Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:50:20

Pete declaring victory is some ballsy shit

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:58:35

Silver is saying this mess helps Biden a lot because the real benefit of Iowa is the publicity and now that is lost. Both Biden and Trump benefitted. Let's keep track of that.

I'm going to wait before I blame the dems for this app failure. We don't know what happened yet. For all we know the app was sabotaged. Probably not, but how hard can it be to make an app that just adds up a few numbers. The fact that the media jumps right away to this being another example of democrat ability to mess up their advantage seems premature and self fulfilling.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:59:23

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:At least this should put to rest the Biden is most electable nonsense. He's as electable as Jeb Bush.

Making conclusions about a candidate's general election strength or weakness based off of their performance in a contest that is wildly unrepresentative of the general electorate is a big leap.

I hate the expectations game, as finishing 4th is finishing 4th. But if you have the resources and name recognition of Biden, and a big part of your appeal is that you are "electable" then you need to win elections.

Of course, my conclusions are not just based on one weird night in Iowa. Biden has a long and distinguished history of not winning Presidential elections.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:00:56

pacino wrote:Pete declaring victory is some ballsy shit

I would think he might have a good idea. Each campaign has a rep at each location and they could have communicated to get a good idea. They had pics of many of the results.

by **CalvinBall** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:05:26

Monkeyboy wrote:
pacino wrote:Pete declaring victory is some ballsy shit

I would think he might have a good idea. Each campaign has a rep at each location and they could have communicated to get a good idea. They had pics of many of the results.

There are like 1600 precincts. The comms director had like 20 photos of results. iirc the ones i saw were like 12 voters for pete, 8 for warren, 7 for amy. Just very small precincts.

by **thephan** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:33:42

CalvinBall wrote:Seemingly turn out was not great

How long have people been contributing to the state over the last year? Some of these candidate probably spent close to a year in Iowa pandering. I think it is a safe bet that The Iowa Caucasus are a decent percentage of Iowa income in the 18 months leading up to an election.

The Des Moines Register reported in early January that more than $45 million worth of political advertising. That does not touch the political teams and news crews sopping up all the available beds and eating everything in town.

by **CFP** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:33:54

Trump approval at 49% in Gallup poll, his best mark with Gallup since taking office.

by **Werthless** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:52:17

TenuredVulture wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:At least this should put to rest the Biden is most electable nonsense. He's as electable as Jeb Bush.

Making conclusions about a candidate's general election strength or weakness based off of their performance in a contest that is wildly unrepresentative of the general electorate is a big leap.

I hate the expectations game, as finishing 4th is finishing 4th. But if you have the resources and name recognition of Biden, and a big part of your appeal is that you are "electable" then you need to win elections.

Of course, my conclusions are not just based on one weird night in Iowa. Biden has a long and distinguished history of not winning Presidential elections.

That doesn't seem like a fair criticism, let alone for a former VP.

by **06hawkalum** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:16:31

CFP wrote:Trump approval at 49% in Gallup poll, his best mark with Gallup since taking office.

Seems like an outlier.

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:19:22

Dems can’t even count a show of hands. What a party!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."

~ Will Rogers

by **CalvinBall** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:20:33

06hawkalum wrote:
CFP wrote:Trump approval at 49% in Gallup poll, his best mark with Gallup since taking office.

Seems like an outlier.

hopefully

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:28:12

CalvinBall wrote:
06hawkalum wrote:
CFP wrote:Trump approval at 49% in Gallup poll, his best mark with Gallup since taking office.

Seems like an outlier.

hopefully

It may be rallying around the flag because of impeachment, or it could be an unsettling trend.

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:32:25

“Any campaign saying they won or putting out incomplete numbers is contributing to the chaos and misinformation,” Joe Rospars, the chief strategist for Senator Elizabeth Warren, scolded on Twitter. Two tweets and one minute earlier, he had written, “It’s a very close race among the top three candidates (Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg) and Biden came a distant fourth.”

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:36:12

pacino wrote:Pete declaring victory is some ballsy shit

He is White Privilege.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:49:59

JFLNYC wrote:
“Any campaign saying they won or putting out incomplete numbers is contributing to the chaos and misinformation,” Joe Rospars, the chief strategist for Senator Elizabeth Warren, scolded on Twitter. Two tweets and one minute earlier, he had written, “It’s a very close race among the top three candidates (Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg) and Biden came a distant fourth.”

This is beautiful

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:52:22

jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
“Any campaign saying they won or putting out incomplete numbers is contributing to the chaos and misinformation,” Joe Rospars, the chief strategist for Senator Elizabeth Warren, scolded on Twitter. Two tweets and one minute earlier, he had written, “It’s a very close race among the top three candidates (Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg) and Biden came a distant fourth.”

This is beautiful

I mean what he tweeted wasn’t as egregious as candidates declaring themselves victorious or saying how many delegates they got with X% reporting.

All of this is a big CF.

by **CalvinBall** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:53:36

Hopefully Shadow Inc goes under as well as Acronym.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 13:04:24

I haven't coded for some time, and when I did it was in BASIC 2.0 on a Commodore 64, and I feel reasonably confident that I could, if I pulled an all-nighter, create an app that required a username and password, allowed the end user to input three numbers, collect all those numbers from all the different registered users, and keep a running tally of the numbers in columns 1,2, and 3.

I mean come the fuck on.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 13:08:26

slugsrbad wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
JFLNYC wrote:
“Any campaign saying they won or putting out incomplete numbers is contributing to the chaos and misinformation,” Joe Rospars, the chief strategist for Senator Elizabeth Warren, scolded on Twitter. Two tweets and one minute earlier, he had written, “It’s a very close race among the top three candidates (Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg) and Biden came a distant fourth.”

This is beautiful

I mean what he tweeted wasn’t as egregious as candidates declaring themselves victorious or saying how many delegates they got with X% reporting.

All of this is a big CF.

I have no problem with the Sanders and Buttigieg people putting the numbers out there that they have as long as they're accurate. They both appear to have gotten fucked through no fault of their own by having an incompetent state party nuke what should have been awesome morning headlines. Their campaigns ought to be doing whatever they can (short of making shit up) to demonstrate that they won or at least may have won.

The Warren guy is putting his own best spin on it. If their precinct tracking numbers showed she was in 1st or 2nd instead of 3rd, I'm sure that'd be their message. Instead they're trying to frame it as a three way race and saying people putting numbers out there showing they're winning are irresponsible, which are things people who lost say.

by **Monkeyboy** » Tue Feb 04, 2020 13:08:31

Wolfgang622 wrote:I haven't coded for some time, and when I did it was in BASIC 2.0 on a Commodore 64, and I feel reasonably confident that I could, if I pulled an all-nighter, create an app that required a username and password, allowed the end user to input three numbers, collect all those numbers from all the different registered users, and keep a running tally of the numbers in columns 1,2, and 3.

I mean come the fuck on.

That's what I mean. It's hard to believe they fucked this up. They must have also tested it, though maybe not with over a thousand users at once. It doesn't surprise me that the backup phone system failed. They probably just didn't staff it with enough people and probably figured they didn't need it. That's a mistake, but not a surprising one.

I'll be interested to hear what comes out about the app. There are some people who would benefit from this crashing so we'll see what the company and users say.

Archived

Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over

Re: Politics: Iowa-nt this to be over