Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

US Presidential Election 2020

16970727475306

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Water John wrote: »
    Buttigeig doesn't attract any black voters. That rules him out.

    So I hear.

    There are two black mayors in Iowa. Both were with Buttigieg yesterday.

    It is instructive to look at the county maps for the returns so far, and seeing where the votes are.

    Bernie won the cities. The three biggest, Des Moines, Sioux City and Cedar Rapids. Pretty much all Buttigieg's county wins have basically been farmland. He took the city of Davenport (Which isn't much, I've been there a few times). The two biggest employers there are the military and John Deere Tractors.

    Now, writ this to the larger national scale. The farmlands are likely to vote Republican, even against Pete. The cities are voting Democrat no matter who wins. Biden, Klobuchar and Warren may not have taken any actual counties, but look where they are polling most strongly, compare that to swing demographics in swing states.

    I decided to have a look at the Texas rules, now I'm living here. It's an open primary, I can vote for whichever party I want.

    Looking at the list of names, on the ballot is, on the Republican side running against Trump together with five others, a chap named "Roque 'Rocky' De La Fuente Guerra". Californian, never has had much success when he's tried before.
    On the Democrat ballot may be found "Roque 'Rocky' De La Fuente." If you think the name sounds like an odd coincidence, you'd be right. The Democrat is the Republican's son.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,670 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Sanders is leading in the popular vote based on results so far. Like Buttigieg himself, I'm a believer that whoever gets the most votes in an election should be deemed the winner.

    Unfortunately our political systems don't exactly work on the logic of democracy, particularly the American one, sanders probably won't be president at the end of all this


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭nc6000


    Why are some betting websites still giving odds on Hillary getting the Democratic nomination? I would have thought by now that she was well and truly ruled out and not running.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,312 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    nc6000 wrote: »
    Why are some betting websites still giving odds on Hillary getting the Democratic nomination? I would have thought by now that she was well and truly ruled out and not running.

    Liability reasons I assume. Their has been journos talking her up running now and then over last 12 months.

    Once Bloomberg announced he was running that was that, he wouldn't have ran if their was a 0.0001 chance of Clinton running.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭laugh


    Yesterday the nytimes was 95% confident that Buttigieg was going to win Iowa, now it's 54% for Sanders: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    It's a total farce, but this repeated idea of the candidate with the most votes NOT getting "the prize" is itself a nonsense. A more root and branch change is needed, and maybe it'll come in Iowa at least (though Americans are fiercely defensive of their traditions), but seems like Sanders should be the winner by any other, normal metric.

    Well. Of course, the absolute fairest would be a proportional split of the delegates between Buttigieg and Sanders, or whoever else hits the quota, but baby steps n all.

    Edit: though that might already be how it's done? Must actually read more into it...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭FreeThePants


    At this point, it should go without saying that several senior heads need to roll in the Iowa Democratic Party to even attempt to save some face.


  • Posts: 13,753 ✭✭✭✭ Remy Calm Strikeout


    The DNC know exactly what they're doing. 2016 reborn.

    They've thrown their support behind every, single, neo-liberal candidate and Bernie has out-polled them all and has all the momentum. The Iowa Democratic Party will be used as a patsy and a couple of heads might roll to make it look like the DNC is fair and impartial.

    It's DNC policy to make sure Sanders isn't the nomination. There was 20 odd candidates at the outset and all of them, with one or two exceptions, were run of the mill, corporate stooge, neo-liberal shills. Bernie has seen every, single, one of them off.

    They would much prefer four more years of Trump over a Sanders nomination.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 94 ✭✭FreeThePants


    The DNC know exactly what they're doing. 2016 reborn.

    But if they go in, give a recount and find sanders did in fact win... then what?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    The DNC know exactly what they're doing. 2016 reborn.

    They've thrown their support behind every, single, neo-liberal candidate and Bernie has out-polled them all and has all the momentum. The Iowa Democratic Party will be used as a patsy and a couple of heads might roll to make it look like the DNC is fair and impartial.

    It's DNC policy to make sure Sanders isn't the nomination. There was 20 odd candidates at the outset and all of them, with one or two exceptions, were run of the mill, corporate stooge, neo-liberal shills. Bernie has seen every, single, one of them off.

    They would much prefer four more years of Trump over a Sanders nomination.

    Wait now. Buttigieg won, right? He's a corporate centrist, exactly the type you're saying the DNC want so why call for a recanvas if it might prefer Sanders? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but, incompetence aside, I don't see the grand plan to scupper Sanders. Quite the opposite, especially if this recanvas swings his way, while he's likely to do well on Super Tuesday.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,499 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Iowa caucus was run badly by Iowans. DNC have now gone in to clean up the mess, not a conspiracy. I say that in the knowledge of what the DNC did to Sanders in 2016.


  • Posts: 13,753 ✭✭✭✭ Remy Calm Strikeout


    Caucus app, in which Buttigieg has invested and former Hillary aids are involved, immediately goes kerplunk.

    Buttigieg declares himself the winner.

    Media doesn't dispute it, runs with it for several days.

    Yesterday NYT had Buttigieg at 95% likely winner and Bernie at 5%.

    Buttigieg has jumped 8 points in New Hampshire after his premature victory lap.

    Today it's 55% Bernie and 45% Pete.

    97% reported, remaining satellites (overwhelming in Bernie's favour) about to come in and Bernie declared the victor...


    Suddenly Tom Perez wants a recanvas. Didn't even wait until the first count was finished.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,632 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    The Democratic party is in a heap sadly. I think we'll see a split and three parties in the near future, that's Dems, Reps and something else maybe liberals.


