Just for fun.
Here's my guess:
Sanders: 31% Biden: 20%
Buttigieg: 18%
Klobuchar: 14%
Warren: 12%
Yang: 4%
Steyer: 1%
My theory is that as people shuffle around gymnasiums, Warren loses significant commits to Bernie, and Biden loses some to Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Yang Gang doesn't budge, and Steyer's folk are more interested in coffee and donuts.
To be clear, this isn’t a personal rating, just a guess at today’s outcome.
Iowa is certainly proving that “they are what we thought they were”.
Judging candidacy/electability by an Iowa caucus is nonsensical.
There's a cause and there's an effect. This is like saying that Harvard being full of privileged white children is an indication that only privileged white children have what it takes to get into Harvard. Here's the Des Moines Register: In 2016, Clinton got 49.9% of the delegates while Sanders got 49.6... ...in a system that loves math so much they're using remainders and shit. You mention the '92 election: NONE OF THE ABOVE CAME IN SECOND. So it all pretty much comes down to a bunch of "see if the witch floats" bullshit amongst a bunch of white-ass 'boomers who, for reasons utterly unassociated with democracy, get to decide that I can't vote for Howard Dean.The Iowa caucuses have a poor record of picking presidents, but they play the important role of winnowing the field.
This is what I meant by the chicken/egg statement. Sorry, I can see how that was not obviousThere's a cause and there's an effect. This is like saying that Harvard being full of privileged white children is an indication that only privileged white children have what it takes to get into Harvard.
Yes, the problem is that the selection of a candidate is intricately tied to their performance in the Iowa caucus. Causality is irrelevant if we agree that the demographics of Iowans, especially those participating in the primaries, are not representative of the nationwide voting demographics. No debate there.
Yeah but if you only care about white people and mostly care about males theeeeeeeeennnnnn. Iowa it is! Edit: I appreciate that kleinbl00 and I share the same sentiment here.
$45m spent on political advertising in Iowa so far. For 170,000 participants. Every dude out there tweeting his results because the Democratic Party can't get their shit together enough to tabulate 170,000 votes? $264 per voter.
:O! If it costs $1 to count each vote (hahhaha, lucrative!), and my math is right, ...sweating, panting... that's $170k. That'd be less than 0.4% of what was spent trying to influence the voters. The DNC is already handing Trump an ensemble of weapons with which to de-legitimize the democratic candidate. Stupidest. Timeline. Ever.
So sad that Bloomberg is trying to steal momentum from Bernie's populist movement with multi-million dollar Superbowl ads. When I hear the pundits say, "You know, I really think Bernie has a shot at the nomination...", I just think to myself, "Were you dead in 2016?".
Winner of the 2020 Iowa Democrat caucus: Donald John Trump, Lord of Chaos, Uncertainty, and Despair. edit: I should demand royalties, I said it first. I guess that's hard to argue when it's a starkly obvious conclusion.
Question for the 'Muricans - do you think that, if Bernie was to run against Trump in the big dance this year, would he stand a chance? Liike Goobster said, I like the world Bernie paints. But looking at the political spectrum over in the States, compared to here in NZ, it seems like Bernie is going to be way too 'left' to ever get enough support around the nation. In NZ, our two major parties are about centre left and centre right in our spectrum, but they'd both appear to be heavily left in the American version of it. Just from watching things unfold, Bernie would have a solid spot in our country, but in America? Dunno.
I think the Republicans started winning the South because the Democrats came out against racism. I think the Republicans kept winning the South because the Republicans didn't have the strength or numbers to to dismantle the social safety net. I think the Republicans have taken over the South because their daddies were agin the desegregators and that's the way it's always been but I think the Republicans are in danger of losing the south because they've cheerfully watched it slide into ruin. it's easier to say that "conservative" politics dominates the Republican field without recognizing that what elected Trump? Was radicalism. There have been five polls in the past year in which Trump beats Sanders. I'll let you discover how many he wins in.
I am entirely baffled by why politicians are throwing their support behind Bernie, and not Warren. Especially people like AOC. I mean, I get the idealistic vote. I do. I like the world that Bernie paints, too. But I also know that Republicans are not interested in democracy or our Constitution any more, and only in simply opposing whatever the majority likes. They will oppose Bernie on principle, even more than they did with Obama. Warren at least has the track record of successful legislation and programs to support voting for her, no matter what the subject. She can do it, and she clearly has a brilliant team of advisors working with her who have a Plan For Everything. Bernie? He has like 4 ideas, the same 4 he's always had, and while they will surely be successful and produce the results he hopes for... they'll also take 15 years to bear fruit. I'm all in on a Warren/Sanders ticket. Or Warren/Klobuchar.
Medicare for all might take 5-15 years to really get it going, but FFS, get it going. Get on it. Make it happen and start by caucusing for Bernie. It’s not perfect in Canada. We don’t have dental, prescription coverage is uneven, there’s some gurneys in the halls, sure. But, I just had cataract surgery in both eyes. No bill. I can see clearly that M4A is possible and urgent. Who profits from not having M4A?
