Welcome to Dem Land

**Pam** · February-06-20, 05:06 AM

She was a young pony tailed apprentice when Bernie took her under his wing,I wonder why with his influence and direction,she choose the Republican Party then switch back to the Democratic one.

He was her mentor,lots of history.

Huh? That's wrong. Maybe you are thinking of Alexandria Cortez. She worked on the Bernie campaign in 2016.

Also there are no "electoral" votes in Iowa yet.

**oladub** · February-06-20, 08:25 AM

This is the most recent tally of the Iowa Democratic primary with 97% of the votes in. I don't understand the seemingly Byzantine Iowa caucus rules but it looks like Sanders had the most votes but Buttigieg is still winning with the most delegates. Biden and Buttigieg both were lucky to receive more "S.D.E.s" relative to their actual votes. How is it possible that the vote is not all in yet?

Here’s how Democrats voted in the first and final rounds.

Buttigieg narrowly leads Sanders in the race for state delegate equivalents. Sanders leads the first and final alignment votes. 9:05 PM ET

	First Vote		Final Vote		Total S.D.E.s
Candidate	Votes	Pct.	Votes	Pct.	Votes	Pct.
Buttigieg	36,718	21.3%	42,235	25.0%	550	26.2%
Sanders	42,672	24.7	44,753	26.5	547	26.1
Warren	32,007	18.6	34,312	20.3	381	18.2
Biden	25,699	14.9	23,051	13.7	331	15.8
Klobuchar	21,896	12.7	20,525	12.2	255	12.2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

**canuck** · February-06-20, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

This is the most recent tally of the Iowa Democratic primary with 97% of the votes in. I don't understand the seemingly Byzantine Iowa caucus rules but it looks like Sanders had the most votes but Buttigieg is still winning with the most delegates. Biden and Buttigieg both were lucky to receive more "S.D.E.s" relative to their actual votes. How is it possible that the vote is not all in yet?

Here’s how Democrats voted in the first and final rounds.

Buttigieg narrowly leads Sanders in the race for state delegate equivalents. Sanders leads the first and final alignment votes. 9:05 PM ET

	First Vote		Final Vote		Total S.D.E.s
Candidate	Votes	Pct.	Votes	Pct.	Votes	Pct.
Buttigieg	36,718	21.3%	42,235	25.0%	550	26.2%
Sanders	42,672	24.7	44,753	26.5	547	26.1
Warren	32,007	18.6	34,312	20.3	381	18.2
Biden	25,699	14.9	23,051	13.7	331	15.8
Klobuchar	21,896	12.7	20,525	12.2	255	12.2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

The Status Quo Dems are probably praying that Bernie gets a massive stroke or heart attack. They will do anything to keep him from winning.
It won't be the first time a winning horse is tripped by the powers that be.

**rb336** · February-06-20, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

T

Buttigieg narrowly leads Sanders in the race for state delegate equivalents. Sanders leads the first and final alignment votes. 9:05 PM ET

	First Vote		Final Vote		Total S.D.E.s
Candidate	Votes	Pct.	Votes	Pct.	Votes	Pct.
Buttigieg	36,718	21.3%	42,235	25.0%	550	26.2%
Sanders	42,672	24.7	44,753	26.5	547	26.1
Warren	32,007	18.6	34,312	20.3	381	18.2
Biden	25,699	14.9	23,051	13.7	331	15.8
Klobuchar	21,896	12.7	20,525	12.2	255	12.2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

Transparency would be nice. Or a system where if you get 26% of the votes, you get 26.5% of the delegates, and if you get 13.1%, you don't get a free bonus 2% of the delegates.

Caucuses are almost as anachronistic as royalty.

**Richard** · February-06-20, 12:45 PM

^ its not that complicated,but I agree with you,a dictatorship is a much easier solution.

