(02-23-2020 09:14 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Bernie would win the popular vote, as Hillary did. We'll see if America gets screwed by the electoral college again.

I don’t think he will win the popular vote like Hillary did.

The electoral college is fine in concept, but I wish all states awarded their electoral votes proportional to the votes in their state. That is more fair and more representative of their state than a winner take all system. It’s a shame only one or two states do this. I know Maine is one, but I’m pretty sure another does this too.

(02-23-2020 11:56 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:14 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Bernie would win the popular vote, as Hillary did. We'll see if America gets screwed by the electoral college again.

I don’t think he will win the popular vote like Hillary did.

The electoral college is fine in concept, but I wish all states awarded their electoral votes proportional to the votes in their state. That is more fair and more representative of their state than a winner take all system. It’s a shame only one or two states do this. I know Maine is one, but I’m pretty sure another does this too.

I agree. I don't think it's a good thing that candidates will essentially not bother even campaigning in certain states. I don't think it's a good thing that GOP candidates essentially ignore California or that DNC candidates will ignore southern states.

(02-23-2020 11:56 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:14 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Bernie would win the popular vote, as Hillary did. We'll see if America gets screwed by the electoral college again.

I don’t think he will win the popular vote like Hillary did.

The electoral college is fine in concept, but I wish all states awarded their electoral votes proportional to the votes in their state. That is more fair and more representative of their state than a winner take all system. It’s a shame only one or two states do this. I know Maine is one, but I’m pretty sure another does this too.

That still defeats the purpose which is to reflect the will of the individual states.

Now what Maine and Nebraska do is that they award electoral votes by US House district, not proportionally. 2 votes got to the winner of the state and 1 to the winner of each house district.

(02-23-2020 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:31 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(02-22-2020 11:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-22-2020 11:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  But it's not totally Bernie. Looks like a real split to me. That's why Bloomie is trying to pick up the moderate banner.

It’s not the whole party—-but that wing of the party is now as big as the middle used to be. We can quibble over percentages—but the Progressive/Socialist wing now represents a huge hunk of the party.

I agree it's a huge hunk, but my point is, there is a big split in the party, which could have ramifications in November.

Now if you want to throw in "Progressive" with "Socialist," then yeah, that's practically everybody, as far as raising their hands to sign onto the New Green Deal and other loony ideas.

But I'm looking at it as most of them (Biden, Bloomie, Booty, Klob, Steyer, etc.) all opposing Bernie's nomination, plus reports all over the place that "establishment" Dems are freaking out, b/c they don't think Bernie can beat Trump.

Last night and this morning, I have seen several prominent Dems say, even on MSNBC and CNN, that Bernie's nomination will fracture the Dem Party.

My impression right now is the "No Bernie" Dem faction is a lot larger than the Never Trumper bunch in 2016.

It will be interesting to see how much support any Dem candidate now gets when it comes to November, and whether the losing faction of the Dem party will run as a 3rd party, especially if Bernie doesn't get it.

while the current version in division is tough to argue, it's also equitable the dems will align with the bern simply based on momentum alone....what else can they do outside a brokered convention w/o a viable candidate....bloomy wouldn't stand a chance....that's apparent at this point...

that's what evil slime does as gravity takes over....the never trump-a-tears were simply too stupid to see the bigger picture coming off the starting line....

regardless, it's gonna be fonzies watching how it plays out....

if they have something hidden up their sleeve at this point, it would be impressive that hasn't leaked by now...they could take a stab at moo-moochelle or cankles....however, that would be a nut roasting too....

their biggest misstep was not snagging Cuban early and choosing booty boy toy as their 'great white gay dope' using the obama black faced mantra as their guide....

If Kasich had dropped out after South Carolina as he should have, I think Cruz or Rubio would have won the Republican nomination. But the non-Trump vote kept getting split. And Kasich's whole approach in South Carolina was to pull votes from Jeb, which was enough to keep Rubio ahead of Jeb, so Jeb dropped out.

You've got something similar with Klobuchar who should have dropped out after blowing her wad and finishing 5th in neighboring Iowa. Then she was a distant 3rd in New Hampshire. No reason to continue.

And Hillary would be finishing up her first term, immigration would have gone unchecked and the economy would be in shambles.

Quote:Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s campaign, in a letter sent to the Nevada State Democratic Party just before midnight on Saturday, is alleging numerous errors in how early vote totals were folded into the Caucus Day process.

The campaign is asking the party to provide early vote and in-person vote totals by precinct, correct any early vote and second alignment errors identified by campaigns and explain other anomalies in the data before releasing any final caucus results. About half of precincts had reported as of early Sunday morning, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leading with 46.6 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden and Buttigieg a close second and third at 19.3 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively.

“Currently our data shows that this is a razor thin margin for second place in Nevada, and due to irregularities and a number of unresolved questions we have raised with the Nevada Democratic Party, it’s unclear what the final results will be,” Hari Sevugan, Buttigieg’s deputy campaign manager, said in a statement.