We take Medicaid. It was 38% of our billing last year. It is administered in WA state by six different health insurance companies. Some provide better coverage than others as far as who is in-network and who is not; all of them cost exactly the same to the consumer, all of them pay exactly the same to the provider. Under Medicaid you can go see a provider, be told "we aren't covered by Provider X but if you switch to Provider Y not only are we covered but you get a free car seat." And you can switch, at no cost, every month with a couple pages of paperwork. One of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the people of the United States is the idea that healthcare is complicated and that a public option is impossible. If we switched to 100% medicaid our revenue would go UP.
1.5 million people on Medicaid in Washington State, out of 7.5 million. $10.9 billion spent, of which $6.5B was federal and $3.5B was state. It was 19% of the state's budget of $54B. Medicaid costs the State of Washington $7200 per person. Healthcare spending in the United States was $11400 per person in 2019.
Because this is the only place you get to shape the narrative of the Democratic platform. I gave Bernie money. I've never given Warren any money despite the fact that I bought her books before she was in the Senate. I think she'd be a hell of a president. But then, I thought Clinton would be a hell of a president, too - the best Republican we've ever had. Would I vote for Amy Fucking Klobuchar? Sure. But I'd rather vote for an Amy Fucking Klobuchar who has been dragged left like a cattle rustler behind a conestoga. There's this imaginary centrist voter that everyone who would have been a Republican in 1972 but is now a democrat because even they can't handle the Taliban wants you to believe in so hard because it allows them to have their globalism and eat it too and they need Matewan and the TVA shoved down their throats so hard because you know what? If you want the racist vote pander to their economic despair not their idealism if their kid can go to college without bankrupting three generations their need to wave confederate flags around gets moderated somewhat. You know what? If it gets the party away from Joe "I lost primaries to Mondale and Dukakis" Biden I will endorse Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. 'cuz you know what? Joe "Just not feelin' it in 2016" Biden will absolutely have my vote but I'm cynical enough to also go You know what, Iowa? FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU and your entire bullshit primary Amish Mennonite Protodemocracy horserace wring your goddamn hands somewhere else, goddamnit I want my country back.I am entirely baffled by why politicians are throwing their support behind Bernie, and not Warren. Especially people like AOC.
Bitch I canvassed for Kerry. The Light Brigade? I charged in it. I have voted against soooooo many Republicans in my life. But I also voted against McCain and for Bush in the 2000 primary because I triangulated to getting the Republicans the stupidest candidate imaginable. Fool me twice, shame on... we won't get fooled again. Vote your fuckin' heart, and if that's not available vote your head. I will hold my nose and do my level best to elect anyone who isn't Trump when it gets down to it but here in the early times where we absolutely positively give a shit about yet another tired-ass set of ancient 'boomer undecideds? Friend of mine has been a booster of Sanders since he declared in 2015 or whatever. Right now? She's all about Bloomberg. Why? Because she's a SoCal woman in her 60s. The "electability" gambit is all about supporting the status quo, which has long since stopped giving a shit about anyone but Microsoft, Amazon and Apple.
Why does Iowa go first, and not a state that is more diverse economically and ethnographically? Wouldn't a state like Pennsylvania or Georgia or California give a better pulse reading? Also, does going first matter? Cause if it doesn't, then my question isn't really necessary.
winner: bunny sanders and joe bidingo tie or near enough to make no difference receiving delegates: pete battigieg elizabeth worm below threshold in no particular order: amy klobuchameleon andrew yak tom steyerbil
His appeal is baffling to me. If you think triangulation is still viable (I have a bridge to sell you and) Biden is what you want. If you want a technocrat Warren has a more impressive CV. Hell, if you just want someone young Yang is cooler. Are there just a whole lot of people who miss Prairie Home Companion?
Biden is a remainder of what lead us into a Trump presidency (same ol’, same ol’). His ideas read more as riding the coattails of Obama rather than preserving a legacy. Whatever happened to his moonshot anyway... Warren and Bernie seem cut from the same cloth. Bernie himself will go down in history as kindling for Dems to steer further Left, making Warren more viable... who seems like a more viable Bernie, granted. Re: Yang, the poor man has an uphill battle against a media that’s legit trying to bury him. I love this man’s approach in campaigning through internet media (seriously, the amount of podcasts this man does). Pete’s young/got time to grow, sure. But his political narrative will bend appropriately after those who give him a run for his money. Honestly, I’m good for Yang or Pete, just to have fresh blood that understands what America’s future is facing since they are closer In age.
I'm currently going through both campaign pages to see the nuance and having a hard time when looking at the 'issues/plans' pages side-by-side. Going to do more podcast listening to Warren now, though. Thanks for a place to start with 'Rockefeller Republican,' that's a new one to me.