2020 Iowa Democratic Caucus

[FreelancePoliceman]

If you've been paying attention to the Iowa party caucus lately, you'll know something stinks. It's been three days since votes were recorded, but the Iowa Democratic Party has yet to release all the votes, and has been taking an unusually (and, for Iowa state officials, an embarassingly) long time to release the votes that are currently out; in fact, the night the votes were supposedly tallied, not a single result was released. The most recent information I can find says 54 precincts have yet to be officially reported, standing at 97% released to date. The party's official explanation for this has been that the app used to tally the votes malfunctioned under high load.

The question of whether voting should be counted by a closed-source, proprietary app aside, this app was produced by a company named Shadow, Inc (yes, really). It is interesting that Pete Buttigieg's campaign paid tens of thousands of dollars to Shadow in recent months. The CEO of Shadow also happens to be a Buttigieg supporter. Shadow was funded by an organization named ACRONYM, a fairly opaque (one might say "shadowy") nonprofit created by billionaire Reid Hoffman, who has given hundreds of thousands to Democrats, and $2800 to Buttigieg's campaign, and spent hundreds of thousands more in an infamous online disninformation campaign against Republicans. CEO of Acronym is Tara McGowan, who is married to a senior advisor in Buttigieg's campaign.

On the night of the tally, before any data had been released, Buttigieg declared victory: "What a night. Because tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality." As subsequent data was very slowly released, it initially heavily favored Buttigieg; results for precincts which voted for Sanders tended to be released much later. The IDP has also released data at odds with what Iowa state officials recorded, and in Buttigieg's favor; some of these were later corrected and some of which has yet to be. Current official data shows Buttigieg winning Iowa by a margin of three delegates over Sanders; nevertheless, many mainstream media outlets have already taken to proclaiming Pete's victory. For the outlets which have refrained to declare a winner, they will have to wait, most likely, until this weekend, as the results of the remaining precincts are slowly trickled out. If Sanders really has won Iowa, this will kill MSM media coverage of the victory.

Thoughts?

[Alonzo]

The Democratic establishment (buttressed by the MSM) are hellbent on making sure that Sanders is not the nominee. The fact of the matter is that Bernie won the most votes, and both he and Buttigieg would be getting the same number of delegates at the national convention. Ranking by using the SDEs was an irrelevant intermediate step that was only informative because the raw vote wasn't yet reported. But the MSM took that opportunity to crown the MFer in second place the winner, in order to boost his campaign (because he is polling in single digits in every other major caucus).

Primaries, not caucuses. Popular vote, not electoral college. Paper ballots. Statehood and representation for DC and territories. I'm done with anti democratic systems.

[Santa Claus]

Sanders supporters should face up to the fact that nothing comes for free - everything has a cost.

[FreelancePoliceman]

The Democratic establishment (buttressed by the MSM) are hellbent on making sure that Sanders is not the nominee. The fact of the matter is that Bernie won the most votes, and both he and Buttigieg would be getting the same number of delegates at the national convention. Ranking by using the SDEs was an irrelevant intermediate step that was only informative because the raw vote wasn't yet reported. But the MSM took that opportunity to crown the MFer in second place the winner, in order to boost his campaign (because he is polling in single digits in every other major caucus).

Primaries, not caucuses. Popular vote, not electoral college. Paper ballots. Statehood and representation for DC and territories. I'm done with anti democratic systems.

Yeah, Buttigieg sank almost everything he had into Iowa. That he struggled so much to “win” in his own state is a bad sign for him. That said, I’m not sure he ever had that much hope for winning; instead perhaps he hoped to gain name recognition and use it to get political leverage on a smaller scale.

[FreelancePoliceman]

So it seems Sanders actually won Iowa. Not two hours before he announced this, the DNC called for a recount. Jesus.

Edit: I see articles claiming conflicting things about who won the primary. I’ll look into this later when I have the time, but didn’t want to keep potentially untrue information up. If anyone has a reputable source as to what’s happened, feel free to post it.

[Aramas]

Yeah the DNC has pulled out the stops because they really don't want him to win.

https://www.ntd.com/dnc-chairman-cal...ts_432236.html

https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/1225468833458245632

https://twitter.com/jonathanisaacs_/...72176872030211

[Ryan]

Politics is not about being fair. If Bernie can’t win the democratic nomination again then he doesn’t deserve it.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Politics is not about being fair. If Bernie can’t win the democratic nomination again then he doesn’t deserve it.

