincts that don't). Its also why you can't combine half-delegates from different precincts and send the one guy, that community earned the representation, you can't take one away just because they happened to split evenly on the presidential preference. You have to find a fair way to break the tie and give the spot to someone standing in that room. There really is no option other than a game of chance, and anything other than a coin flip is stupid because people don't walk around with decks of cards or dice in their pockets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That would mean sending 0 delegates. You also need to break ties when a precinct has an odd number of delegates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Wow, people really will defend anything. Award a half delegate to each or just award it to undecided. Or we could just flip a coin, which makes a lot more sense than keeping track of "half a delegate". We're not talking about sophisticated educated people working within the party apparatus, these are whoever shows up from the neighborhood, we need X names written down on a piece of paper stating that these people were chosen as county delegates, and hopefully they all show up at the county caucus next month.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:But there's no reason you couldn't send someone as unassigned. Yes, there is. "Unaffiliated" is its own preference group. My caucus had literally zero unaffiliated voters, and thats not going to be uncommon, people who are willing to show up and endure an hour or more of bullshit probably have an opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Makes more sense than giving away extra votes by chance. It would be trivial to set up assignment rules that don't rely on that and it's endlessly amusing that people think the current way is in any way defensible. Your opinion on this issue is objectively wrong. The primary purpose of the caucus is not to indicate a preference for a presidential candidate, it is to elect county delegates who will ultimately elect the new state party leadership that will run the party in that state for the next 4 years. And oh by the way, I guess we also have this presidential nomination thing too, so lets throw that into the rules as a criteria for selecting delegates. That precinct earned that number of delegates to help determine the future of the party in that state. You need to somehow pick those delegates from that room, and trying to determine who in the room might be truly "unbiased" in case of a tie is really dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
remusclaw posted:Does this problem exist in the primary system? If not, maybe caucuses ought not be the way the presidential nomination is decided, tradition be damned. For those who don't really care about the day to day operations of the party in the state, then primaries are obviously superior, more convenient, and caucuses may seem to be pretty dumb. The virtue of the caucus is that the grassroots can very easily throw everyone out, seize control of the party, and elect new leaders. In a state with primaries..... its harder to throw the leaders out. If you don't like the way your state Democratic or Republican party is being run in a primary state, they are more entrenched and less accountable to party members.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 06:00
|
|