Buttload of Faith: the 2016 Presidential Primary Thread (Pt 2)

clinton 663-660 sanders

the only accurate website is this one iirc https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state

it's the direct line to the iowa democratic party

― μpright mammal (mh), Tuesday, February 2, 2016 4:29 AM (33 minutes ago)

i keep checking back to this site and clinton's score keeps wobbling back and forth from 49.9 to 49.8, it's kind of stomach-churning. (sanders is at 49.6 percent.) and it just changed again as i was writing this. what a night.

Ok, I didn't realize that Fort Raccoon had merely been a suggested name for the location.

the demoines register site seems to be the most up-to-date

(and reports to two decimal points)

is it too simple-minded to think the older voters would have been more likely to vote earlier hence counted earlier? (thus, sanders could close the gap?)

msnbc totally waited until they could update clinton's total from 665 to 667.

bullshit

I would like to see Ted Cruz put up against a not-yet-invented military technology that would vaporize his insides in a flash of light.

bernie's making one last push, but it doesn't look good. the big county with de moines in it still has 22 precints left to report, and it's been solid hilary

amazing showing though. closer than anyone had it being

o'malley is the nader of the democratic primary I would blame him

I don't hear any pundits questioning the clichéd characterization of the Dem race as a conflict between "passion" vs "getting things done"

xp all the news is about how hip young people have been flocking to dsm the past several years soooo

i've seen graphs indicating that sanders basically took the youth vote, clinton the older vote, decreasingly or increasingly, respectively, but turnout in the top two age brackets was just higher as a share of the total turnout

intentional pun? (iatee)

I like the phrase "People of the Book"

if he loses a close race then hilary's inevitability is just confirmed

If this is true, we deserve a dictatorship.

O'Malley and Huckabee quit btw

I have no idea which of these three guys will win the Republican nomination. None.

Let me help you: Rubio.

i can't really figure out why o'malley stayed in the race this long.

That's why I said it! xxp

And it doesn't quite, it is how Muslims refer to other abrahamic religions pre-islam

My middle name is "earnestly explains someone else's joke" so

With 99% reporting there's a .14% lead for Clinton over Sanders. This shit defies predictability, apparently.

Dammit, I can't find that Bloom County "raucous caucus" strip

So shameless: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-the-virtual-tie-in-iowa-helps-hillary-clinton.html

Hahaha what the shit

I guess Hilary Clinton is technically helped by having a projected +1 delegate over her opponent. But since her entire primary campaign strategy was, for the second time and seemingly without any hint of irony, based on "inevitability", and clearing the field of all credible opposition by projecting that inevitability since the moment she showed up at that Unity party in 2008, she probably is trying to figure out how to wear Patty Solis-Doyle as a pantsuit or something right now.

If Sanders can only draw in the states that are most favorable to him, then Clinton is pretty darn inevitable.

a candidate who underperforms polls by 3 percentage points in a head-on matchup against a 74-year-old socialist (sorry, "democratic socialist") might have some electability issues.

thx for danesplainin' Frederik

ie, he "drew," you moron.

So Clinton won 3 delegates by coin toss?

What exactly is the distinction you're drawing there, so to speak?

think you mean "drewing"

Imagine telling Bill Clinton in 1992 that 25 years later his wife would be neck-and-neck with an "independent socialist" in the Democratic primary. This wasn't supposed to be possible....

The consolation for the Clinton campaign is that the underlying math still looks good. Sanders is running behind Obama among white voters. Given that he's likely to run way behind Obama with non-white voters, Clinton remains a heavy favorite to ultimately win the nomination. But given that Sanders is likely to win New Hampshire next week, that victory won't come without a long and grinding fight.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10892802/iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders-tie

From another Vox article:

The Clinton campaign's strategy will, of course, be second-guessed as stumbling front-runners always are. But the larger problem is the way that party as a whole — elected officials, operatives, leaders of allied interest groups, major donors, greybeard elder statespersons, etc. — decided to cajole all viable non-Clinton candidates out of the race. This had the effect of making a Clinton victory much more likely than it would have been in a scenario when she was facing off against Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Deval Patrick. But it also means that the only alternative to Clinton is a candidate the party leaders don't regard as viable.

Trying to coordinate your efforts to prevent something crazy from happening is smart, otherwise you might wind up with Donald Trump. But trying to foreclose any kind of meaningful contact with the voters or debate about party priorities, strategy, and direction was arrogant and based on a level of self-confidence about Democratic leaders' political judgment that does not seem borne out by the evidence. This is a party that has no viable plan for winning the House of Representatives, that's been pushed to a historic lowpoint in terms of state legislative seats, and that somehow lost the governors mansions in New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

NB: by Matthew Yglesias.

So Iowa the last three caucuses have gone for the three most psychopathically religious conservatives, Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz. Nice at least that this time around those folks weren't falling for Trump's Bible-toting tomfoolery.

It'll be cool in 2020 to see Huckabee, Santorum and Cruz pulling >%1 in Iowa while Kim Davis wins the caucus

Don't discount Joe the Plumber's chances. Dude's making a comeback, mark my words.

The Clinton campaign's strategy will, of course, be second-guessed as stumbling front-runners who the press has had a hate-on for for 25 years always are.

especially when they tie with a 'democratic socialist' who was thought a joke 3 months ago?

plz, the clintons owe their zombielike unkillability in large part to the media.

Clinton remains a heavy favorite to ultimately win the nomination. But given that Sanders is likely to win New Hampshire next week, that victory won't come without a long and grinding fight.

Yabbut that can be spun in her favor, should she win the nomination. This was no coronation, it was not inevitable, she had to fight for every vote, and her candidacy is the stronger for it.

i'm done w/ this shit, fuck all these assholes. remove bookmark.

^^^ good candidate for the next thread title, maybe a bit long though

dude you are tapping out early, c'mon balls, that's not the balls we know and love, there's a long season ahead and we're going to need our balls if we're gonna get through it

(though I put that jokey I actually also mean it)

I'm overloaded from the last week, see you all later

Cuckoo-ca-choo, Huck. Cuckoo-ca-choo.

Sanders supporters all up in tizzy about voting irregularities. Caucus precincts decided by coin toss, 90 missing precincts ...

Liked this piece a lot:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/30/my_day_with_bernie_sanders_and_hillary_clinton_two_iowa_rallies_explain_why_hillary_may_be_about_to_blow_a_sure_thing/

OTM that Clinton is running on "3am phone call" change=bad fear, just like last time.

Cuckoo-ca-choo, Huck. Cuckoo-ca-choo.

it is a grave injustice that whoever made that ad will not be making more this cycle

It's pretty clear that libs who prefer Sanders' politics but are twisting themselves like pretzels to justify a vote for Clinton are motivated by fear. So it works sometimes, maybe most times.

Recently, I think Huck has been floated semi-seriously as a Trump running mate. That would be entertaining, and it makes some sense because he would bring some humility, genial humor, evangelical support, and political experience to a Trump ticket. May be moot if Ted Cruzes to the nomination or MarcoMentum becomes a real thing. In any case I still think those are all general-election losers.

I do count this as more proof that nobody knows anything this year: wasn't Charles Pierce mocking the "Rubio surge" the other day?

Also, Matt Yglesias's recent piece arguing that Trump won the Iowa debate by not showing up is looking a little less accurate right now. It seems that turned off a lot of Iowa caucus-goers.

"Floating above the fray, Trump was perfectly positioned to grow even stronger just days from the beginning of voting."
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10866312/donald-trump-won-the-debate