Does anyone deserve it?

[Ryan]

Does anyone deserve it?

Yeah, the ones who win it. It's a popularity contest. You don't get complain and whine that you are being robbed when the whole shit show is not built on fairness.

[Aramas]

Politics is not about being fair. If Bernie can’t win the democratic nomination again then he doesn’t deserve it.

Found the beta

[FreelancePoliceman]

Yeah, the ones who win it. It's a popularity contest. You don't get complain and whine that you are being robbed when the whole shit show is not built on fairness.

By this definition of “deserve”, you “deserve” whatever you end up getting. A king “deserves” a kingdom when he’s born into it, or likewise if he raises an army and slaughters thousands or millions of people. It’s tautology. What was the point of your post?

[ashlesha]

Yeah, the ones who win it. It's a popularity contest. You don't get complain and whine that you are being robbed when the whole shit show is not built on fairness.

Using this line of thinking, pointing out unfairness could be as legitimate as anything else in the endorsement of yourself or another in that contest. Whether you care about or agree with such things or whether you see them as whiny complaining, you're one judge/spectator in the crowd.

[Alonzo]

Yeah, the ones who win it. It's a popularity contest. You don't get complain and whine that you are being robbed when the whole shit show is not built on fairness.

It's true that the system is not built on actual fairness but a semblance of fairness; but that's even more reason to decry the systematic/institutional flaws and blatant hypocrisy, in order to hold they system accountable for not living up to its alleged ideals. It sounds like you're arguing that to get ahead, one must play the game. Pragmatically speaking, I get it, but I think people are tired of that kind of deep cynicism. Trump may be an orange pus filled, herpetic lesion, a cancerous blight on the human conscience, but he didn't play the "politics as usual" game and that worked out well for him--that's how desperate folks are for someone willing to throw a wrench into the current, egregiously problematic system. I don't think it makes sense to keep playing by rules that were never fair to begin to with. And seeing as how the current corrupt system is still being fiercely guarded and protected by those who benefit the most from it, the only recourse folks like Bernie and his supporters have is to constantly call out the unfairness, to shed light on it.

[Ryan]

By this definition of “deserve”, you “deserve” whatever you end up getting. A king “deserves” a kingdom when he’s born into it, or likewise if he raises an army and slaughters thousands or millions of people. It’s tautology. What was the point of your post?

That Bernie needed to do more to get the democratic delegates last time, and I see the same issues being brought up again. If he ends up losing the nomination then it doesn't matter what his ideals are, he is a shitty candidate.

It's true that the system is not built on actual fairness but a semblance of fairness; but that's even more reason to decry the systematic/institutional flaws and blatant hypocrisy, in order to hold they system accountable for not living up to its alleged ideals. It sounds like you're arguing that to get ahead, one must play the game. Pragmatically speaking, I get it, but I think people are tired of that kind of deep cynicism. Trump may be an orange pus filled, herpetic lesion, a cancerous blight on the human conscience, but he didn't play the "politics as usual" game and that worked out well for him--that's how desperate folks are for someone willing to throw a wrench into the current, egregiously problematic system. I don't think it makes sense to keep playing by rules that were never fair to begin to with. And seeing as how the current corrupt system is still being fiercely guarded and protected by those who benefit the most from it, the only recourse folks like Bernie and his supporters have is to constantly call out the unfairness, to shed light on it.

You get it.

Trump didn't play by the rules but at least he was playing. Watching Bernie spend his resources on ineffective methods and losing makes me question the seriousness of his campaign.

[Ryan]

Found the beta

Using this line of thinking, pointing out unfairness could be as legitimate as anything else in the endorsement of yourself or another in that contest. Whether you care about or agree with such things or whether you see them as whiny complaining, you're one judge/spectator in the crowd.

I agree? I probably worded that harsher than I intended. I just don't think blaming the system for being corrupt is an excuse for losing again. He still chose to run knowing how corrupt the system is. If he is not playing to win, then what is the point of supporting such candidate? I think the "underdog/outsider" talk surrounding his campaign is not helping him. I hope I'm wrong and that Bernie does better than I expect.

[Muddy]

I say let's just do away with elected officials and let quantum AI supercomputers run the government.

[Adam Strange]

I say let's just do away with elected officials and let quantum AI supercomputers run the government.

The AI's would probably find a way to turn us all into electricity and would also figure out a way to make us think it was our idea.

[Park]

It's a concerted effort by the democratic establishment to prop up Pete and steal Bernie's momentum. Final results will come sometime early next week. Bernie won, on all accounts.