Buttigieg’s campaign gave party officials a deadline of 6 a.m. to respond to the letter and asked that they take the next 24 to 48 hours to offer “the level of transparency and accuracy” promised for the caucus. Party spokeswoman Molly Forgey said in a statement Sunday morning that the party is continuing to verify and report results and that there are no plans to change that reporting process.

“We never indicated we would release a separate breakdown of early vote and in-person attendees by precinct and will not change our reporting process now,” Forgey said. “As laid out in our recount guidance, there is a formal method for requesting a challenge of results.”

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Nevada Independent, the campaign says that the process of integrating early votes on Caucus Day was “plagued with errors and inconsistencies” and that the campaign had received more than 200 incident reports from precincts around the state, including “a few dozen” relating to how the early vote data was folded in.

Those issues, according to the campaign, include early vote data not being delivered or delivered after the caucus began, early votes not being used to calculate viability or the strength of each preference group, early votes being allocated to the wrong candidate and, in at least one case, early vote data from the wrong precinct being used.

Some early votes were “disregarded on second alignment,” while others were reallocated on second alignment despite their first preference being viable on the first alignment, the campaign says.

“To shed light on all of these issues, the Party should release early vote by precinct,” Michael Gaffney, Buttigieg’s national ballot access and delegates director, wrote in the letter.

Precinct chairs and voters reported confusion throughout Saturday about the realignment process, particularly as it relates to how early voters are allowed to realign.

According to the campaign, in some cases precinct chairs misstated realignment rules, including telling caucusgoers that a non-viable group could not become viable, and not counting the first preferences of early voters in determining whether a group had become viable on realignment.

The campaign is also asking for the errors it identified in “three dozen emails” over the course of the day with the party to be corrected before the party releases the final caucus results, as well as what it describes as other “anomalies,” including one case in which all early votes were allocated to a single candidate even when the other candidates were viable.

Link

They can not succeed at their little impeachment.

They can not apparently even put on a State Caucus.

But put them in charge of the entire country. Your health care. Your job. Your home. Your children. Your retirement. Our National defense. Foreign relations. All of it. Just give them control. They promise they will get that right. Trust them. What could go wrong?

Mayor Pete is a classic Democrat. If he doesn't like the results, he claims its rigged.

(02-23-2020 04:14 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s campaign, in a letter sent to the Nevada State Democratic Party just before midnight on Saturday, is alleging numerous errors in how early vote totals were folded into the Caucus Day process.

The campaign is asking the party to provide early vote and in-person vote totals by precinct, correct any early vote and second alignment errors identified by campaigns and explain other anomalies in the data before releasing any final caucus results. About half of precincts had reported as of early Sunday morning, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders leading with 46.6 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden and Buttigieg a close second and third at 19.3 percent and 15.4 percent, respectively.

“Currently our data shows that this is a razor thin margin for second place in Nevada, and due to irregularities and a number of unresolved questions we have raised with the Nevada Democratic Party, it’s unclear what the final results will be,” Hari Sevugan, Buttigieg’s deputy campaign manager, said in a statement.

Buttigieg’s campaign gave party officials a deadline of 6 a.m. to respond to the letter and asked that they take the next 24 to 48 hours to offer “the level of transparency and accuracy” promised for the caucus. Party spokeswoman Molly Forgey said in a statement Sunday morning that the party is continuing to verify and report results and that there are no plans to change that reporting process.

“We never indicated we would release a separate breakdown of early vote and in-person attendees by precinct and will not change our reporting process now,” Forgey said. “As laid out in our recount guidance, there is a formal method for requesting a challenge of results.”

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Nevada Independent, the campaign says that the process of integrating early votes on Caucus Day was “plagued with errors and inconsistencies” and that the campaign had received more than 200 incident reports from precincts around the state, including “a few dozen” relating to how the early vote data was folded in.

Those issues, according to the campaign, include early vote data not being delivered or delivered after the caucus began, early votes not being used to calculate viability or the strength of each preference group, early votes being allocated to the wrong candidate and, in at least one case, early vote data from the wrong precinct being used.

Some early votes were “disregarded on second alignment,” while others were reallocated on second alignment despite their first preference being viable on the first alignment, the campaign says.

“To shed light on all of these issues, the Party should release early vote by precinct,” Michael Gaffney, Buttigieg’s national ballot access and delegates director, wrote in the letter.

Precinct chairs and voters reported confusion throughout Saturday about the realignment process, particularly as it relates to how early voters are allowed to realign.

According to the campaign, in some cases precinct chairs misstated realignment rules, including telling caucusgoers that a non-viable group could not become viable, and not counting the first preferences of early voters in determining whether a group had become viable on realignment.

The campaign is also asking for the errors it identified in “three dozen emails” over the course of the day with the party to be corrected before the party releases the final caucus results, as well as what it describes as other “anomalies,” including one case in which all early votes were allocated to a single candidate even when the other candidates were viable.

Link

They can not succeed at their little impeachment.

They can not apparently even put on a State Caucus.

