Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***2020 Democrat Primary/Caucus Thread*** Biden Is Your Demoractic Nominee


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Insinuating? Yes. Not sure what the face is for, just telling you how it is and what sites and Tweets they're linking. It's not an outright claim of conspiracy, but leans that way.

My point was about where these accusations are coming from, see what the commish said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Republicans are going to paint every Democrat candidate as a wild out of control socialist. Pete, Amy, Warren, doesn't matter.  They ran with that against Obama for 8 years and he started every ne

On your first question, I'm not sure, though there's a distinction between democratic socialism and socialism socialism, as I know you know. I'm not sure the younger generation cares so much abou

Fast  forward to a little over 6 months from now and a bunch of you are going to be scratching your heads as Trump gets another 4 years in office, wondering how Biden lost. Then you'll somehow blame t

25 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I was once told by a man with 50 years of public service, Military Intel, DOJ, Attorney General's Office, Judge, "Never ascribe to conspiracy that which is readily explainable by incompetence.  I know government and we cannot even conspire to do lunch."

Yep.  This is the nature of large bureaucracies....and it is even worse when they outsource core functions like counting the freaking vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

That's his point...ren doesn't vote and is proud of that.  

Yup.  I sure didn’t.  Because I didn’t like any of the candidates in 2016.  I’m not proud of it but I stand by that decision.  I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008.  When the people running don’t reflect my values I stay home.  

No one’s doing us any favors by ‘holding their nose’ and heaving dog#### on the rest of us. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sand said:

This is true, but coincidences can happen like that.  Now the whole debacle with HRC and the amassing of superdelegates was exactly the effort to shut Bernie out.  This?  Just completely incompetent hacks.

I guess you're excusing me from this accusation?  Kind of ironic you post this right after I wax eloquent about feckless political operatives.

Was it coincidence HRC won 6 out of 6 coin flips in Iowa in 2016 too.  They are steamrolling the 2% or less probabilities.

Edited by IC FBGCav
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IC FBGCav said:

Was it coincidence HRC won 6 out of 6 coin flips in Iowa in 2016 too.  They are steamrolling the 2% or less probabilities.

What was the coin flip count this time around?  I didn't hear what that was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slapdash said:

and it is even worse when they outsource core functions like counting the freaking vote.

I know for the DNC Amazon is evil, but they (or some other similar company) would have gotten this setup and counted right.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sand said:

I know for the DNC Amazon is evil, but they (or some other similar company) would have gotten this setup and counted right.  

Can you imagine the "Bezos rigged the election for ____" claims from Trump?  :lol:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Have they taken over completely as others have done in Petes timeline?

And I don't condone any of it especially attacking each other.  Wouldn't be surprised if many of them are just trolls sowing discord.

Everywhere. Sports, comedy, food. You name it and hated is all over social media 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slapdash said:

Can you imagine the "Bezos rigged the election for ____" claims from Trump?  :lol:

Such things trumpeted from a hyper partisan media?  They would have had this stuff prewritten, like celebrity obituaries.  However, it would have been harder to claim rigging when Amazon could have setup a real time application visible to everyone to track the caucus.  It would have been pretty cool, IMO.

Though New Hampshire's method of "pencils only" also has lots of merit.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

I heard Bernie was 0-7 but I dont know that for sure

Just by the odds that's a 0.012% chance for 13 straight against Bernie.

:tinfoilhat:

Edited by Sand
Link to post
Share on other sites

When it was just the app that was holding things up I was ok to chalk it up to failure by the party leadership.  That’s explained easily enough by fundamental incompetence.  

When the party steps in and inexplicably releases ‘partial’ results that omit a certain candidate’s strongholds and allow a different candidate to falsely claim victory, publish false results in Black Hawk County that were only corrected because the county supervisor published the actual results on Twitter, then, when it appears the candidate that party leadership (and a presidential candidate) are openly scheming against is actually about to win Iowa thru satellite caucuses, the DNC chair steps in to ‘recanvass.’  

It was Perez himself who wanted to ‘put a fork’ in Sanders’ Latino support back in 2016.  After their work in 2016, at what point are we allowed to think there is blatant bias and heavyhandedness on display without being gaslighted as ‘conspiracy theorists’.  This is ridiculous.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sand said:

Though New Hampshire's method of "pencils only" also has lots of merit.

