2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Basically this entire thread


- and this is from *reported* data.

I think there should be an amnesty on the use of the word conspiracy theorist from now out. It is meaningless, there is no theory or conspiracy even, it's all open.

edit: another interesting qs is why it took the bernie 2016 campaign explicitly demanding it before the iowa dem party started releasing actual vote totals.
 
Last edited:
Red Dreams said:
After this stunt the Democrats have pulled, if Sanders is not the nominee, there will be an awful lot of voters who wont bother to show up in November.
You would think they had learned from 2016.
Click to expand...

Learn what exactly?

How to rig it better?
 
Anecdote: a Trump voter plans to vote for him even though he "doesn't agree with 100%", because the "Dems are running people like Biden and Bernie". Conversation ended before I could ask what was similar about those 2, or what parts of Trump he likes.
(He added that not 100% thing as an afterthought I felt)
 
entropy said:
Year of the rat
Click to expand...


There is absolutely nothing rigworthy about that rounding, it's perfectly in line with the pre-established rules.

Remember that they need to apportion all 7 delegates among the nominees. If you do normal rounding you'll see that you only get to apportion 5. Since normal rounding doesn't apportion the correct number of delegates you go on to looking at which of the nominees were the nearest to rounding up - and so apportion the remaining 2 delegates to them. Sadly in this instance the beneficiaries were Biden and Buttigieg.
 
At this point the literal fractional mistakes that have been posted on this thread could be enough to pull Bernard through
mdGGQJH.png
 
Ekkie Thump said:
There is absolutely nothing rigworthy about that rounding, it's perfectly in line with the pre-established rules.

Remember that they need to apportion all 7 delegates among the nominees. If you do normal rounding you'll see that you only get to apportion 5. Since normal rounding doesn't apportion the correct number of delegates you go on to looking at which of the nominees were the nearest to rounding up - and so apportion the remaining 2 delegates to them. Sadly in this instance the beneficiaries were Biden and Buttigieg.
Click to expand...
Yeap.



5.8k retweets though, so thousands of people already taking that as gospel truth.

If they are rigging this then this is the absolute worst way they could’ve gone about it. Let’s take a look at the big brain scheme:

1. Commission an app from a startup founded by Obama staffer, whose board sits Obama former campaign manager, with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and Buttchug’s former campaign staffer working to develop it, knowing these info are all public and will be used in the event something goes wrong.
2. Meddled with the process, erroneously altered the result despite a manual count paper trails and representatives from campaigns and the press presented, taking videos/notes.
3. Crash the app in the middle of the process, making the result tabulation and announcement to be delayed, inviting the attention of everybody, including those who weren’t paying attention before.
4. Released the partial result at a snail pace, some of which didn’t match with county level data that is also made public and can be used as a point of reference.
5. Profit?
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Yeap.



5.8k retweets though, so thousands of people already taking that as gospel truth.

If they are rigging this then this is the absolute worst way they could’ve gone about it. Let’s take a look at the big brain scheme:

1. Commission an app from a startup founded by Obama staffer, whose board sits Obama former campaign manager, with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and Buttchug’s former campaign staffer working to develop it, knowing these info are all public and will be used in the event something goes wrong.
2. Meddled with the process, erroneously altered the result despite a manual count paper trails and representatives from campaigns and the press presented, taking videos/notes.
3. Crash the app in the middle of the process, making the result tabulation and announcement to be delayed, inviting the attention of everybody, including those who weren’t paying attention before.
4. Released the partial result at a snail pace, some of which didn’t match with county level data that is also made public and can be used as a point of reference.
5. Profit?
Click to expand...



Pete is up 4 points over the last day in 2 different NH tracking polls, so the profit has accrued.

That one rounding issue doesnt explain the literal reversal of delegates I've highlighted btw.
 
@InfiniteBoredom none of the stuff ou highlighted which is "common knowledge" is actually common knowledge, everyone I spoke to has said either "there was confusion" or "Pete won". The headline matters and he won that. Most savvy journalists would have pointed this out (that it's a game of headline management) if an insurgent tried to game the system.
 
Also curious that in the Hillary v Bernie race they were very quickly reporting delegate totals (21-23, a number etched into memory) rather than SDEs (conveniently, no raw votes to report), but this time, with the projected delegates at 11-11, everyone is looking at SDEs.
 
berbatrick said:
Pete is up 4 points over the last day in 2 different NH tracking polls.

That one rounding issue doesnt explain the literal reversal of delegates I've highlighted btw.
Click to expand...
Yes, which I’ve already said were found because they don’t match county data, which you’d imagine someone would pipe up somewhere in the plotting phase.

And Pete is up regardless. Let’s assume the night was straight forward, he’d still run an extremely close second or winning the SDEs count (which most media outlets report on), while the former VP and frontrunner who’s in the same ideological lane finished a distant 4th.
 
By my count, 19 Bernie precints and 11 Pete precints left. Probably won't be enough get get the final 3, unless those mistakes start getting fixed.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Yes, which I’ve already said were found because they don’t match county data, which you’d imagine someone would pipe up somewhere in the plotting phase.

And Pete is up regardless. Let’s assume the night was straight forward, he’d still run an extremely close second or winning the SDEs count (which most media outlets report on), while the former VP and frontrunner who’s in the same ideological lane finished a distant 4th.
Click to expand...

I'm happy Bernie's people were better organised this time so some of the protests have been vocal, but I don't know if every one will get caught. And a retrospective change doesn't help at all, again, becuse headline.


About the polling changes, I think Bernie gets a small boost if it's a joint headline, he gets a big boost if he won all the measures and is the sole headline. Why the boost? Because most polls show he is the 2nd choice of a decent chunk of Biden people. Instead his numbers have been stationary (+1 in a poll, -1 in the other).
 
Just to be clear here, I’m not saying that all of the errors were clearly unintentional. We know for a fact that the party hates him, which means some low level precinct captains, party personnel in charge of tabulating the result etc.. at least hold the same sentiment, and I’m not ruling out some dumbfecks somewhere trying to be cute and swapped the column, hoping it wouldn’t get noticed, but a grand plan involving the IDP higher ups, former Obama/Clinton staffers and Buttchug’s people? Nah.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Just to be clear here, I’m not saying that all of the errors were clearly unintentional. We know for a fact that the party hates him, which means some low level precinct captains, party personnel in charge of tabulating the result etc.. at least hold the same sentiment, and I’m not ruling out some dumbfecks somewhere trying to be cute and swapped the column, hoping it wouldn’t get noticed, but a grand plan involving the IDP higher ups, former Obama/Clinton staffers and Buttchug’s people? Nah.
Click to expand...

I don't think so either on the last line. A plan involving just chaos, though, seems plausible to me.
This is basically your PoV I think: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/in-iowa-the-democratic-partys-real-conspiracy-was-grift.html

The difference between conspiracy, deliberate mismanagement, and incompetence is how much of the benefit of the doubt you give the party. At this point I don't give them any, and my gut feeling is deliberate mismanagement.

...



Remember that conspiracy theories exist outside the bros.
 
This is foul play plain and simple. Corporate Dems say they want to defeat Trump , but seem more concerned in beating Bernie.
 
Why anyone would want to vote for a party to run a country that can't even count correctly I don't know. Trump must be loving this
 
Bloomberg Surrogates Have Seats on DNC Rules Committees
After DNC Chair Tom Perez unilaterally changed the Feb. 19 presidential debate requirements, opening the door for Mike Bloomberg, two campaign surrogates are in position to propose changes to superdelegate voting rules for the July DNC Convention.


As the Democratic National Committee establishes procedures for the Democratic presidential nominating process, two members of DNC rules committees simultaneously work on the campaign of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Having surrogates on the Democratic National Convention’s Rules Committee and the Standing Rules and Bylaws Committee could be a boon for Bloomberg if nominating rules are re-opened for amendment ahead of the July convention. Some DNC members who are concerned about the polling support of Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) have discussed reversing rule changes limiting the power of superdelegates that were put in place after the 2016 election, according to a report from Politico. Those discussions have been sharply rebuked by DNC leadership.

The DNC passed intensely-negotiated rule changes in August 2018 that sought to reduce the influence of superdelegates—appointed at-large delegates whose ranks include influential party consultants—primarily by preventing them from casting votes on the first nomination ballot, as they did in 2016. If no candidate receives a majority on the first ballot at the upcoming convention, which will be voted on by 3,979 pledged delegates, then the 771 superdelegates—including some lobbyists for corporate clients—can vote on the second ballot, under the new rules. If the superdelegates were to vote as a block, they could add over 16% to a candidate, potentially pushing their favorite over the top.

Michael Nutter, the former Mayor of Philadelphia who is a member of the Standing Rules and Bylaws Committee, was selected by Bloomberg in December 2019 to serve as his campaign’s national political chair.

“Nutter will advise the campaign on policy development and strategy, and serve as a national surrogate on behalf of the campaign, recruiting key voices to join the campaign and traveling to field offices and events, speaking to constituents and press about why Mike Bloomberg is uniquely qualified to unite and rebuild the country at a time when it is more divided than ever,” the Bloomberg campaign said in a December statement.

Nutter was nominated by former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2013 and he has served on the rules committee since 2017.

Nutter co-hosted a kick-off fundraiser for former vice president Joe Biden in April 2019 after Bloomberg announced a month earlier that he would not run for president, but he quickly switched to Bloomberg’s camp after the former New York mayor reversed course and entered the race.

As Mayor of Philadelphia from 2008 to 2016, Nutter dramatically increased the use of the stop-and-frisk tactic, which disproportionately impacts people of color by subjecting them to police searches when they are not suspected of any particular criminal activity. Bloomberg also encouraged the use of the tactic as Mayor of New York, resulting in his police force targeting primarily black and Latino individuals in stops during which 9 of 10 individuals targeted were found to be innocent, according to a report from the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Alexandra Rooker, a rules committee member and superdelegate from California, was hired as a senior adviser to the Bloomberg campaign last month. Rooker, who was previously a lobbyist for the Communications Workers of America, is a vice chair of the California Democratic Party.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez nominated Rooker to serve as vice-chair of the 2020 Democratic National Convention Rules Committee at a DNC Executive Committee meeting last weekend. According to the convention rules released by a DNC member establishing the guidelines for the 2020 convention, the Convention Rules Committee “shall issue a report to the Democratic National Convention recommending the Permanent Rules of the Convention, the Convention agenda, the permanent officers of the Democratic National Convention, amendments to the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, and resolutions providing for the consideration of any other matter not provided for in the Permanent Rules of the Convention and not contained in the reports of other standing committees.”

Besides Nutter, just one other member of the 32-member Standing Rules and Bylaws Committee is affiliated with a presidential campaign, according to a Sludge review of the roster as of Sept. 18, 2019. Jeff Berman, a DNC member from Washington D.C., joined Tom Steyer’s campaign as an adviser in January. The full roster of the Convention Rules Committee is not yet established, because the majority of Convention committee members (for Rules, Credentials, and Platform) are still to be appointed by the presidential candidates in proportion to their pledged delegates.

Nutter and Rooker did not respond to inquiries from Sludge. Perez’s nominees for co-chair of the Convention Rules Committee, former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Democratic operative Maria Cardona of the prominent Dewey Square Group consulting firm, also did not respond to inquiries yesterday about their committee’s protocols.

Last week, the DNC eliminated the individual-donor threshold for candidates to qualify for future debates, paving the way for Bloomberg to appear at the next debate, which will be held on Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The change came directly from Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee members did not give any input or hold a vote, according to multiple people close to the matter. Sources reported that the decision was announced without a roll call vote of the around 430 DNC national members, most of whom learned about the change for the first time in the media.

Bloomberg donated $320,000 to the DNC on Nov. 19, 2019 in three donations of $106,500, as well as $800,000 that same day to a joint fundraising PAC between the DNC and state Democratic parties. It was Bloomberg’s first donation to the DNC since 1998, reporter Alex Kotch found, noting that the DNC’s $28.3 raised in the fourth quarter of 2019 lagged far behind the $72.3 million brought in by the Republican National Committee.

Leading DNC members have been critical of the party’s commitment to transparency and its ethics policies for lobbyists under Perez, who beat out progressive then-Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) in February 2017 in the race for chair. The superdelegate rules changes for 2020 were part of a package of reforms advanced by the Unity Reform Commission after the compromised 2016 presidential primary.

“If I were Cory Booker or Julián Castro, I’d be really pissed right now,” DNC Member and rules reform advocate Dr. Jim Zogby told Sludge. “I’ve been telling people: do not say the DNC decided this, because we did not. The DNC chair appoints the committee chairs, and two-thirds of the committee members are comprised of at-large members. What’s called a vote is essentially a ratification.”

DNC members advancing reforms continue to raise objections that the majority of standing committee appointments are held for the 75 at-large DNC members who are appointed by the DNC chair, excluding the plurality of DNC members who are elected by state parties. If the Convention Rules Committee were to recommend a change to the DNC Charter, such as allowing superdelegates to vote on the first presidential nomination ballot as in 2016, the proposal would first go to the Standing Rules and Bylaws Committee before heading to the full membership for a vote.

Asked if DNC members received any advance notice or communication from Perez about dropping the grassroots support requirement for the next presidential debate, Zogby replied, “Of course no, nobody knew about it.”

Last summer, the DNC Resolutions Committee voted 17-8 against holding a presidential debate focused on the global climate crisis, a proposal advanced by climate activists and environmental groups. The decision to remove the climate-specific debate resolution was then approved by the full DNC membership in a vote with a roll call of 222-137, over the protests of grassroots Democratic party members and sustainable-climate advocates.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
Anecdote: a Trump voter plans to vote for him even though he "doesn't agree with 100%", because the "Dems are running people like Biden and Bernie". Conversation ended before I could ask what was similar about those 2, or what parts of Trump he likes.
(He added that not 100% thing as an afterthought I felt)
Click to expand...
He's voting for Trump because the Dems are running people who are not Trump. It makes perfect sense.
 
I think people are wrong to blame any sort of DNC conspiracy on this. This is just an already bad system (caucaus) made worse (the app), mixed in with some mistakes and incompetence.

At least this is probably the last time the Iowa caucus is this important (or even first at all) for the Democratic nomation process.
 
The discipline of the Sanders campaign has surprised me a little. You would expect them to be fuming over the way all this has been handled.
 
Pexbo said:
Conservative white male, they just didn’t realise he’s gay.
Click to expand...

White and male for sure. Pete looks and talks like a traditional midwestern corn boy, which tends to resonate well in Iowa. It won’t resonate well in most other places.
 
The DNC already coordinated once against him, you don’t “have to laugh“ at the thought that they’d do it again
 
Raoul said:
White and male for sure. Pete looks and talks like a traditional midwestern corn boy, which tends to resonate well in Iowa. It won’t resonate well in most other places.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that - Clinton and Kennedy were very southern and very northeastern respectively and even though there are a lot of preconceived notions about those it didn't seem to hold them back. The drawl Buttigieg has I wouldn't call typical Midwestern either, I tend to think it will help him more in the South and central states.
 
Redplane said:
I don't believe that - Clinton and Kennedy were very southern and very northeastern respectively and even though there are a lot of preconceived notions about those it didn't seem to hold them back. The drawl Buttigieg has I wouldn't call typical Midwestern either, I tend to think it will help him more in the South and central states.
Click to expand...

Different eras. Neither of those two were up against women or socialists, which would obviously have made a massive difference.
 
The entire exercise to deny Sanders the win is orchestrated by the DNC.
Their big problem is Biden their preferred candidate is a dud.
They are stuck with Pete who is done.

Sanders is calm because he knows he has won in votes and delegates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.