But put them in charge of the entire country. Your health care. Your job. Your home. Your children. Your retirement. Our National defense. Foreign relations. All of it. Just give them control. They promise they will get that right. Trust them. What could go wrong?

It's really that simple folks

Poor McKinsey Pete didn't have his backers at Shadow fudge the numbers this time, and didn't get to compete in a state with 90+% white people and got his ass kicked. Suck it Petey you lost and you are going to keep losing.

Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

(02-23-2020 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

Sorry I don’t have the link, but the latest batch of precincts have been calculated and it’s up to 71.6% reporting now.

(02-23-2020 09:08 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

Sorry I don’t have the link, but the latest batch of precincts have been calculated and it’s up to 71.6% reporting now.

So...C- is okay for the Dems? Sounds about right when their standard in public schools is just 'average' progress. Mediocrity...Welcome to the Dem philosophy.

Now it’s “87.55%” of precincts reporting. I read it on Twitter so it must be true.

(02-23-2020 09:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:08 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

Sorry I don’t have the link, but the latest batch of precincts have been calculated and it’s up to 71.6% reporting now.

So...C- is okay for the Dems? Sounds about right when their standard in public schools is just 'average' progress. Mediocrity...Welcome to the Dem philosophy.

The great irony here is Trump hid his own academic transcripts for obvious reasons.

(02-23-2020 09:42 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:08 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

Sorry I don’t have the link, but the latest batch of precincts have been calculated and it’s up to 71.6% reporting now.

So...C- is okay for the Dems? Sounds about right when their standard in public schools is just 'average' progress. Mediocrity...Welcome to the Dem philosophy.

The great irony here is Trump hid his own academic transcripts for obvious reasons.

Trump went to the best schools and got the highest marks. If you paid attention you'd know that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-23-2020 09:42 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:08 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

Sorry I don’t have the link, but the latest batch of precincts have been calculated and it’s up to 71.6% reporting now.

So...C- is okay for the Dems? Sounds about right when their standard in public schools is just 'average' progress. Mediocrity...Welcome to the Dem philosophy.

The great irony here is Trump hid his own academic transcripts for obvious reasons.

The greater irony is that the village idiot that preceded Trump hid his as well, especially considering there's a big experience gap between building a multi billion dollar company and a community organizer.

Looks like old Corn Pop’s gonna pick up his first delegate! Woot!

(02-23-2020 09:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:42 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:08 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

Sorry I don’t have the link, but the latest batch of precincts have been calculated and it’s up to 71.6% reporting now.

So...C- is okay for the Dems? Sounds about right when their standard in public schools is just 'average' progress. Mediocrity...Welcome to the Dem philosophy.

The great irony here is Trump hid his own academic transcripts for obvious reasons.

The greater irony is that the village idiot that preceded Trump hid his as well, especially considering there's a big experience gap between building a multi billion dollar company and a community organizer.

Yeah, there's a big experience gap in building a fake University and getting sued over it too. Filing for Bankruptcy six times in 18 years certainly makes you more experienced at running a country as well.

And of course by using this metric of wealth and building companies, Bloomberg should be at least 30 times more qualified to run the country than Trump right? I mean he is that much richer

(02-23-2020 09:42 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 09:08 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 06:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Sunday night and the most recent thing I see posted is only 60%.

Sorry I don’t have the link, but the latest batch of precincts have been calculated and it’s up to 71.6% reporting now.

So...C- is okay for the Dems? Sounds about right when their standard in public schools is just 'average' progress. Mediocrity...Welcome to the Dem philosophy.

The great irony here is Trump hid his own academic transcripts for obvious reasons.

Some cut their teeth academically, some get their experience in the school of experience. Trump worked with construction workers buying and cleaning up crappy buildings and turning lemons into gold. Sure, he had a good head start, but many who inherit wealth just as easily squander it away if they are stupid, which clearly the man is not. He's saavy, though you don't like it. He's more authentic than many realize. So he got mega rich doing it--he was generally good at what he did, deserved to prosper from it, was smart enough to use the banking and finance laws to maximize his return and in the end he took the risk upon himself and won more often than he lost. Nobody bats 1.000, but he's done pretty well and probably better than many of his old school peers who might have had better grades. Probably he didn't kiss a$$ up to as many professors. Good for him. I don't vote for him for saint, I vote for him to get the job done as president, and unlike the last fool and the mediocre guy before him, and the loser before that trump aces the job.

(02-23-2020 06:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mayor Pete is a classic Democrat. If he doesn't like the results, he claims its rigged.

He must make Stacy "the Hut" Abrams very proud.

At 88% in, Mayor Pete is only viable in CD 2 and 3. He is below the 15% viability threshold for the statewide vote.

Klobacher looking to finish at 6th behind Steyer is bad for her. If she finishes at 6th in SC, she I think she should drop out before Super Tuesday to help consolidate the anti Bernie vote. If the Dems go into Super Tuesday with 6 viable candidates, brokered convention will be the only realistic way to stop Bernie