There is a certain appeal to the old methods.  Seems like the more we try to innovate in this space, the more risk we create.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

When it was just the app that was holding things up I was ok to chalk it up to failure by the party leadership.  That’s explained easily enough by fundamental incompetence.  

When the party steps in and inexplicably releases ‘partial’ results that omit a certain candidate’s strongholds and allow a different candidate to falsely claim victory, publish false results in Black Hawk County that were only corrected because the county supervisor published the actual results on Twitter, then, when it appears the candidate that party leadership (and a presidential candidate) are openly scheming against is actually about to win Iowa thru satellite caucuses, the DNC chair steps in to ‘recanvass.’  

It was Perez himself who wanted to ‘put a fork’ in Sanders’ Latino support back in 2016.  After their work in 2016, at what point are we allowed to think there is blatant bias and heavyhandedness on display without being gaslighted as ‘conspiracy theorists’.  This is ridiculous.  

Yep. Incompetence can't explain what happened. I cant get over this quote...

Quote

In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report,” said Mandy McClure, a spokeswoman for the state party. “This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.

Take the app out of the equation and if the paper trail is fine, you could have easily just reported the data bit by bit as it comes in. The bulk 62% reporting and then nothing for a while made zero sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

May have been posted already but in case it wasn't... comments from former IDP chair Michael Kiernan

Quote

And Now Deep thoughts by Michael Kiernan....

If I was still chair of the party I would file a lawsuit against the dnc and the tech vendor.

It's time we start standing up for ourselves.

The DNC pushed all the new requirements and the tech vendor on the Iowa Democratic Party.

They then have the nerve to criticize Iowa and ask for a recount when they put us in this position.

Criticize the delayed results because we had to chase paper ballots from 1600 plus precincts because of the failed technology of their vendor

Then Nevada gets the ability to dump the tech provider.

NO....I dont thinks so!

Tom Perez...you are a disgrace!

Was this designed by the DNC or owners of the tech company to tank the Iowa caucuses on purpose?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a30810883/iowa-caucuses-math-errors/

Basically they looked at 4 precincts which had errors in awarding delegates. Buttigieg was helped in 3 of these and hurt in one, Biden was helped in one and

hurt in one, and Sanders was hurt in 2. So if it is just incompetence, it happened to help Pete and hurt Bernie. If this trend held true for all the precincts in which errors occurred, I would think it would be a lot less likely to be incompetence, but likely an effort to help one candidate at the expense of another.

I also love that this article came from Popular Mechanics

Edited by dhockster
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Buttigieg Boom continues — New Hampshire data from Boston Globe / Suffolk tracking poll:

Buttigieg 25%
Sanders 24%
Warren 14%
Biden 11%
Klobuchar 6%

Edited by caustic
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, caustic said:

The Buttigieg Boom continues — New Hampshire data from Boston Globe / Suffolk tracking poll:

Buttigieg 25%
Sanders 24%
Warren 14%
Biden 11%
Klobuchar 6%

How many states end like this before the bottom three pack it in?  Nevada (4)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

How many states end like this before the bottom three pack it in?  Nevada (4)?

If Klobuchar fails to gain traction I think she drops out fairly soon, MN is a Super Tuesday state and it’d be embarrassing for her to lose there.

Biden sticks around until Super Tuesday at least.

I think Warren is a bit of a wild card — she could see a contested convention as her best shot at the nomination and stay in for a while, or she could drop out fairly early to let Bernie consolidate support as Bloomberg steps into the ring. Will probably depend on how badly she loses the next few states.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ren hoek said:

When it was just the app that was holding things up I was ok to chalk it up to failure by the party leadership.  That’s explained easily enough by fundamental incompetence.  

When the party steps in and inexplicably releases ‘partial’ results that omit a certain candidate’s strongholds and allow a different candidate to falsely claim victory, publish false results in Black Hawk County that were only corrected because the county supervisor published the actual results on Twitter, then, when it appears the candidate that party leadership (and a presidential candidate) are openly scheming against is actually about to win Iowa thru satellite caucuses, the DNC chair steps in to ‘recanvass.’  

It was Perez himself who wanted to ‘put a fork’ in Sanders’ Latino support back in 2016.  After their work in 2016, at what point are we allowed to think there is blatant bias and heavyhandedness on display without being gaslighted as ‘conspiracy theorists’.  This is ridiculous.  

This is the DNC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Just go with total votes over whatever arcane witchcraft they use to determine SDEs.  Sanders won Iowa.  

So change the rules (after the fact) because Bernie fans didn't like the outcome and don't like the guy who won by the established rules?

Why didn't Hillary think of that...she could be president.

Close race and Bernie and Pete both came out of Iowa well...just leave it at that rather than the sour grapes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why were Yang and Steyer on the stage last night when Gabbard has twice the support?  To be clear, I don't think any of them should be up there, but just curious how that decision is made? Does it make me a conspiracy guy to think her calling Hillary a warmonger has something to do with it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Why were Yang and Steyer on the stage last night when Gabbard has twice the support?  To be clear, I don't think any of them should be up there, but just curious how that decision is made? Does it make me a conspiracy guy to think her calling Hillary a warmonger has something to do with it? 

Yes, it probably does show an inclination toward believing conspiracies.  The qualification standards are widely available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Why were Yang and Steyer on the stage last night when Gabbard has twice the support?  To be clear, I don't think any of them should be up there, but just curious how that decision is made? Does it make me a conspiracy guy to think her calling Hillary a warmonger has something to do with it? 

She met the donor requirements but not the poll requirements. Candidates needed at least four polls (from pre-approved pollsters) showing 5%+ support nationally or in the four early states, and Gabbard only had two.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It occurs to me that with Biden fading and South Carolina around the corner and Mayor Pete with zero black support, Kamala and Booker should have hung on. 

What black support Biden loses could help Bernie win the nomination, although some prominent blacks are warming up to Bloomberg, after his apology tour. Bernie (47%) or brokered (26%) are the most likely outcomes, per 538: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, caustic said:

CNN’s latest NH poll:

Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 21%
Biden 11%
Warren 9%
Gabbard 6% (???)
Klobuchar 5%

Bernie holds a 4-point lead in the RCP polling average.

Gabbard has been 6 to 8 percent for a few weeks now.   She's been non stop campaigning and doing town halls every day to decent size crowds.  

She qualified for the recent debates on that polling and CNN refused to let her debate.  

Edited by Getzlaf15
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, caustic said:

Biden is releasing a new attack ad on Pete: What You’ve Done Matters. The gloves are off.

I saw this mentioned by others on Twitter but I was thinking the same thing - that this is similar to 2016 when candidates early on attacked each other, but not Trump so much, to become the main “normal” opposition to Trump until it was too late, and they’re doing the same thing here by trying to jostle for the moderate lane and more or less leaving Bernie alone. And when the last moderate walks out of the ashes, Bernie will be on stage accepting the nomination.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Today’s NH tracking poll from Emerson - looks like Klobuchar may be getting a boost from her debate performance last night, mostly at Pete’s expense:

Sanders 30% (-1 from yesterday)
Buttigieg 20% (-4)
Klobuchar 13% (+4)
Warren 12% (+1)
Biden 11% (-)

EDIT: today’s Suffolk/Boston Globe tracking poll shows the same trend.

Sanders 24% (-)
Buttigieg 22% (-3)
Warren 13% (-1)
Biden 10% (-1)
Klobuchar 9% (+3)

Edited by caustic
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, caustic said:

wToday’s NH tracking poll from Emerson - looks like Klobuchar may be getting a boost from her debate performance last night, mostly at Pete’s expense:

Sanders 30% (-1 from yesterday)
Buttigieg 20% (-4)
Klobuchar 13% (+4)
Warren 12% (+1)
Biden 11% (-)

EDIT: looks like today’s Suffolk/Boston Globe tracking poll shows the same trend.

Sanders 24% (-)
Buttigieg 22% (-3)
Warren 13% (-1)
Biden 10% (-1)
Klobuchar 9% (+3)

These aint the best, but they're the best we got. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caustic said:

Today’s NH tracking poll from Emerson - looks like Klobuchar may be getting a boost from her debate performance last night, mostly at Pete’s expense:

Sanders 30% (-1 from yesterday)
Buttigieg 20% (-4)
Klobuchar 13% (+4)
Warren 12% (+1)
Biden 11% (-)

EDIT: today’s Suffolk/Boston Globe tracking poll shows the same trend.

Sanders 24% (-)
Buttigieg 22% (-3)
Warren 13% (-1)
Biden 10% (-1)
Klobuchar 9% (+3)

Sanders support isn't going anywhere.  The others are shuffling their folks back and forth.  His message is so different that people aren't leaving him.  He may add a few here and there but I think he is where he is.  If Warren drops I think that's his one shot to add.  It reminds me an awful lot of the support Roy Moore used to get in our primaries in Alabama, pre-scandal.  He always had the same number no matter who he ran against.  The time he won the Senate primary was because the governor had appointed a lobbyist to the Senate.  Then when Moore isolated him in the runoff he won because Moore's folks always, always turned out and nobody was excited about the incumbent.  If the Dems don't isolate it down to one more mainstream candidate fairly soon he's going to win a plurality.  Of course I don't think under their rules that's enough to get the nomination.  The mess is going to be if he's the leader in delegates but short of 50%, and others combine to nominate someone else.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevada looking interesting.

"In interviews, volunteers said they received little information at the training beyond a rough outline of how the tool is supposed to function. They also were unsure how the party plans to carry out its four-day early voting period"

LINK

Another volunteer, who asked for anonymity to speak openly about the training process, said the general sentiment in the room at the training was frustration and confusion.

“We got very little information. It was just a preview. There was no hands on,” the volunteer said. “We were not given the program to work with or practice with. All we have were a few slides to look at while they told us that they’re planning to develop it further.

 

 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

Sanders support isn't going anywhere.  The others are shuffling their folks back and forth.  His message is so different that people aren't leaving him.  He may add a few here and there but I think he is where he is.  If Warren drops I think that's his one shot to add.  It reminds me an awful lot of the support Roy Moore used to get in our primaries in Alabama, pre-scandal.  He always had the same number no matter who he ran against.  The time he won the Senate primary was because the governor had appointed a lobbyist to the Senate.  Then when Moore isolated him in the runoff he won because Moore's folks always, always turned out and nobody was excited about the incumbent.  If the Dems don't isolate it down to one more mainstream candidate fairly soon he's going to win a plurality.  Of course I don't think under their rules that's enough to get the nomination.  The mess is going to be if he's the leader in delegates but short of 50%, and others combine to nominate someone else.

Warren is toast.   Would not be surprised if she bailed this week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, timschochet said:

It occurs to me that with Biden fading and South Carolina around the corner and Mayor Pete with zero black support, Kamala and Booker should have hung on. 

Neither of those candidates enjoyed any special support among black voters.  Booker is whiter than I am, and Harris wanted to put everybody in prison.

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, if you're rooting for The Centrist Lane, I'm not sure what result you should be pulling for.  Probably either 1) Biden gets KO'ed quickly so somebody else can take over that lane or 2) Biden rebounds bigly and regains his former front-runner status.  I'm pretty sure "Biden limps along with Buttigieg performing okay and Bloomberg waiting in the wings" is the worst possible scenario.  Great scenario for Sanders though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

In what way is Booker more white than Obama was?

Obviously I'm joking, but everything I've read is that Booker was perceived by black voters to be about as black as Bryant Gumbel.  I don't fully understand that, but it was a cultural thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

At this point, if you're rooting for The Centrist Lane, I'm not sure what result you should be pulling for.  Probably either 1) Biden gets KO'ed quickly so somebody else can take over that lane or 2) Biden rebounds bigly and regains his former front-runner status.  I'm pretty sure "Biden limps along with Buttigieg performing okay and Bloomberg waiting in the wings" is the worst possible scenario.  Great scenario for Sanders though.

The problem is that Bloomberg isn’t on the ballot in South Carolina which is 60% black vote. Which makes “Biden limps along” seem very likely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, timschochet said:

It occurs to me that with Biden fading and South Carolina around the corner and Mayor Pete with zero black support, Kamala and Booker should have hung on. 

Solely because they're black, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...