DNC to replace Shadow and ACRONYM with Dark Sith Internet Solutions (DSIS) and CORPSE https://www.google.com/
Mayor Pete who was not expected to win announced he won before the results were in. Just let that sink in. Why is it that something fishing is always going on during a democratic primary? Isn't he the candidate that was Naval Intel and rumored to be in the CIA? And the rumor aside, the Dems cheated their primary last time. Seems like Biden is being forced to pull out and Pete slid in the backdoor as the DNC pick. Ya'll have to admit this doesn't pass the smell test. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/04/politics/pete-buttigieg-iowa-caucus/index.html
Caucuses have people standing in each corner to cast their votes for each candidate. Pete’s team had a rep at every precinct, which is why they had a good idea of how well they were doing in terms of pledged delegates. How can you rig a vote when people are literally standing there, precinct captains log first and final alignment, and you have three reporting mechanisms for results (picture, phone call, and a shitty app lol)? The Iowa bounce is what Pete’s whole campaign was predicated on. His team did a hell of a job running their campaign in Iowa, but the incompetence of the IDC almost prevented that bounce.
Let's not pretend like Pete's campaign ended up suffering due to this incompetence. Pete got to spend almost the entire newscycle between Iowa and New Hampshire being promoted as the "winner" even though it turns out he may not be the winner by any metric at all. This mess up ended up to his benefit regardless of the true outcome. There is absolutely no way he gets that same 9 point bump in New Hampshire over those 3 days following Iowa if he isn't sitting there comfortably ahead with 62% reporting and a 24/7 news cycle promoting the narrative of a presumptive Buttigieg victory.
We need to be clear here - the winner of the Iowa caucus has always been determined by who gets the most state-delegate equivalents (SDEs). And by that tried and true metric, Pete is walking out of Iowa a winner. Everybody knew the rules coming in. Bernie had the chance to push for a primary after 2016. He wanted the caucus to remain, but asked for additional reporting on initial and final alignments. While those other data points are nice to have, they are not what Iowa has ever used to declare a winner. It is the same thing as Hillary saying she won the 2016 presidential election. She didn't. With 100% of precincts reporting, Pete has the lead in SDEs, which makes him the winner. There are numerous irregularities in the count, so all campaigns have the chance to ask for a recanvass to correct them. Based on the data below, it looks like Pete will still be the winner even after the irregularities are addressed. It is nonsensical for the Sanders campaign to call into question the legitimacy of the Iowa caucus results, while also not requesting a recanvass. We'll see what they decide to do on Monday (though I'm pretty sure we all know what's going to happen). Pete notched an impressive Iowa victory and his campaign ensured that he grabbed the deserved momentum. They had the numbers to justify a declaration of victory. It speaks to the organization of his campaign that they were able to make that declaration days before the IDC did. Bernie winning the popular vote is a great moral victory for the team. But unless the SDE count swings in his favor after a recanvass, that is all it is. A moral victory. Pete heads to New Hampshire with more SDEs and more pledged delegates. (As a personal aside, I think caucuses are dumb and we should move to a ranked-choice primary, but that is irrelevant for the sake of discussing the winner of the 2020 Iowa caucus).
You know that handshake looks staged as hell. Current Bernie in that pic may not be so altruistic as the young one you see above. People usually change for the worse. Or in other words. Hot sauce.... that's right. Hilary pullin out the hot sauce, or Pete takin' on a 40 in a paper bag... or Warren lining up the few black people in Iowa for a staged photo lol. The Dems are actually extremely racist, and I can't believe ya'll don't see how. What will it take to wake some of ya'll up to the demeaning gimmicks they are pulling?
What in the hell are you talking about? Bernie is extremely racist despite being a civil rights activist because ...you blindly assume he has become racist as he got older? Perhaps that's what happened to you or something? Garbage take.
I addressed that in detail in my post already. Campaigns can request a recanvass until Monday. If Sanders feels that the declared outcome (Pete wins most SDEs) is in doubt, he has a mechanism to correct that - requesting the recanvass. But if he doesn't do so, then it isn't right for him to continue to sow doubt on the election results. In the event of a recanvass, there are two known irregularities. These net out to 0.1 SDEs going to Sanders. Outside of the discovery of new irregularities, Pete still wins.
Nick, just because you are not smart enough to get my posts, doesn't mean you need to throw your poo like a monkey. You honestly think an 80 year old man shakes hands like that unless it's for optics to get black support? Is that not demeaning to assume blacks are so stupid that they will simply vote for someone who is keepin it real when he shakes hands with black people? DNC CANDIDATES: HEY EVERYBODY LOOK I KEEP IT REAL! HOT SAUCE! OH YOU BET I DRINK 40S OUT OF PAPER BAGS WITH MY HOMIES. LOOK AT MY URBAN HAND SHAKE YO. Jesus, how much pandering and pathetic racist tropes does the dnc and its candidates need to cart out to show you these people are not authentic and racist af. Last I checked, they have done nothing to help the black community anyway. But yeah vote BERNIE, he's sooo real and cool. He shakes hands like black people doesn't he?
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/ What if... the handshake was legitimately in the moment, authentic and unrehearsed? What if Bernie was just smoothly reacting to the guy's hand movement as he could tell what the man was attempting? Would he still be a racist pandering POS (cuz people who participated in racial justice activism usually change for the worst as they git old) ? Would it still overcome Bernie's career of fighting for equality and virtually always being on the right side of social issues over his incredibly long career? Hillary Hot Sauce Clinton is corny, Hillary SuperPredators + 3 strikes Clinton is potentially racist, if not just unethical. I don't even know what the hell Pete did, but he has very little political history, what he does have (check the Pete/black vote thread) is a track record of doing a poor job with his police department being just towards black people as mayor, which makes him potentially racist, if not just unethical. For me, it takes more than a corny handshake, hot sauce brag, whatever it is you say Pete has done to make someone's ethics to be in question. Bernie doesn't have anything more, regardless of whether the handshake was real or rehearsed (and I highly doubt Bernie would have set that up if rehearsed, likely was the audience members idea if anything). What Bernie has is an outstanding track record of fighting for equality, fighting for black people, fighting for the poor, fighting for the working class. So yes, vote BERNIE, because he has the track record of fighting for the people who need it most, he has the best policies out of any candidate to improve the quality of life for hundreds of millions of Americans who again, need it the most.
I tend to agree, but simply that it allows the question to be asked is damaging, especially given what happened to Sanders last year. And even stupidity plays really poorly here. But, it will soon be in the rear view...election cycles are notoriously face paced.
Trump has never done anything racist but Bernie shaking hands with a black person was racism from Bernie. Consistency isn't one of your strong points.
You're paranoid. What happened to Sanders in 2016 (I assume is what you meant) was the DNC faithfully executing their framework, which favored insiders, as constructed. That's a very different thing than what people are insinuating here.
Not in the moment... totally rehearsed... dude is 80. You're an idiot if you think that's a thing 80 year olds do. Dude is from nearly a century ago. Also you're blind. You should go and think some more so you can feel as smart as you wish you were.