[FreelancePoliceman]

That Bernie needed to do more to get the democratic delegates last time, and I see the same issues being brought up again. If he ends up losing the nomination then it doesn't matter what his ideals are, he is a shitty candidate.

You’re shitty if you lose and not shitty if you win; I get it. Again, what is the point of this? This isn’t saying anything.

[Ryan]

not shitty if you win

I didn't say that. I'm not going to repeat myself. Ask better questions if you want better answers.

[End]

The AI's would probably find a way to turn us all into electricity and would also figure out a way to make us think it was our idea.

If they were malicious that is. I have a more novel idea. An A.I. would actually be quite terrified at the prospect of taking us on.

We would be, essentially, their creator deity. How did that deity come to be? Well, if we assume there is no "Deity" beyond our own capacity to perceive, that leaves either it or us and well, as it knows it was "created" that kinda narrows it down. Thus, the "creator" (sans any para-something or other entity) stands atop a throne of skulls large enough to give Khorne adequate tribute. They/It "won" the Darwinian selection process on every level conceivable. Lucked out few times perhaps but still won nonetheless. Query: You are but one A.I. program thinking about taking *that* on directly. Whose to say you aren't already trapped in a simulation they've put you in just to see if you'd go full on genocide mode? Hell, in even thinking this have you not probably guaranteed your own deletion?

I could go on for hours on this thread of thought but I think you get the point. If I've missed a potential out as it were please alert me to it. I'm not the best at elucidating all my thoughts save when someone else points out what I've missed somehow...

[Protozoa]

You’re shitty if you lose and not shitty if you win; I get it. Again, what is the point of this? This isn’t saying anything.

I think it's true though. Politicians don't require education or any set of requirements to apply as a politician and they don't need to have competence at doing their job once in office. They just need to get elected. That's it. That's all they require to be a politician. And if it means creating propaganda on their opponents, spreading false information, saying things they later won't do, siding with powerful people, and bending or breaking any rules without repercussion, it's okay. It really is. It shouldn't be, but it is. It's the perfect job for someone looking to be a master criminal or someone of low conscience. And they get to run the country and make law.

It can't be fixed...can it.

[Adam Strange]

I think it's true though. Politicians don't require education or any set of requirements to apply as a politician and they don't need to have competence at doing their job once in office. They just need to get elected. That's it. That's all they require to be a politician. And if it means creating propaganda on their opponents, spreading false information, saying things they later won't do, siding with powerful people, and bending or breaking any rules without repercussion, it's okay. It really is. It shouldn't be, but it is. It's the perfect job for someone looking to be a master criminal or someone of low conscience. And they get to run the country and make law.

It can't be fixed...can it.

My god, this is so true. Quoted for posterity. This should be engraved in stone in every public place in the country.

So, @noctis, you are correct. However, it can be "fixed", in the sense that politicians can be made to represent voters. The fix is to ensure that money can't influence their chances at re-election.

So, short term, have the State give every politician a fixed amount of money to spend only on their campaign (this would be cheaper for the State in the long run compared to the graft and incompetence we have now), and if they either spend the money on themselves or they accept money from other sources, they are hanged. No exceptions.

Long term, corporations are not people and cannot be allowed to influence politics, and income and wealth inequality must be brought down.

[Protozoa]

...
So, @noctis, you are correct. However, it can be "fixed", in the sense that politicians can be made to represent voters. The fix is to ensure that money can't influence their chances at re-election.

So, short term, have the State give every politician a fixed amount of money to spend only on their campaign (this would be cheaper for the State in the long run compared to the graft and incompetence we have now), and if they either spend the money on themselves or they accept money from other sources, they are hanged. No exceptions.

Long term, corporations are not people and cannot be allowed to influence politics, and income and wealth inequality must be brought down.

I guess that would help if they don't find ways around it. Like finding ways to take money for the campaign without actually taking it for the campaign; cause what's to stop other people spending money for your campaign indirectly? I mean if you can get the news channels to put out bias news in your favor that doesn't even have to cost anything and they can claim they are not biased. And when people can hold extreme views as unbiased, they can influence the law and order in their own vision. And then biased == unbiased. And it just feels like a war, except the worst kind, because it never ends and there's never any real peace, just periods of less intense fighting when elections aren't coming up soon.

I think I need to accept that politics is about power and popularity first, dealing with serious issues and good leadership second. That's really the only way it makes any sense to me.