Is this is what you want to hear: I would think they intentionally sabotage it to protect Trump. This is the truth: I wouldn't care to chime in. It's not a big deal. I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories.
Well the DNC did everything the could to stop Sanders and it did not work. 1) the Des Moines Register did not release their famed final pre-caucus poll. CNN for instance was left without their planned program of one hour to discuss it. Turns out someone from Pete's office most likely claimed that they were polled on the phone, and Pete was not listed as a choice. Pretty weak. Disclosed a couple days after the Caucus it showed Biden in third and Sanders first. 2) They changed the rules that allowed Hillary to claim for all time that she won in 2016 as she had 500 more votes than Sanders and now Sanders with more than 6,000 more votes , and same number of actual delegates than Pete is relegated to a close second due to their new SDE bull **** asort of dipshit electoral college scheme. 3) All the media played along with Pete proclaiming victory before any actual returns. 4) I got a sort of kick out of a Washington Post story a day later entitled "How Mayor Pete won ".
You do have a point, but actual votes do count and in addition Pete will eventually have to deal with a non-white state so that must be taken into account, too. Another point is that in actual voting except for the couple of caucus states people have to vote for one candidate and not well I will also vote for my second choice. Same with the general election.
Overall Pete for a young guy with limited experience who won with 8 thousand votes in a college town of 100,000 did surprisingly well. This is especially true when he only received 18% of the votes the one time he tried to run state wide in Indiana.
The polling firm confirmed the error occurred and said it might have happened with other people. The rules changes this year were all at the request of Sanders. SDEs is not new - it's what they've always used. You need to work on creating better conspiracy theories.
The field will not stay this big all the way to the Democratic Convention. my point is the field will narrow. (Iowa is merely a sample of how voters move in a smaller field.) the moving of votes will occur. If a candidate drops, s/he's even allowed to pledge her delegates to someone else. Sanders won't get any of that movement of voters due to shrinking field, nor movement of delegates due to candidates dropping out.
You have seen it already though. Biden, Klobuchar and Warren's support is behind Pete now and why he is surging. Pete still has no support with minorities. You aren't winning any Dem primary with 0 minority support. Sanders is not going to get that movement, but he was never hoping to get it.
it has been suggested to me that this photo has talismanic properties . . . I'm sure if minorities are shown this photo it will improve their support for Pete
There are two large errors with SDEs that the IDC has yet to correct: The delegate allocation errors you highlighted above The incorrect conversion of satellite caucus attendees to SDEs IDC allocated satellite caucus attendees directly to SDEs Apparently, you are supposed to convert attendees to county-equivalent delegates (this # is determined by attendance in whatever county a satellite is linked to), and then convert these CDEs to SDEs #1 would shift 3.98 SDEs to Bernie, but #2 would shift 3.8 SDEs to Buttigieg. Which would mean that Pete still wins. ..I think we can all agree that caucuses need to be done away with lol
Yes, thx for following along with my posts. Well, here you're not following what I just said. The field will narrow, and movement of delegates already won and endorsements by candidates who drop out (maybe even at the Convention itself) will not favor Sanders. I didn't say anything about Pete. I'm talking Sanders won't get the narrowing field movement. If Pete drops out, those delegates/votes will move to Biden, probably. bottomline: Sanders needs to start winning big now. not narrowly in huge fields of candidates.
@Os Trigonum has resting troll face. At a certain point I just take his stuff literally. So ya, I don't know why he has to insult Pete's service? What does he get out of it? Triggering random posters on the internet
listen dude, if you can't figure it out, I was making fun of OTHER POSTERS HERE. And I think it is absolutely INCREDIBLE that someone who has made fun of Tulsi Gabbard's service REPEATEDLY would try to pin "making fun of someone's service" on me. give it a rest fchowd. give it a rest.
I make fun of her using her medical administration billet as some genuine experience as commander in chief. Pete for one hardly used his service as justification to be commander in chief and he has significantly more relevant experience due to him being in Naval intelligence and distrusting terrorist financial networks. So why again make light of his service?
Blacks love Bernie? Black love is a non issue in this field. Its a ridiculous talking point. Only Biden gets remotely close
