The Iowa cacacas

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Milo » Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:51 am

Doc wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:09 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:09 pm
Wow this Biden sycophancy is getting a bit unhinged.

Don't have the energy to post it all but this is some straight up propaganda!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZF32L
Interesting article Milo
The meltdown in reporting results made it extremely unlikely that the full momentum that has often followed a caucus victory would flow to any of the candidates, even Buttigieg and Sanders, who seem certain to finish one-two.
The Democratic party has always had difficulty keeping their widely ideological diverse base together. It has the equivalent of a Donald Trump every election cycle. The idea that sanctioning debates a year and a half before the election and six months before the first primaries would help them determine a leader in the race that the DNC establishment could live with has had the reverse effect. The debates were extremely boring and even worse obscure.

I still believe the odds are that Hillary will run again. That the fix is in to make sure no one else can unify the party before the convention is how Hillary plans to get the nomination again.

Now the DNC establishment wants to bring back super delegates voting on the first ballot. Which is certainly meant to stop Bernie or Buttgieg from getting the nomination.
What I find most notable is the leading candidates from Iowa are a gay man and a jew, yet Biden's results are characterized as "relatively close".

To unpack that a bit, the two leading candidates now come from two of the most historically disadvantaged groups in America, neither of those groups has more than a single digit percentage of the population, yet the intinerant difficulties in garnering the amount of support they now have are unmentioned in the article. Nor does the article celebrate this diversity. If the Democrats are who they say they are this should be a triumph yet nothing is said.

I think getting this much support in a caucus situation means they would get far more, perhaps double digit percentages more, in an election. Whether I am right or not it's perfectly plausible but not for consideration in this article, instead it's all about how there's nothing to see here, move along!

And since when is losing by over 40%, and coming in fourth, "relatively close"?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3971
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Doc » Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:14 am

Milo wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:51 am
Doc wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:09 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:09 pm
Wow this Biden sycophancy is getting a bit unhinged.

Don't have the energy to post it all but this is some straight up propaganda!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZF32L
Interesting article Milo
The meltdown in reporting results made it extremely unlikely that the full momentum that has often followed a caucus victory would flow to any of the candidates, even Buttigieg and Sanders, who seem certain to finish one-two.
The Democratic party has always had difficulty keeping their widely ideological diverse base together. It has the equivalent of a Donald Trump every election cycle. The idea that sanctioning debates a year and a half before the election and six months before the first primaries would help them determine a leader in the race that the DNC establishment could live with has had the reverse effect. The debates were extremely boring and even worse obscure.

I still believe the odds are that Hillary will run again. That the fix is in to make sure no one else can unify the party before the convention is how Hillary plans to get the nomination again.

Now the DNC establishment wants to bring back super delegates voting on the first ballot. Which is certainly meant to stop Bernie or Buttgieg from getting the nomination.
What I find most notable is the leading candidates from Iowa are a gay man and a jew, yet Biden's results are characterized as "relatively close".

To unpack that a bit, the two leading candidates now come from two of the most historically disadvantaged groups in America, neither of those groups has more than a single digit percentage of the population, yet the intinerant difficulties in garnering the amount of support they now have are unmentioned in the article. Nor does the article celebrate this diversity. If the Democrats are who they say they are this should be a triumph yet nothing is said.

I think getting this much support in a caucus situation means they would get far more, perhaps double digit percentages more, in an election. Whether I am right or not it's perfectly plausible but not for consideration in this article, instead it's all about how there's nothing to see here, move along!

And since when is losing by over 40%, and coming in fourth, "relatively close"?
Milo meet the DNC/MSM. DNC/MSM meet Milo.

They want who they want Milo And they certainly do not want a gay man or a jew at the head of their ticket this time around. Or heaven forbid a ticket with both on it.

The DC Establishment has enriched itself for decades and none of them want the gravy train to stop.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 4750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by neverfail » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:54 pm

Milo & Doc,

Could one of you good North Americans please enlighten this bamboozled gent about something?

I believe that this Iowa primary is only the first of a series of state by state votes to decide who gets to run as the Democrats candidate for president later this year. Next is New Hampshire?

Who actually gets to vote in these primary caucuses? Is it only "registered" Democrats (i.e. paid up party members) who are entitled to vote or can any member of the community, as long as he is resident in the state where the voting is taking place, cast a ballot?

User avatar
armchair_pundit
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by armchair_pundit » Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:24 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:54 pm
Milo & Doc,

Could one of you good North Americans please enlighten this bamboozled gent about something?

I believe that this Iowa primary is only the first of a series of state by state votes to decide who gets to run as the Democrats candidate for president later this year. Next is New Hampshire?

Who actually gets to vote in these primary caucuses? Is it only "registered" Democrats (i.e. paid up party members) who are entitled to vote or can any member of the community, as long as he is resident in the state where the voting is taking place, cast a ballot?
well you didn't ask me, but short answer is:

It varies state by state. You would need to google each state primary/caucus for the various rules for each as they can change year to year, and one party rarely follows it own rules when, um, well when...

