Iowa Caucus - Who you got?!

[AZGrizFan]

Nah, I'm about closed-ballot voting, with each vote weighted equally.

I'm also for everyone being able to vote, at entry of high-school. Also immigrants, long-term residents, felons and ex-felons, etc. If government has say in your life, you should have say in government.

That's democracy.

felons knowingly give up that right by committing a felony.

Immigrants get to vote. Once they're naturalized. Illegal immigrants can't vote because this isn't their government.

[89Hen]

Nah, I'm about closed-ballot voting, with each vote weighted equally.

I'm also for everyone being able to vote, at entry of high-school. Also immigrants, long-term residents, felons and ex-felons, etc. If government has say in your life, you should have say in government.

That's democracy.

I do agree about "ex-felons". If you served your time, you should be eligible again. But the rest, I'll take a pass. And 15 years old?

[Pwns]

Bernard wins and Fauxcahontas will have to decide if she'll quit or basically hand the nomination to Uncle Joe.

[93henfan]

Nah, I'm about closed-ballot voting, with each vote weighted equally.

I'm also for everyone being able to vote, at entry of high-school. Also immigrants, long-term residents, felons and ex-felons, etc. If government has say in your life, you should have say in government.

That's democracy.

I do agree about "ex-felons". If you served your time, you should be eligible again. But the rest, I'll take a pass. And 15 years old?

+1

I'm all for a basic poll test as well. Should be similar to the citizenship test. Basic civics mostly. It would be taken in advance (not day of the vote) and could be retaken until passed.

[Ivytalk]

Who the hell voted for Deval Patrick? He’s just a darker-complected Obama with a bit more executive experience.

[CID1990]

Should be Sanders, probably will be Biden. Because DNC.

Soviets can’t lose when elections are fair


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Should be Sanders, probably will be Biden. Because DNC.

Soviets can’t lose when elections are fair



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh?

[CID1990]

Soviets can’t lose when elections are fair



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh?

I must have been too nuanced


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Huh?

I must have been too nuanced


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.

[HI54UNI]

Should be Sanders, probably will be Biden. Because DNC.

Will Bernie game the system to his advantage?

Rivals warn Sanders campaign plans to game Iowa results

A claim of victory after the first vote could encourage supporters of weaker candidates to leave the caucuses early without realigning with another candidate. Or it could create an artificial bandwagon effect by encouraging some caucus-goers to jump to Sanders’ side under the belief that he will be the victor.

Either scenario stands to hurt the campaigns that are more reliant than Sanders on the realignment round that happens after the first preference vote is cast. During realignment, supporters of candidates who failed to hit a 15 percent threshold in the first vote are freed up to switch to another candidate.

Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Any truth to this reporting Fiver?

I think that is probably true. I would say that Bernie probably will get the least benefit from the realignment/2nd choice voting process. Biden would likely benefit from it the most. So it's possible that on the first vote Bernie wins but Biden wins on the 2nd vote and wins the delegate count. If that happens Bernie wants to spin it that he was the winner and got cheated (again).

[HI54UNI]

They had a panel of supposed undecideds on the local news tonight. I was surprised at how many had Yang as a top or 2nd choice. Reinforces my thoughts that he might be the surprise of the night.

[BDKJMU]

Past donk Iowa caucuses:
1972 (January 24): "Uncommitted" (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
1976 (January 19): "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
1980 (January 21): Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)
1984 (February 20): Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)
1988 (February 8): Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
1992 (February 10): Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
1996 (February 12): Bill Clinton (98%), "Uncommitted" (1%), and Ralph Nader (1%)
2000 (January 24): Al Gore (63%), and Bill Bradley (37%)
2004 (January 19): John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
2008 (January 3): Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), and Joe Biden (1%)[35]
2012 (January 3): Barack Obama (98%), and "Uncommitted" (2%)[24]
2016 (February 1): Hillary Clinton (49.8%), Bernie Sanders (49.6%), and Martin O'Malley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_cauc ... atic_Party

History says anyone not finishing in the top 3 tonight is done..

[∞∞∞]

They had a panel of supposed undecideds on the local news tonight. I was surprised at how many had Yang as a top or 2nd choice. Reinforces my thoughts that he might be the surprise of the night.

Except most people are decided, so not sure how much of a gain he can really make. Not saying he won't surprise people, but it'd be a helluva surprise.

[UNI88]

Nah, I'm about closed-ballot voting, with each vote weighted equally.

I'm also for everyone being able to vote, at entry of high-school. Also immigrants, long-term residents, felons and ex-felons, etc. If government has say in your life, you should have say in government.

That's democracy.

But then you could have someone win who doesn't get 50% of the vote and that would be wrong. This allows the people who are supporting losing candidates to support the more popular candidate that they most closely align with. It's even more democratic than a closed ballot.

[HI54UNI]

Seeing some reports coming in on Twitter. Couple of random examples but showing differences between rural, city, and suburb.

Rural county precinct. Bernie, Warren only ones viable in initial ballot. Biden picked up a Yang voter to become viable.

In Des Moines Precinct 47 (East Village - downtown, young), Joe Biden is not viable. Warren and Sanders with the most, Buttigieg should be viable. Yang had more than Biden.

I’m at Windsor Heights 2 (a suburb of DSM), where Buttegieg has the largest group, followed by Warren, Klobucher, and Sanders and Biden. The last two groups were barely viable. About ten for Yang and seven for Steyer are realigning

[93henfan]

I don't see why any Democrat serious about winning the November election would support Bernie. He'd be a dream opponent for Trump. The Dems need to steal votes in the Rust Belt, and Sanders (socialist northeast joo) isn't going to flip any of those from 2016.

[∞∞∞]

But then you could have someone win who doesn't get 50% of the vote and that would be wrong. This allows the people who are supporting losing candidates to support the more popular candidate that they most closely align with. It's even more democratic than a closed ballot.

So basically Iowa is conducting a ridiculously roundabout way to do ranked-choice voting.

This is easier:

[∞∞∞]

Looks like Buttigieg is taking most of the non-viable candidate's support. He has 24% to Sanders' 25%. 20% for Biden, 17% for Warren. Klobucher is the only other that could, but will probably not be, viable with 13%.

[HI54UNI]

Pete doing well in the burbs. Biden doing poorly overall.

[∞∞∞]

Basically down to five: Sanders, Buttigieg, Biden, Warren, and Klobucher.

The rest are pretty much unviable at this point.

[HI54UNI]

It will be interesting to see precinct breakdowns. Some of the stuff I'm seeing is virtually no supporters for Pete in minority areas.

[∞∞∞]

Buttigieg now leading Sanders, 27% to 24%.

[∞∞∞]

BTW watching this whole thing reaffirms my opinion: caucuses are f*cking stupid.

[∞∞∞]

Looks like Pete and Bernie are guaranteed to be Top 2, order yet to be determined.

Biden is...well it's not good.

[CID1990]

I must have been too nuanced


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.

It seems as though when Democrats lose elections there must have been shenanigans.... voter suppression, Electoral College, DNC fingers on the scales, Russians, space aliens, Facebook, you name it

In a perfectly fair system only Democrats win


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk