US Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
After Hillary Clinton’s shocking defeat in 2016, Democratic leaders in Washington recognized it was time to change the party’s internal power dynamics. Over the course of Obama’s presidency, they’d lost nearly a thousand seats in state legislatures, a dozen governorships, both chambers of Congress and then the White House. The party was quite literally in its weakest position since the Civil War.

So then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Warren and Sanders collectively backed someone new to run the DNC. Instead of another Clinton or Obama alum, they got behind then-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a favorite of the American left and one of Sanders’ few endorsers in Washington. The reasoning was pretty simple ― the old guard had failed pretty badly, and they would need to embrace younger, more progressive wing of the party to maintain a coalition with any hope of remaining competitive with Republicans.
Click to expand...

Ellison, famously, lost. Obama stepped in and endorsed Perez, and the voting members of the DNC followed his lead.
Click to expand...

Rep. Keith Ellison was once associated with the Nation of Islam a racist anti semitic hate group.

www.huffpost.com

After Iowa, The Democratic Party's Prospects For Unity Have Never Been Bleaker

What a mess.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
Zimbabwean style?

Amid irregularities, AP unable to declare winner in Iowa

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Associated Press said Thursday that it is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses.

Following the Iowa Democratic Party’s release of new results late Thursday night, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by two state delegate equivalents out of 2,152 counted. That is a margin of 0.09 percentage points.

However, there is evidence the party has not accurately tabulated some of its results, including those released late Thursday that the party reported as complete. The AP’s tabulation of the party’s results are at 99% of precincts reporting, with data missing from one of 1,765 precincts, among other issues.

Further, even as the Iowa Democratic Party’s effort to complete its tabulation of the caucus results continued Thursday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez asked the Iowa Democratic Party to conduct a recanvass. That is not a recount, but rather a check of the vote count to ensure the results were added correctly.

Perez sought the recanvass following days of uncertainty about the results reported by the Iowa Democratic Party, which includes technology problems with the mobile phone app used by the party to collect results from caucus sites, an overwhelming number of calls to the party’s backup phone system and a subsequent delay of several days of reporting the results.
Click to expand...

Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies

Results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed by “quality control checks” on Monday night. Days later, quality control issues have not been resolved.

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and they do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

But not all of the errors are minor, and they raise questions about whether the public will ever get a completely precise account of the Iowa results. With Mr. Sanders closing to within 0.1 percentage points with 97 percent of 1,765 precincts reporting, the race could easily grow close enough for even the most minor errors to delay a final projection or raise doubts about a declared winner.
Click to expand...
 
Speedster said:
Forgive my ignorance, but what benefit would a recount have? It looks like the important number is the delegates one (at 11 each for the frontrunners), would the recount change these numbers?
Click to expand...

You are right...the recount won't change the delegates awarded to each candidate, but I guess the two leading campaigns both want to claim they won Iowa (giving them momentum and all that!)
 
Chris_the_Brit said:
You are right...the recount won't change the delegates awarded to each candidate, but I guess the two leading campaigns both want to claim they won Iowa (giving them momentum and all that!)
Click to expand...
Because it affects the integrity of the entire election going forward.
 
ShaunSA said:
My top 3 are John Delaney, Michael Bloomberg at 80%. Then Tulsi Gabbard at 79%

If only I knew wtf they were :ROFL:
Click to expand...
I looked at Tulsi - from Hawaii, so zero chance she will be taken seriously.

But come on Shaun, Bloomberg should ring a bell?
 
Low energy....

Iowa’s caucus-reporting meltdown was painful. But another grenade from Monday night, just beyond the line of sight, may be just as consequential.

For more than a year, Democrats have been preparing for high turnout in 2020, powered by an electorate juiced by rage against President Donald Trump. But in their first test of the year, early data suggested Tuesday that turnout was “on pace for 2016,” the Iowa Democratic Party said, far below levels many observers predicted.
Click to expand...

www.politico.com

The biggest problem for Democrats wasn’t the vote count

In Iowa, the party was counting on Barack Obama-levels of enthusiasm. They got Hillary Clinton-level turnout instead.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
This is why Bernie won't win. The Corporotocracy won't let it happen. And most of these billionaires funding these campaigns are likely parasites that made their money from usury... hedge fund managers, investment bankers, vulture capitalists etc.
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
This is why Bernie won't win. The Corporotocracy won't let it happen. And most of these billionaires funding these campaigns are likely parasites that made their money from usury... hedge fund managers, investment bankers, vulture capitalists etc.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of usury?
 
cerebus said:
I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders made his money with compound interest as well...
Click to expand...
Then we can expect him to "help" the working class like all the other usurious parasites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X