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3971
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Doc » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:34 pm

armchair_pundit wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:24 pm
neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:54 pm
Milo & Doc,

Could one of you good North Americans please enlighten this bamboozled gent about something?

I believe that this Iowa primary is only the first of a series of state by state votes to decide who gets to run as the Democrats candidate for president later this year. Next is New Hampshire?

Who actually gets to vote in these primary caucuses? Is it only "registered" Democrats (i.e. paid up party members) who are entitled to vote or can any member of the community, as long as he is resident in the state where the voting is taking place, cast a ballot?
well you didn't ask me, but short answer is:

It varies state by state. You would need to google each state primary/caucus for the various rules for each as they can change year to year, and one party rarely follows it own rules when, um, well when...
Not to mention that party members are mostly "products" of their respective parties. No one is expected to pay "dues" unless they want influence beyond their one vote.

In most states voters have to be registered as a member of a party in order to legally vote in their primaries/CACACAS. THough some states alllow for anyone to vote in a party primary irregardless of party registration.

Next is New Hampshire on Tuesday. Watch out if that one is rigged Like the non elected Super delegates the Dem Est is so fond of gets counted in the total number of delegates like happened with Hillary in 2016. Hillary lost the vote but actually received more delegates (IE vote at the DNC convention) than Bernie did. And Democrats actually complain about the electoral college when the DNC is so crooked when they were sued by Bernie supporters after 2016 the DNC said they had no obligation to follow the popular vote in the primaries in selecting delegates and that they could cheat for any candidate they wanted.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 4750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by neverfail » Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:59 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:34 pm
armchair_pundit wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:24 pm
neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:54 pm
Milo & Doc,

Could one of you good North Americans please enlighten this bamboozled gent about something?

I believe that this Iowa primary is only the first of a series of state by state votes to decide who gets to run as the Democrats candidate for president later this year. Next is New Hampshire?

Who actually gets to vote in these primary caucuses? Is it only "registered" Democrats (i.e. paid up party members) who are entitled to vote or can any member of the community, as long as he is resident in the state where the voting is taking place, cast a ballot?
well you didn't ask me, but short answer is:

It varies state by state. You would need to google each state primary/caucus for the various rules for each as they can change year to year, and one party rarely follows it own rules when, um, well when...
Not to mention that party members are mostly "products" of their respective parties. No one is expected to pay "dues" unless they want influence beyond their one vote.

In most states voters have to be registered as a member of a party in order to legally vote in their primaries/CACACAS. THough some states alllow for anyone to vote in a party primary irregardless of party registration.

Next is New Hampshire on Tuesday. Watch out if that one is rigged Like the non elected Super delegates the Dem Est is so fond of gets counted in the total number of delegates like happened with Hillary in 2016. Hillary lost the vote but actually received more delegates (IE vote at the DNC convention) than Bernie did. And Democrats actually complain about the electoral college when the DNC is so crooked when they were sued by Bernie supporters after 2016 the DNC said they had no obligation to follow the popular vote in the primaries in selecting delegates and that they could cheat for any candidate they wanted.
Thanks folks!

I get the impression that the selection process is wide open to crooked manipulation. Would I be right?

Since the Republican Party has an incumbent President seeking re-election; if they bother to run primaries at all it seems a foregone conclusion that they will pick Trump. But what happens in one of those years when there is no incumbent to re-elect and they need to choose a candidate? Is their process of selection any more honest; impervious to manipulation than that of the Democrats or are the two parties much the same in that regard?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3971
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Doc » Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:06 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:59 pm
Doc wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:34 pm
armchair_pundit wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:24 pm
neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:54 pm
Milo & Doc,

Could one of you good North Americans please enlighten this bamboozled gent about something?

I believe that this Iowa primary is only the first of a series of state by state votes to decide who gets to run as the Democrats candidate for president later this year. Next is New Hampshire?

Who actually gets to vote in these primary caucuses? Is it only "registered" Democrats (i.e. paid up party members) who are entitled to vote or can any member of the community, as long as he is resident in the state where the voting is taking place, cast a ballot?
well you didn't ask me, but short answer is:

It varies state by state. You would need to google each state primary/caucus for the various rules for each as they can change year to year, and one party rarely follows it own rules when, um, well when...
Not to mention that party members are mostly "products" of their respective parties. No one is expected to pay "dues" unless they want influence beyond their one vote.

In most states voters have to be registered as a member of a party in order to legally vote in their primaries/CACACAS. THough some states alllow for anyone to vote in a party primary irregardless of party registration.

Next is New Hampshire on Tuesday. Watch out if that one is rigged Like the non elected Super delegates the Dem Est is so fond of gets counted in the total number of delegates like happened with Hillary in 2016. Hillary lost the vote but actually received more delegates (IE vote at the DNC convention) than Bernie did. And Democrats actually complain about the electoral college when the DNC is so crooked when they were sued by Bernie supporters after 2016 the DNC said they had no obligation to follow the popular vote in the primaries in selecting delegates and that they could cheat for any candidate they wanted.
Thanks folks!

I get the impression that the selection process is wide open to crooked manipulation. Would I be right?
Politicians in the US prefer to call it "smoke filled rooms" Particularly Democrats of bygone days.

Since the Republican Party has an incumbent President seeking re-election; if they bother to run primaries at all it seems a foregone conclusion that they will pick Trump. But what happens in one of those years when there is no incumbent to re-elect and they need to choose a candidate? Is their process of selection any more honest; impervious to manipulation than that of the Democrats or are the two parties much the same in that regard?
No it is on rare occasions not a foregone conclusion. LBJ decided not to run in 1968 after Eugene McCarthy won the primary in New Hampshire then after Bobby Kennedy annouced he was running, for example.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
armchair_pundit
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:23 pm

Democracy Works—Dems Vote for 'None of the Above' in Iowa

Post by armchair_pundit » Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:19 pm

https://pjmedia.com/spengler/democracy- ... e-in-iowa/

Democracy Works—Dems Vote for 'None of the Above' in Iowa
By David P. Goldman February 4, 2020

Terry Jones of Monty Python passed on last month, but his spirit was present at the Iowa caucuses last night as "none of the above" emerged as the apparent winner. The combined efforts of the comedy writers of Tinseltown couldn't have produced a sillier outcome. A technical glitch delayed the delegate count, but the contingent, in this case, reveals the necessary: The Democrats don't have a clue whom they want as a presidential candidate, because the Democratic Party has become a suppurating stew of contending resentments. Do they want a recycled Communist to soak the successful and distribute the spoils to self-defined losers in the form of student-loan forgiveness or subsidized health care or a job-killing minimum wage? Do they want an eco-gender icon who flatters the faddish predilections of young urban professionals? Do they want a feminist standard-bearer with an aggressive redistributionist agenda? Do they want an African-American candidate to embody the rejection of "white privilege" and correct the supposed original sin of slavery? Or do they want an aged, empty vessel whose only qualification is a past association with a Democratic Party that once upon a time won elections?

Democratic voters don't want any of these. No doubt the Iowa Democrats will release results eventually, although challenges and recriminations may persist for a while. But the actual vote, whatever it is, will show a degree of fragmentation among Democratic voters never seen since the party's founding. The radical vote is big enough to block Biden, a shadow of the crafty, nasty politician who crushed Paul Ryan in the 2012 vice-presidential debates, a pathetic figure who says what his handlers made him memorize when you pull the string at the back of his neck. Bernie Sanders, the one candidate who came into the primaries with a national reputation and a field organization, lacks the credibility to unite the radicals, and Elizabeth Warren is too shrill, too extreme and too crazy to do anything but siphon votes away from Sanders. The black candidates have withdrawn from the race. Pete Buttigieg may emerge in front of the pack because he's everyone's second choice.

Thus pops the bubble of intersectionality, the calculus of resentment that was supposed to align the interests of all the oppressed of the world. Feminists ignore the vulgar exploitation of the Super Bowl halftime show because Shakira and JLo are Hispanics, and therefore oppressed people who are entitled to use their sexuality as an expression of power (they also ignore the misogyny of rap and endemic violence against women in the Muslim world for the same reason). Urban metrosexuals ignore the fact that the tax burdens of failing municipalities erode their prospects, because they don't want to seem insensitive to the needs of the homeless or the problems of minorities.

Except they don't. The young urban liberals who rally around Buttigieg are backing the great gentrifier of South Bend, the bane of minority residents. They didn't vote for Cory Booker, who marketed himself as Obama Lite. They abandoned Elizabeth Warren because they actually pay taxes. Sanders has lift from the children's crusade of university layabouts who never learned what socialism actually is, but can't seem to gather a quorum of grownups. And none of the crew appeals to minority voters, whose degree of enthusiasm will determine the turnout, and possibly the result, of the 2020 presidential election.

The Democrats can't unite because they have nothing around which to unite. Resentment is not a unifying platform, because the resenters resent each other as much as they do the opposition. The whole premise of left-wing politics has been daffy from day one, and the slapstick at the Iowa Caucuses is just life imitating art.
Spengler shooting fish in a barrel...

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The Iowa cacacas

Post by Milo » Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:01 pm

The Democratic National Committee just demanded a recanvass of the Iowa caucus results.

Wow, this looks more and more like an attempt to push the results off the front page!

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is ... ses-2020-2

neverfail
Posts: 4750
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Iowa FRACAS

Post by neverfail » Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:20 pm

Milo wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:01 pm
The Democratic National Committee just demanded a recanvass of the Iowa caucus results.

Wow, this looks more and more like an attempt to push the results off the front page!

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is ... ses-2020-2
Beating Trump should be "like shooting fish in a barrel" yet the Democrats seem determined to give Trump a helping hand in his bid for a second term. They are letting the country down; not for the first (and probably not for the last) time either.
........................................................................................................................................

Doc; I seem to recall in a recent post that you quoted something that Winston Churchill once said (exposing his aristocratic disdain for the masses for all to see) that went like this: "If you want to know what is wrong with democracy you need only speak with an average voter for five minutes."

Churchill got it wrong! The bane of democracy is not the voting public but organised (in the case of your Democrats disorganized?) political parties. ;)

Post Reply