  • Posts: 13,753 ✭✭✭✭ Remy Calm Strikeout


    But if they go in, give a recount and find sanders did in fact win... then what?

    Nothing changes. Bernie will win the first count.

    There was no issues when they thought Buttigieg was home and hosed. Only when they realised that it was far from over did they start to scramble to try save face.

    Worst case scenario is they've gotten their golden boy a points boost in New Hampshire.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 128 ✭✭Red for Danger


    Declaring victory when he knew he was neck and neck with Sanders, pure stunt hopefully it backfires on Premature pete.


    Meanwhile Bloomberg pours money in, while not having to answer a single question about policy or what he stands for.

    Two people working on his campaign are on the dnc rules committee. It doesn't really inspire much confidence.


    He hasn't given a penny to the dnc in decades and only last November cut them a cheque for 300k.
    Imagine how many rules changes he'd buy with 30 or 40 million a few days ad spending to him.

    All this if it continues will be damaging


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 986 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    Caucus app, in which Buttigieg has invested and former Hillary aids are involved, immediately goes kerplunk.

    Buttigieg declares himself the winner.

    Media doesn't dispute it, runs with it for several days.

    Yesterday NYT had Buttigieg at 95% likely winner and Bernie at 5%.

    Buttigieg has jumped 8 points in New Hampshire after his premature victory lap.

    Today it's 55% Bernie and 45% Pete.

    97% reported, remaining satellites (overwhelming in Bernie's favour) about to come in and Bernie declared the victor...


    Suddenly Tom Perez wants a recanvas. Didn't even wait until the first count was finished.

    If anyone has been harmed by this fiasco, it's Buttigieg as he's been deprived of the media buzz that comes with pulling off a surprisingly strong performance, whether he ends up winning or not. It's not much of a dastardly plot if he's the main loser out of the whole thing.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Huh, there's another TV democratic debate tonight. That may be more interesting than the rest, I think we can all guess what the first 2 questions will relate to ...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,457 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Iowa being Iowa.

    Real primary up next and some more normality resumed you'd hope.

    Sanders should win it being his neighbour state but interesting it's mayor Pete that's neck and neck in the polling with him.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,457 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Huh, there's another TV democratic debate tonight. That may be more interesting than the rest, I think we can all guess what the first 2 questions will relate to ...

    I don't think any of them want to get too bogged down with Iowa tbh, a candidate has to request a recanvass and I don't see any appetite, even the likes of Biden isn't going to change much with a recanvass given the type of errors that seem to have occurred.

    Or do you mean the impeachment, the swearing from the white house podium and the prayer breakfast crap? The bull**** you heard from the likes of Collins et al

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Where did Buttigieg get all this momentum from? The polls from a couple months back are like a total reversal


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    peddlelies wrote: »
    Where did Buttigieg get all this momentum from? The polls from a couple months back are like a total reversal

    Were you looking at national ones, or Iowa ones?

    Small-town mayor of generally rural state does well in rural state doesn't seem that surprising.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Were you looking at national ones, or Iowa ones?

    Small-town mayor of generally rural state does well in rural state doesn't seem that surprising.

    National ones so I'm probably falsely equating the two. It looks like he's going to win New Hampshire


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,006 ✭✭✭eire4


    peddlelies wrote: »
    National ones so I'm probably falsely equating the two. It looks like he's going to win New Hampshire

    If you mean Buttigieg winning in New Hampshire he has a shot no question but the polls have Sanders in the lead still so I would not be so quick to say it looks like. Kind of like Buttigieg's premature back slapping in Iowa.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,499 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Buttigeig will fade. Not sure he stands for anything much. Won't have the ground troops in the bigger states to maintain momentum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,312 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Water John wrote: »
    Buttigeig will fade. Not sure he stands for anything much. Won't have the ground troops in the bigger states to maintain momentum.

    His numbers with non white voters is going to torpedo his campaign once he get to the more diverse states.

    Bernie had a similar issue in 2016 lets not forget.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,006 ✭✭✭eire4


    Water John wrote: »
    Buttigeig will fade. Not sure he stands for anything much. Won't have the ground troops in the bigger states to maintain momentum.

    I know I hope your right. But genuinely I tend to think your right in reality as he has very little support among Black voters as well an important voting block in the Democratic primaries and who are not a factor in these first 2 states. He really comes across to me as a classic insincere corporate Democrat and his military background to me suggest we would just get more of the same bellicose military foreign policy from the US with him as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    Few posters have said the above about Buttigieg, that's he a corporate Democrat and insincere/disingenuous. I haven't gotten that vibe off him at all but know nothing about him bar the few interviews and town halls I've watched. O'Rourke and Harris you could see through like a sheet of plastic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,457 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Mayor Pete is grand, probably just a bit too inexperienced.

    I like Yang too actually who also has no shot.

    I think it's fair enough for Pete or Bernie to claim victory in Iowa also tbh, last I saw Pete had 13 delegates and Bernie 12? He had a .10% of a lead? What's the problem with claiming victory in that situation but I'd expect Bernie to win NH. I'd be very surprised if he doesn't.

    I think Pete's issues with black voters are overstated or overestimated I guess maybe. We will see how it plays out, I think he has a shot at VP.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,499 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Good piece here by Conor Kenny as to why Bernie is precisely the person to take on Trump. Makes his case well.
    https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/bernie-sanders-4997222-Feb2020/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement