Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 279066 times)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1950 on: January 28, 2020, 08:42:20 AM »
The main point of that article is he doesn’t think Bernie can win - that the Trump bunch will rip him to shreds in short order, and he will be playing defense without a strong coalition behind him. He’s a divisive figure.

Sorry, my comments are mostly about the second article in that chain, not the one you posted. The one you posted was just an opinion fluff piece. I think the only real evidence he presented was M4A not being popular in the rust belt. Though he doesn't explain how Sanders is polling ahead in WI and MI against Trump quite consistently. Bernie is extremely popular there for his work on trade and labor.

It's also the exact opposite of what Trump himself usually says. There's a recording of Trump basically admitting that if Bernie were the VP choice he's not so sure he would have won. Because Bernie runs as a real populist, not just a fake one like Trump. And Bernie as VP could have taken enough votes from the Rust Belt to swing the election the other way.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1951 on: January 28, 2020, 08:46:49 AM »
Bernie is surging late in Iowa.  Less than a week until the caucus.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1952 on: January 28, 2020, 09:33:39 AM »
Bernie is surging late in Iowa.  Less than a week until the caucus.
It certainly will be interesting to see what happens if Sanders beats, or ties, Biden in Iowa. With almost home-field advantage in New Hampshire, and Nevada / South Carolina being fairly neutral, Sanders could be riding into Super Tuesday with a lot of momentum.

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1953 on: January 28, 2020, 09:40:09 AM »
I have to come back to this thread and chuckle at myself.

I voted and even contributed to Sander's campaign in 2016, but was not enthused about him this time around, for a few reasons.  I have always liked him, even if I disagree with some of his policies.  I think he is genuine and has been consistent throughout his entire life, which impresses me.  I'm happy to see him beating Biden, but I'm highly, highly concerned about his VP pick.  If he makes a wrong move, it's all over.  I could see him picking from his heart and while the emotional side of me appreciates that, I want a Democrat in the office and that means he needs to play the game and make the best choice.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1954 on: January 28, 2020, 10:43:02 AM »
Bernie is surging late in Iowa.  Less than a week until the caucus.
It certainly will be interesting to see what happens if Sanders beats, or ties, Biden in Iowa. With almost home-field advantage in New Hampshire, and Nevada / South Carolina being fairly neutral, Sanders could be riding into Super Tuesday with a lot of momentum.

Barring an epic collapse, Biden will carry SC with ~1/3 of the vote total.  Nevada has had no (or little) good polling for a long time now.  But yeah, I could see Bernie going 1,1,2, top 2 in NV to open the first 4 states.  Given the variety of states, that would be a strong "electability" (whatever TF that means) argument.

I'm sure the top 4 will stay in it for awhile, but I think Warren and Pete are down to hoping for a miracle from one of Iowa/NH.  They need to win one of those two states to have any momentum going forward, especially into Super Tuesday.  I do wonder if Warren eventually steps out and pledges her delegates for Bernie if it becomes apparent she won't be the nominee.  All of that will be interesting to follow as we move along - as of now, it's looking like no one candidate will get to a majority of delegates, but of course the early states will change a lot of that.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1955 on: January 28, 2020, 01:10:52 PM »
In Michigan I think Sanders would have a better chance of beating Trump than Biden because there's a lot of white working class who are voting for big change. They voted for Trump in order to blow things up and have change, and I don't think it gets much more complicated then that.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2838
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1956 on: January 31, 2020, 02:57:40 PM »
Delaney's out.

538 tracker has Biden or Sanders at 46% + 28% = 74% chance of getting a majority of delegates by the end of primary season.  "No one" is in solid third place at 16%.  Warren and Buttigeig make up another 9%.  Everyone else is 1%, although Nate Silver admits their model doesn't really have a precedent for Bloomberg.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4213
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1957 on: February 01, 2020, 07:27:27 AM »
Delaney's out.

538 tracker has Biden or Sanders at 46% + 28% = 74% chance of getting a majority of delegates by the end of primary season.  "No one" is in solid third place at 16%.  Warren and Buttigeig make up another 9%.  Everyone else is 1%, although Nate Silver admits their model doesn't really have a precedent for Bloomberg.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
My bet's on this, unfortunately, unless one of the frontrunners drops out.  It will be messy.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1958 on: February 01, 2020, 07:43:51 AM »
That'd be my prediction at this point as well. Nate's model is looking at historical data for candidates polling at similar numbers.

But I don't remember any primary (that I've either lived through or read about) where no candidate was even close to a majority and everyone's numbers were so immobile for the better part of a year.

Biden has consistently been in the lead with 26-30% of the vote since he announced.

Sanders has consistently had 16-20% of the vote since he announced (maybe now he's added a couple extra percent) and has been in second except for a brief Warren surge-and-collapse.

To me that suggests their supporters are much more "locked in" than historical models may predict. And if (edit: unless not if) either of them either drops out or collapses, it becomes near mathematically impossible for any other candidate to get to 50%+1.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2020, 10:26:20 AM by maizeman »

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2838
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1959 on: February 01, 2020, 10:03:51 AM »
I think the most interesting 2020 possibility is for Bloomberg to not win the primary and choose to run independently.  Small odds, perhaps, but interesting to me to consider it.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2838
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1960 on: February 01, 2020, 10:34:08 AM »
Just came across this interesting news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/dnc-democratic-debate-rules.html

"COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — The Democratic National Committee has opened the door to allowing former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York to participate in the presidential debate it will sponsor in Nevada next month, a change from its practice that demanded candidates demonstrate grass-roots fund-raising support.

The D.N.C. announced Friday that in order to participate in the debate, set for Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, a candidate must win at least a single delegate in either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary or meet polling requirements.

It has eliminated the requirement that candidates must have received donations from hundreds of thousands of individuals. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is running a self-funded campaign and is not soliciting donations."

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1961 on: February 01, 2020, 11:01:27 AM »
Just came across this interesting news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/dnc-democratic-debate-rules.html

"COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — The Democratic National Committee has opened the door to allowing former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York to participate in the presidential debate it will sponsor in Nevada next month, a change from its practice that demanded candidates demonstrate grass-roots fund-raising support.

The D.N.C. announced Friday that in order to participate in the debate, set for Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, a candidate must win at least a single delegate in either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary or meet polling requirements.

It has eliminated the requirement that candidates must have received donations from hundreds of thousands of individuals. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is running a self-funded campaign and is not soliciting donations."

Bloomberg is only running ads in super tuesday states and isn't bothering with the first few states. He won't be winning any delegates in Iowa or NH. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

Basically the 15% threshold means that only Sanders/Biden/Warren/Buttigieg will win delegates. There's the possibility that Klobuchar might win 1 in Iowa, and there might be 1 for Yang or Klobuchar in NH, but Bloomberg won't be winning any.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2838
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1962 on: February 01, 2020, 05:45:55 PM »
Just came across this interesting news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/dnc-democratic-debate-rules.html

"COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — The Democratic National Committee has opened the door to allowing former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York to participate in the presidential debate it will sponsor in Nevada next month, a change from its practice that demanded candidates demonstrate grass-roots fund-raising support.

The D.N.C. announced Friday that in order to participate in the debate, set for Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, a candidate must win at least a single delegate in either the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary or meet polling requirements.

It has eliminated the requirement that candidates must have received donations from hundreds of thousands of individuals. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, is running a self-funded campaign and is not soliciting donations."

Bloomberg is only running ads in super tuesday states and isn't bothering with the first few states. He won't be winning any delegates in Iowa or NH. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

Basically the 15% threshold means that only Sanders/Biden/Warren/Buttigieg will win delegates. There's the possibility that Klobuchar might win 1 in Iowa, and there might be 1 for Yang or Klobuchar in NH, but Bloomberg won't be winning any.

Right.  The point is they eliminated the donor requirement.  Some (especially most of the other leading candidates in the race) see that as the DNC getting too involved / not being fair.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1963 on: February 01, 2020, 06:06:05 PM »
I'd read that Warren in particular was advocating for removing the donor requirement because she wants to be able to debate Bloomberg.

It may turn out be good strategy on her part, as Bloomberg certainly does appear to be avoiding actually appearing in any sort of unscripted environments during his campaign so far. He ducked out of the NYTimes endorsement interviews that most of the other candidates participated in, and he could easily have been in the last debate based on polling if he'd just done what Steyer did and sold merchandise at or near cost to hit the donation threshold.*

So maybe Bloomberg didn't want to stoop to that. Or maybe he was playing 5D chess and figured if he didn't play the DNC's game they'd change the rules to let him in anyway. Or maybe he doesn't think he'll do well in debates and unscripted interviews and is trying to avoid them for as long as possible.

I guess the other perk for Warren is that the new rules seem likely to exclude Yang, Pete and Klobuchar unless they do well enough in Iowa to get at least one delegate.** So with Bloomberg on stage it would be a debate between three (white) men pushing 80, and Warren who would be the youngest candidate left on the stage at 70. That would probably benefit her from an optics perspective.

Blah.

*Steyer's merch is notably cheap relative to other campaigns and a lot of it barely mentions the candidate. People who are really mad about Trump could buy buttons and bumperstickers with many different slogans like this one, and it would count as a donation to Steyer.

**Yang and Pete might also have a chance to win one or more delegates in NH as well, but if Klobuchar the-midwestern-senator-who-did-she-mention-is-from-the-midwest doesn't significantly outperform in Iowa I don't see any way she comes back from that.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1964 on: February 02, 2020, 02:34:23 PM »
What's amazing about this primary is how unhappy many people seem to be with the current crop of frontrunners at the same time neither of those candidates currently leading in the polls seem able to increase or decrease their support.

We've already had the most recent failed democratic nominee (Clinton) publicly musing about getting into the race for months, thankfully she didn't. So going even further back to the prior unsuccessful democratic nominee, John Kerry.

Quote
John Kerry — one of Joe Biden's highest-profile endorsers — was overheard Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel explaining what he would have to do to enter the presidential race amid "the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole."

Sitting in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel, Kerry was overheard by an NBC News analyst saying "maybe I'm f---ing deluding myself here" and explaining that in order to run, he'd have to step down from the board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches. Kerry said donors like venture capitalist Doug Hickey would have to "raise a couple of million," adding that such donors "now have the reality of Bernie."


Whose next? Al Gore? Michael Dukakis is still around, he's 86 years old, but that's not that much older than Biden and Sanders. He endorsed Warren, but then again Kerry endorsed Biden so apparently having endorsed another candidate is no barrier to presidential ambitions.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1965 on: February 02, 2020, 05:01:06 PM »
Here’s a thoughtful argument against Bernie (unless you want Trump to win, I guess):

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/
Fairly devastating critique, though such critiques do not matter to voters. Nor will it matter that (if taken literally) Sanders is proposing a government that will consume 70% of GDP, more than 20 percentage points higher than the oft-admired Scandinavian countries and more than double current spending levels. If we should not take Sanders literally then we can perhaps forgive Trump voters for taking him seriously but not literally in 2016, and perhaps again, in 2020.

This guy has quite the right-wing bias.

1. He talks about the 30-40T M4A would cost over the next decade, but very slyly admits that "the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare For All", and doesn't mention what percentage of GDP the US will spend on healthcare without M4A (hint: it's more than 30-40T)

2. He doesn't factor in how Bernie's plan would affect GDP compared to the status quo. You see Friedman's piece on how Bernie's plan could really affect GDP for the better. (2016) http://www.populareconomics.org/what-would-sanders-do-the-dynamic-effects-of-his-economic-program/

Do I think Bernie's plans would cause a 5% GDP growth for the next decade? No, but these policies on their very face would absolutely increase GDP beyond what this author seems to be ignoring.
The part in question:
"According to my estimates, the growth rate of the real gross domestic product would rise from 2.1% per annum to 5.1% "

Didn't Trump promise 5% growth as well? Belief in one set of policies over another is all it takes to find one assertion credible and the other one incredible (I don't believe 5% for Sanders just as I knew the Trump figure was similarly...aspirational). Here is the most favorable spin, showing possibly a 0.3% annual over-performance to 2016 CBO projections for the Trump case.

Why are you equivocating Trump's and Bernie's based on one thing they both said? That's not a rational analysis of the proposals. Bernie's proposal would put more money in the hands of consumers which would necessarily increase GDP. Trump hasn't really done much of anything beyond a tax break for wealthy people. That caused a slight bump which everyone predicted, but it's basically already over.

Also does this article factor in the amount of money the US will save from Green New Deal policy? It doesn't look like it. These are basically long-term investments such as rebuilding and renovating infrastructure and buildings. Investing in clean energy that will be cheaper in the long-term. Building better rail transport (or hyperloop). Or worse, what the actual cost of this will be down the line if we continue to neglect it? What will become of our universities that basically keep our economy rolling if they stop attracting international students or become cost prohibitive to middle income folks and our supply of engineers dwindle?

This is a site all about making the smart investment today that will pay off 30 years from now. Why do we not expect the same thing from our government? If the government is making smart investments today at a high savings rate that will have huge pay-offs down the line, shouldn't we want that?
I guess it depends on what you think a smart investment is. I can make a case for some of Trump's policies and I understand where your argument regarding Bernie's policies is going but I think both are substantially wrong in systematic ways. However, I'm not discussing the merits of Trump's vs. Sanders' policies; rather, I'm interested in how at an epistemological level, the two are very similar. They both ask us to suspend disbelief and to imagine some future that perhaps only their policies and force of will can bring about. That both can inspire supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace an anticipated >5% growth rate is telling about the strengths and overlaps in their demagogic styles.

Bernie is a bit like what you would get if you held up a mirror on Trump's extreme left. When imagining how to argue in favor of Bernie's polices, I find that sleight-of-hand maneuvers, smoothing over critical details, and suspension of disbelief regarding our best interpretation of economic theory are all necessary components. The same as with Trump! The technocratic nausea that candidates such as Warren induces in me is at least reassuring in that she understands that while policy ideas might conceived on the campaign trail that they are consummated afterwards in painful detail on paper. Hillary, likewise (though HRC is a ballsier version of Warren, especially with respect to foreign policy).

Speaking of Hillary, a shame she is probably not going to run again since she might be the best Democratic alternative within the realm of plausibility. It is funny how candidates like her or Pete get attacked for not being "authentic" as if that is some platonic ideal in politicians. Trump is as authentic as it gets if you think about his raging narcissism in just the right way. Candidates like Hillary or Pete, I would argue, are authentically inauthentic. They see the existential void that Trump and Bernie are blind to and realize they need reasons for their reasons; i.e., they are substantially self-aware. The trouble with the self-aware is it invites a sort of humility that looks like weakness on a campaign trail. Bernie, free from this constraint, can advocate for the capture of 70% of all national commerce, then regulating another 5-8% on top of that via a national rent control proposal. Economic theory doesn't matter if someone is authentic, though!

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1966 on: February 02, 2020, 05:59:07 PM »
I guess it depends on what you think a smart investment is. I can make a case for some of Trump's policies and I understand where your argument regarding Bernie's policies is going but I think both are substantially wrong in systematic ways. However, I'm not discussing the merits of Trump's vs. Sanders' policies; rather, I'm interested in how at an epistemological level, the two are very similar. They both ask us to suspend disbelief and to imagine some future that perhaps only their policies and force of will can bring about. That both can inspire supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace an anticipated >5% growth rate is telling about the strengths and overlaps in their demagogic styles.

Bernie is a bit like what you would get if you held up a mirror on Trump's extreme left. When imagining how to argue in favor of Bernie's polices, I find that sleight-of-hand maneuvers, smoothing over critical details, and suspension of disbelief regarding our best interpretation of economic theory are all necessary components. The same as with Trump! The technocratic nausea that candidates such as Warren induces in me is at least reassuring in that she understands that while policy ideas might conceived on the campaign trail that they are consummated afterwards in painful detail on paper. Hillary, likewise (though HRC is a ballsier version of Warren, especially with respect to foreign policy).

Speaking of Hillary, a shame she is probably not going to run again since she might be the best Democratic alternative within the realm of plausibility. It is funny how candidates like her or Pete get attacked for not being "authentic" as if that is some platonic ideal in politicians. Trump is as authentic as it gets if you think about his raging narcissism in just the right way. Candidates like Hillary or Pete, I would argue, are authentically inauthentic. They see the existential void that Trump and Bernie are blind to and realize they need reasons for their reasons; i.e., they are substantially self-aware. The trouble with the self-aware is it invites a sort of humility that looks like weakness on a campaign trail. Bernie, free from this constraint, can advocate for the capture of 70% of all national commerce, then regulating another 5-8% on top of that via a national rent control proposal. Economic theory doesn't matter if someone is authentic, though!

Ahh so this is where it all comes to a head. You somehow think that Hillary would win this time around? Nah she would lose by an even bigger margin. And the neoliberal corporatist types such as Hillary fail to see where their own views are a suspension of disbelief. Because here's the kicker: candidates such as Hillary are the actual ones requiring a suspension of disbelief.

We've had, let's call it, third-way policy more or less from 1992-2016. In that time we've seen huge concentrations of wealth, stock market booms and busts, and the flight of capital from rural to population centers. Despite all this, Hillary wanted people to believe that everything was going to be fine, they would eventually recover and that she was going to accomplish that by working with the companies and politicians that basically created it all. That requires a suspension of disbelief. That we all have to just deny and ignore what's going on in our own country. Why does the US have twice the usage of opioids over Canada and Europe? Why does healthcare work and is cheaper in Europe, but we can't accomplish the same thing here despite higher GDP? No, that is what requires a suspension of disbelief: Ignore all the solutions working in Europe: We can't do that because our corporations would lose money.

There is something similar between Bernie and Trump. They both promised that they would help the small guy, that they would work to fix trade, healthcare, social security etc. Here's the main difference: Trump is lying when he says it, Bernie is not. And even Trump supporters see that.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1570
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1967 on: February 02, 2020, 06:03:07 PM »
Who is better for long term investments?  Seems like whomever thinks in the long term would be better for long term investments.  That has been a criticism of business folks in this country that they only think in terms of the next quarter.  With all the closed factories I've witnessed, seems like not too good of a strategy.

Seems like education would be good for long term investments.  Workers would be available to serve the needs of American business.  Better education may also allow more innovation allowing us to sell products to the world.  This, in turn, would have a true trickle down effect helping us all.  Synergism is a real thing.

Seems like a balanced budget would be good for long term investments.  This would allow tax dollars to go to productive activities rather than some sort of interest payments.

Seems like a healthy population would be good for long term investments.  If a candidate introduced health care that included preventive health care, a larger percentage of the work force would be productive.  A smaller percentage of the work force would be needed to care for these folks.

Seems like eliminating crippling debt for young Americans would be better for business.  By crippling these people with debt, it prevents their ability to start businesses, buy real estate and to purchase products.

Seems like clean energy would be good for long term investments.  Insurance companies are already factoring in the global warming thing into their premiums.  It's going to cost a lot of money and remove productive real estate as the sea level rises and the weather gets gnarlier.  Clean energy also helps to have a healthier population which, of course, allows greater productivity for business.

Maybe the Republicans will support some of these ideas.  It's the kind of thing they used to do.

Odd, but I think Bernie and his ilk may actually be the best candidates for long term business.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1968 on: February 02, 2020, 06:22:47 PM »
Seems like a balanced budget would be good for long term investments.  This would allow tax dollars to go to productive activities rather than some sort of interest payments....

Odd, but I think Bernie and his ilk may actually be the best candidates for long term business.

Is Sanders proposing a balanced budget?

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1969 on: February 02, 2020, 06:38:00 PM »
I guess it depends on what you think a smart investment is. I can make a case for some of Trump's policies and I understand where your argument regarding Bernie's policies is going but I think both are substantially wrong in systematic ways. However, I'm not discussing the merits of Trump's vs. Sanders' policies; rather, I'm interested in how at an epistemological level, the two are very similar. They both ask us to suspend disbelief and to imagine some future that perhaps only their policies and force of will can bring about. That both can inspire supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace an anticipated >5% growth rate is telling about the strengths and overlaps in their demagogic styles.

Bernie is a bit like what you would get if you held up a mirror on Trump's extreme left. When imagining how to argue in favor of Bernie's polices, I find that sleight-of-hand maneuvers, smoothing over critical details, and suspension of disbelief regarding our best interpretation of economic theory are all necessary components. The same as with Trump! The technocratic nausea that candidates such as Warren induces in me is at least reassuring in that she understands that while policy ideas might conceived on the campaign trail that they are consummated afterwards in painful detail on paper. Hillary, likewise (though HRC is a ballsier version of Warren, especially with respect to foreign policy).

Speaking of Hillary, a shame she is probably not going to run again since she might be the best Democratic alternative within the realm of plausibility. It is funny how candidates like her or Pete get attacked for not being "authentic" as if that is some platonic ideal in politicians. Trump is as authentic as it gets if you think about his raging narcissism in just the right way. Candidates like Hillary or Pete, I would argue, are authentically inauthentic. They see the existential void that Trump and Bernie are blind to and realize they need reasons for their reasons; i.e., they are substantially self-aware. The trouble with the self-aware is it invites a sort of humility that looks like weakness on a campaign trail. Bernie, free from this constraint, can advocate for the capture of 70% of all national commerce, then regulating another 5-8% on top of that via a national rent control proposal. Economic theory doesn't matter if someone is authentic, though!

Ahh so this is where it all comes to a head. You somehow think that Hillary would win this time around? Nah she would lose by an even bigger margin. And the neoliberal corporatist types such as Hillary fail to see where their own views are a suspension of disbelief. Because here's the kicker: candidates such as Hillary are the actual ones requiring a suspension of disbelief.

We've had, let's call it, third-way policy more or less from 1992-2016. In that time we've seen huge concentrations of wealth, stock market booms and busts, and the flight of capital from rural to population centers. Despite all this, Hillary wanted people to believe that everything was going to be fine, they would eventually recover and that she was going to accomplish that by working with the companies and politicians that basically created it all. That requires a suspension of disbelief. That we all have to just deny and ignore what's going on in our own country. Why does the US have twice the usage of opioids over Canada and Europe? Why does healthcare work and is cheaper in Europe, but we can't accomplish the same thing here despite higher GDP? No, that is what requires a suspension of disbelief: Ignore all the solutions working in Europe: We can't do that because our corporations would lose money.

There is something similar between Bernie and Trump. They both promised that they would help the small guy, that they would work to fix trade, healthcare, social security etc. Here's the main difference: Trump is lying when he says it, Bernie is not. And even Trump supporters see that.
Bernie may not be lying but that doesn't tell us whether or not he is deeply mistaken. He convincingly signals that he cares about economically marginalized groups but populist signalling without substance is of questionable value. Again, I don't want to get into those details so much because, as we know quite well, true-believers cannot be dissuaded with facts or reason.

I don't know if Hillary's chances are any better or worse than Bernie's and I'm not making an argument about "electability" here. What I'm more worried about is the devolution of political strategy to a pick-the-biggest-demagogue contest every 4 years. HRC, at the very least, ran a decisively and reassuringly bad campaign on that front, though she did have specific proposals to address the very problems you cite. If you think that the system cannot be reformed by an insider such as HRC then you are starting to sound a bit like Steve Bannon. The nomination of Sanders under such arguments would represent a tacit epistemological acceptance of Trumpism.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1970 on: February 02, 2020, 07:29:48 PM »
Seems like a balanced budget would be good for long term investments.  This would allow tax dollars to go to productive activities rather than some sort of interest payments....

Odd, but I think Bernie and his ilk may actually be the best candidates for long term business.

Is Sanders proposing a balanced budget?

He doesn't directly state that reducing the deficit is a central goal, though his website does show have a number of policies that would reduce the federal deficit through tax increases, fees against China's currency manipulation, reduced Defense spending, and negotiated drug prices for Medicare

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1971 on: February 02, 2020, 07:41:44 PM »
Bernie may not be lying but that doesn't tell us whether or not he is deeply mistaken. He convincingly signals that he cares about economically marginalized groups but populist signalling without substance is of questionable value. Again, I don't want to get into those details so much because, as we know quite well, true-believers cannot be dissuaded with facts or reason.

I don't know if Hillary's chances are any better or worse than Bernie's and I'm not making an argument about "electability" here. What I'm more worried about is the devolution of political strategy to a pick-the-biggest-demagogue contest every 4 years. HRC, at the very least, ran a decisively and reassuringly bad campaign on that front, though she did have specific proposals to address the very problems you cite. If you think that the system cannot be reformed by an insider such as HRC then you are starting to sound a bit like Steve Bannon. The nomination of Sanders under such arguments would represent a tacit epistemological acceptance of Trumpism.

Again, I don't actually understand what distinction you're trying to make. "I don't want to  get into details"... what? Bernie isn't just signaling. He has approx. 30 years of legislative history to compare against, and 50 years of more or less consistent ideological patterns.

No that would not tacitly be accepting Trumpism. You keep equating Bernie and Trump because they acknowledge that the working class is getting screwed. Yet you've still failed to point out in real terms where HRC is somehow superior to all of this? You call Hillary an insider, yet Trump and Bernie are somehow outsiders? You really got to start make a reasoned argument here, because my guess here is that if you were to develop a more nuanced opinion you'd discover that Bernie and Trump are as similar as the DPRK is to an actual Republic.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 972
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1972 on: February 03, 2020, 10:11:36 AM »
I'd read that Warren in particular was advocating for removing the donor requirement because she wants to be able to debate Bloomberg.

It may turn out be good strategy on her part, as Bloomberg certainly does appear to be avoiding actually appearing in any sort of unscripted environments during his campaign so far. He ducked out of the NYTimes endorsement interviews that most of the other candidates participated in, and he could easily have been in the last debate based on polling if he'd just done what Steyer did and sold merchandise at or near cost to hit the donation threshold.*

So maybe Bloomberg didn't want to stoop to that. Or maybe he was playing 5D chess and figured if he didn't play the DNC's game they'd change the rules to let him in anyway. Or maybe he doesn't think he'll do well in debates and unscripted interviews and is trying to avoid them for as long as possible.

I guess the other perk for Warren is that the new rules seem likely to exclude Yang, Pete and Klobuchar unless they do well enough in Iowa to get at least one delegate.** So with Bloomberg on stage it would be a debate between three (white) men pushing 80, and Warren who would be the youngest candidate left on the stage at 70. That would probably benefit her from an optics perspective.

Blah.

*Steyer's merch is notably cheap relative to other campaigns and a lot of it barely mentions the candidate. People who are really mad about Trump could buy buttons and bumperstickers with many different slogans like this one, and it would count as a donation to Steyer.

**Yang and Pete might also have a chance to win one or more delegates in NH as well, but if Klobuchar the-midwestern-senator-who-did-she-mention-is-from-the-midwest doesn't significantly outperform in Iowa I don't see any way she comes back from that.



I'm starting to wonder how much of an issue this would even be. While historically D's have done well/leaned toward more youthful energized candidates, they seemed to have been pushed out in favor of older seasoned candidates (Castro is 45, Beto 47, Booker 50, Gillibrand 53, Harris 55). Obviously age is not the only issue these candidates have, and Pete is still hanging in there at 38, so it's not a perfect theory.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1973 on: February 03, 2020, 11:07:49 AM »
You're certainly right that the younger candidates with fresh ideas appear to have been mostly pushed out.

Pete is in his 30s, Yang in his 40s, and Klobuchar in her 50s, but right now, while all three will be in the post-IA debate none of the three have qualified for the post-NH debate under the new Bloomberg-friendly rules.

With so many people unhappy with the current two leading candidates, I think, regardless of age, whoever is left standing as the last non-Sanders non-Biden candidate is likely to pick up a lot of support that's currently distributed among Buttigieg/Yang/Klobuchar/Warren/Bloomberg (despite those candidates representing a bunch of really different arguments for what constitutes electability against Trump in 2020).

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1570
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1974 on: February 03, 2020, 04:38:36 PM »
Uhhhh, since they are the leading candidates, doesn't that mean more people are happy with them than the others?

As far as fresh ideas, I like the old idea of healthcare for all.  I think Teddy Roosevelt wanted it.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1975 on: February 03, 2020, 05:55:35 PM »
Uhhhh, since they are the leading candidates, doesn't that mean more people are happy with them than the others?

Not at all! Who is your favorite candidate is a different question from which candidates you'd find acceptable or unacceptable.

The candidate the most democratic voters would be disappointed to have as the democratic nominee is Gabbard. Then Bloomberg. Then Biden. Then Steyer. Then Sanders.

Yang and Warren are the two candidates the fewest voters would be disappointed with becoming the nominee, but Klobuchar and Buttigieg would also disappoint fewer democratic voters than either Biden or Sanders (numbers from the most recent Economist/YouGov poll).

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1976 on: February 03, 2020, 07:22:35 PM »
Watch the reporting for the Iowa caucuses live at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/iowa-caucuses-2020-latest-updates/2020/02/03/10e69dd0-463b-11ea-ab15-b5df3261b710_story.html?rand=9

so far Buttigieg has won Council Bluffs by a narrow margin.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1977 on: February 03, 2020, 08:10:56 PM »
Changes to the caucus rules (and the app made by an undisclosed company) are a complete mess. Apparently four years ago 80% of precincts are reported by now. Currently only 1.5% reporting according to the associated press.

Anecdotally sounds like Sanders ahead, three way time for second place between Buttigieg/Warren/Klobuchar and a bit of a Biden collapse.

Cannot tell is Yang is out performing or under performing but doesn't sound like he's likely to place in the top five.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2838
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1978 on: February 03, 2020, 10:38:51 PM »
How does one round properly?

This image of a caucus result sheet from a tweet from a 538 post on their live feed a bit ago:

https://twitter.com/bhalle87/status/1224550111725916160/photo/1

(Tweet:  https://twitter.com/bhalle87/status/1224550111725916160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1224550111725916160)

Interesting notes:

1.  Buttigeig's result was rounded up when it should have been rounded down.  Or they're not following the rules for rounding printed on the sheet.
2.  If they had rounded properly, they would only award 7 of the 8 precinct delegates.
3.  Generally, this form of rounding can easily result in one or two more delegates than exist in the precinct.  Or one or two fewer.  Or more, depending on how many delegates are in a district.  I wonder if the folks designing this thought about that.
4.  Whoever completed this form can't decide if there are 70 caucus-goers, or 69 caucus-goers.
5.  The several scratched out and re-done numbers doesn't really inspire confidence.

No wonder they're having trouble if they have to deal with, oh, 2500 of these.  Under pressure.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2020, 11:36:27 PM by secondcor521 »

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2838
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1979 on: February 03, 2020, 10:41:39 PM »
I wonder if this is the same issue that 538 reported on about 40 minutes ago:

"There was also a separate, non-app-related issue that delayed the caucus wrapping up, according to the precinct chair here. Because the Yang and Buttigieg supporters didn’t hit the viability threshold, there was an extra delegate allocated to the precinct that wasn’t accounted for, and the precinct organizers didn’t know what to do. Ultimately they figured it out — the Sanders camp got six delegates and the Warren camp got four delegates — but it took time to work out."

I doubt it was because the supporters didn't hit the threshold.  I bet it was the rounding issue I just pointed out.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1980 on: February 04, 2020, 04:28:40 AM »
Quote
"The app ... intended to relay Caucus results ... failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system ... has failed.  ... Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically."

And this, folks, is why we need political leadership tech literate enough to know that if you're depending on an an untested app designed by an undisclosed company to work perfect for thousands of people the first time out of the gate, you're going to have a really really bad night.

I saw at least one county chair who just tweeted out the results he'd be able to gather from his county because he wasn't able to get through to the Iowa Democratic Party. FWIW, in Winneshiek county (population ~21,000, with two precincts still unheard from), Buttigieg was viable in 9/9 precincts, Klobuchar in 8/9, Sanders in 7/9, Warren 5/9, Yang 4/9, Biden 2/9, Steyer 0/9.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 04:44:25 AM by maizeman »

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1981 on: February 04, 2020, 05:01:27 AM »
I saw at least one county chair who just tweeted out the results he'd be able to gather from his county because he wasn't able to get through to the Iowa Democratic Party. FWIW, in Winneshiek county (population ~21,000, with two precincts still unheard from), Buttigieg was viable in 9/9 precincts, Klobuchar in 8/9, Sanders in 7/9, Warren 5/9, Yang 4/9, Biden 2/9, Steyer 0/9.

Is this like the scene from Terminator 3 - Rise of the Machines at the end of the movie when judgement day happened and John Connor was hiding in that old presidential bunker in the desert as the world was getting blown up and then one by one the surviving human military bases started calling in on old short wave radios or some shit? 

Good to see the dems are finding new ways to fail as we head into the next decade.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1982 on: February 04, 2020, 05:10:38 AM »
I prefer to think of it as the scene in Independence Day when, all other technologies being down, they're using morse code to track down and rally the last remnants of armed forced all over the world for the coordinated attack on the aliens during the window when the shields are down.

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1983 on: February 04, 2020, 05:15:25 AM »
Maybe they can start doing some Paul Revere type s*** with runners.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1984 on: February 04, 2020, 05:25:35 AM »
Maybe they can start doing some Paul Revere type s*** with runners.

I mean we're getting pretty close to that at this point.

"The app ... intended to relay Caucus results ... failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system ... has failed.  ... Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically." Source

"Polk County precinct chairs are being advised to take pictures of the results and text them over to the Polk County executive director, who is driving them to the HQ, according to a Democratic operative familiar with the situation." Source

Edit: actually driving results over failed too. "[The Polk County Party Chairman] instructed his executive director to take pictures of the results with her smartphone and drive over to the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters to deliver them in person. She was turned away without explanation"
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 05:36:06 AM by maizeman »

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3286
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1985 on: February 04, 2020, 07:19:56 AM »
The main point of that article is he doesn’t think Bernie can win - that the Trump bunch will rip him to shreds in short order, and he will be playing defense without a strong coalition behind him. He’s a divisive figure.

Sorry, my comments are mostly about the second article in that chain, not the one you posted. The one you posted was just an opinion fluff piece. I think the only real evidence he presented was M4A not being popular in the rust belt. Though he doesn't explain how Sanders is polling ahead in WI and MI against Trump quite consistently. Bernie is extremely popular there for his work on trade and labor.

It's also the exact opposite of what Trump himself usually says. There's a recording of Trump basically admitting that if Bernie were the VP choice he's not so sure he would have won. Because Bernie runs as a real populist, not just a fake one like Trump. And Bernie as VP could have taken enough votes from the Rust Belt to swing the election the other way.

Trump has very consistently followed a strategy of uplifting Bernie within the Democratic party as a way of sowing division. The release of the DNC e-mails right before the convention followed this strategy. Trump knows he can keep Far-left from coalescing if he keeps them aggrieved.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1986 on: February 04, 2020, 07:21:23 AM »
End.  All.  Caucuses.

LaineyAZ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1987 on: February 04, 2020, 07:26:44 AM »
Honestly, I'm not upset that the "winner" of the Iowa caucuses has not yet been determined.

I'm more perturbed that this state with about 3 million people gets to have such an outsize say in determining the candidates.  But, since it's the system we live in, they should definitely have done a better job.
In the meantime, let's continue with all viable candidates so the rest of us have a say as well.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1988 on: February 04, 2020, 07:51:44 AM »
Bernie is surging late in Iowa.  Less than a week until the caucus.
It certainly will be interesting to see what happens if Sanders beats, or ties, Biden in Iowa. With almost home-field advantage in New Hampshire, and Nevada / South Carolina being fairly neutral, Sanders could be riding into Super Tuesday with a lot of momentum.
Barring an epic collapse, Biden will carry SC with ~1/3 of the vote total.  Nevada has had no (or little) good polling for a long time now.  But yeah, I could see Bernie going 1,1,2, top 2 in NV to open the first 4 states.  Given the variety of states, that would be a strong "electability" (whatever TF that means) argument.

Based on preliminary / leaked numbers out of Iowa, it looks like that epic collapse for Biden may have just happened. Assuming the leaked numbers are representative of the actual numbers, things just got really interesting in South Carolina and Nevada.

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1989 on: February 04, 2020, 07:54:46 AM »
Maybe they can start doing some Paul Revere type s*** with runners.

I mean we're getting pretty close to that at this point.

"The app ... intended to relay Caucus results ... failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system ... has failed.  ... Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically." Source

"Polk County precinct chairs are being advised to take pictures of the results and text them over to the Polk County executive director, who is driving them to the HQ, according to a Democratic operative familiar with the situation." Source

Edit: actually driving results over failed too. "[The Polk County Party Chairman] instructed his executive director to take pictures of the results with her smartphone and drive over to the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters to deliver them in person. She was turned away without explanation"



At least SNL won't have to do any work in coming up with a bit for this week's opening. 

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5205
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1990 on: February 04, 2020, 07:55:34 AM »
Bernie is surging late in Iowa.  Less than a week until the caucus.
It certainly will be interesting to see what happens if Sanders beats, or ties, Biden in Iowa. With almost home-field advantage in New Hampshire, and Nevada / South Carolina being fairly neutral, Sanders could be riding into Super Tuesday with a lot of momentum.
Barring an epic collapse, Biden will carry SC with ~1/3 of the vote total.  Nevada has had no (or little) good polling for a long time now.  But yeah, I could see Bernie going 1,1,2, top 2 in NV to open the first 4 states.  Given the variety of states, that would be a strong "electability" (whatever TF that means) argument.

Based on preliminary / leaked numbers out of Iowa, it looks like that epic collapse for Biden may have just happened. Assuming the leaked numbers are representative of the actual numbers, things just got really interesting in South Carolina and Nevada.

I mean, yeah... But the thing is it's not like the Iowa caucuses are a representative sample of the US in any meaningful way. Which is what's so effed up about them.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2234
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1991 on: February 04, 2020, 08:10:34 AM »
No single state is an effective representative of the U.S.

Well, Iowa was a mess.  Who's up next?   Hopefully, they will have it together.

Let's all cheer for New Hampshire to perform better as an organization.  This has to be so frustrating for Democratic primary voters, but perhaps the glass can be half full and not half empty?  Perhaps this gives all the candidates a little more room to work?


YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1992 on: February 04, 2020, 08:21:43 AM »
I mean, yeah... But the thing is it's not like the Iowa caucuses are a representative sample of the US in any meaningful way. Which is what's so effed up about them.

Well, it has been 28 years since the person who won Iowa failed to secure the Democratic nomination, so I would disagree with the statement that Iowa is not a representative sample of the US in any meaningful way. Of course it's not a perfect representative sample, but neither is any other state.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5205
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1993 on: February 04, 2020, 08:33:08 AM »
I mean, yeah... But the thing is it's not like the Iowa caucuses are a representative sample of the US in any meaningful way. Which is what's so effed up about them.

Well, it has been 28 years since the person who won Iowa failed to secure the Democratic nomination, so I would disagree with the statement that Iowa is not a representative sample of the US in any meaningful way. Of course it's not a perfect representative sample, but neither is any other state.

I'd say those two statements don't follow one from another.

Iowa is not a representative sample of the US in any meaningful way.

However, it goes first. In a nation that slobbers all over polls, media reports, and the like. Which means things like the Iowa Caucus has an outsized influence because... people say it does. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Case in point: Biden does better among blacks than any other candidate.

How many black people do you think caucused in Iowa last night?

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4213
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1994 on: February 04, 2020, 09:42:28 AM »
Wow, what a shit-show.  All the buzz I saw last night on Reddit (mostly relayed from Twitter, it seemed) made it seem like Bernie was doing very well, Biden was actually faring pretty badly, and the rest was mostly a haze.  We'll see what happens.

Test your systems.  Test your backup systems.  Truly unbelievable.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1995 on: February 04, 2020, 10:05:48 AM »
I am waffling between incompetence and corruption with this Iowa mess.

Either way it doesn't bode well for the party that wants to centralize a lot of power.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1996 on: February 04, 2020, 10:21:53 AM »
Do the Democrats enjoy giving the Republicans gifts? If I was a hard core Democrat I would be really exasperated. As was mentioned, this is the party that talks about how we want the government to come and save us and this happens...I'm not saying it's fair, but the optics are terrible.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4213
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1997 on: February 04, 2020, 10:24:16 AM »
Do the Democrats enjoy giving the Republicans gifts? If I was a hard core Democrat I would be really exasperated. As was mentioned, this is the party that talks about how we want the government to come and save us and this happens...I'm not saying it's fair, but the optics are terrible.
I mean, to be fair, the DNC isn't the government.  They're a private organization running the primaries/caucuses.

turketron

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Age: 34
  • Location: WI
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1998 on: February 04, 2020, 10:27:42 AM »
A good article on the App debacle: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/iowa-democrats-should-have-known-better-than-to-use-an-app/

Quote
These problems demonstrate one of the first big mistakes the party made when introducing new tech to an already arcane process: not considering its user base.

“One of the reasons election security is such a difficult problem to solve is because the people who are operating elections aren’t tech people,” MacAlpine said. “They’re often retirees, people who are trying to help their community.”

Compounding the issue, many of these events also take place in rural areas where cell phone reception is less reliable. In that way, even if the app functioned perfectly, it already failed on a practical level if the people who were intended to use it didn’t understand it or couldn’t access it.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1999 on: February 04, 2020, 10:28:37 AM »
Do the Democrats enjoy giving the Republicans gifts? If I was a hard core Democrat I would be really exasperated. As was mentioned, this is the party that talks about how we want the government to come and save us and this happens...I'm not saying it's fair, but the optics are terrible.
I mean, to be fair, the DNC isn't the government.  They're a private organization running the primaries/caucuses.

That's fair, it wasn't really the Democrats doing it. Still...it looks so bad.....