Note that the Iowa Democratic Party does not declare a caucus winner, but simply presents results to the public and the SDE number [[which is the number of state delegates allotted per candidate, technically called the State Delegate Equivalency number.) An approximate allocation of national convention delegates will also be reported, the IDP noted.
A total of 41 pledged national delegates are up for grabs in Iowa, CNN reported. Then there are eight additional unpledged delegates in Iowa, which include five members of the Democratic National Committee and three members of Congress. These unpledged PLEO delegates were previously known in 2016 as superdelegates. Unlike in 2016, they will only be able to vote at the Democratic National Convention if a candidate does not get a majority of votes on the first ballot at the DNC.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/02/presi...-iowa-results/

Interesting how in 2016 Trump spent 3.6 million in Iowa verses Clinton’s 11.5 million so it kinda dispels the whole war chest concept.

**Pam** · February-06-20, 01:43 PM

Bernie just gave a press conference declaring a win in Iowa.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...86175017807872

**Richard** · February-06-20, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Pam

Bernie just gave a press conference declaring a win in Iowa.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...86175017807872

Right after the DNC called a recount,but a candidate has to call for it.

Iowa caucus is based on the electoral vote so popular vote is not considered a win.

New Hampshire is a Primary based event,popular vote in that event declares the winner.

**Pam** · February-06-20, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

Right after the DNC called a recount,but a candidate has to call for it.

Iowa caucus is based on the electoral vote so popular vote is not considered a win.

New Hampshire is a Primary based event,popular vote in that event declares the winner.

There are no "electoral votes". It's a primary.

**Richard** · February-06-20, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Pam

There are no "electoral votes". It's a primary.

If you keep saying so does not make it right.

how come sanders does not show as the winner even though he got the popular vote.

Half of the country did not understand what the electoral vote was all about.

I say electoral vote because it is basically the same concept used for the Iowa caucus.

The electoral process to nominate a candidate for a presidential election is usually called "the primaries," but there are two different systems that states use: caucus and primary.
Unlike a primary, where residents simply cast their ballots, a caucus is a local gathering where voters openly decide which candidate to support. The caucus format favors candidates who have a dedicated and organized following because a small band of devoted volunteers can exert an outsized influence in the open setting of a caucus.
States choose whether they want to hold primaries or caucuses. Most states hold primaries but states like Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota and Maine use the caucus system.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Caucus_vs_Primary

That is the problem in this country,everybody voting or partaking in a system that they do not understand,then they get mad because they do not get the results that they thought they were going to get.

Iowa = caucus not won by popular vote.
New Hampshire = primary - won by popular vote.

The DNC has called for a recount or hand count of the votes to determine who the winniner really is but it has to be a candidate that calls for the recount and not the DNC.

None of the candidates have called for a recount because it does not matter in a sense,at this stage all this is doing is the candidates proving to the DNC that they can run a viable campaign and allows the DNC to weed out the weak ones so they do not steal votes from the strong ones come the presidential run.

The “winner” of this one in Iowa could very well end up being the loser months down the road when the DNC picks the candidates that they feel will have the best chance to upset the opposition.

Which brings Bloomberg into the picture,his statement is that there are no solid candidates currently running that has enough power to go after Trump.

So he is running and injecting millions into the infrastructure so even if he pulls out it will still remain in place for the other candidates,2100 boots on the ground,10 million on the Super Bowl in itself.

He is also drawing controversy because he has not scheduled any caucus’s or primary events and people are upset because he is viewed as a billionaire that is buying his way into the campaign without actually having to do the work and pound the pavement like the rest of the candidates are.

Elizabeth Warren has had to pull staff out of other states into New Hampshire and the upcoming events so by all accounts she is treading water,she is optimistic calling Iowa a win because she beat out Biden.

But Iowa is only an indicator of how much base support one has and really does not give a country wide view of real support.

As it progresses you really have to watch the numbers of each candidate and see if they progress outside of their base support and at what rate they advance.

If their support numbers do not increase their chances of survival long term decreases.

The elephant in the room is the DNC,they keep changing the rules on the fly and it seems like they only apply to who ever they want to give the advantage to,which also changes from day to day.

The biggest problem is the Dems and progressives are so Trump incensed that they are not keeping their eye in the ball,you want free and fair elections but you refuse to acknowledge what is going on in your own backyard.

Personally I agree with Bloomberg,you guys have a massive hill to climb going after Trump,but it is covered with DNC ice. So the candidates have their work cut out for them,probably more so then it has been in a long time.

Every time you guys cry Trump it gives him millions in free exposure across all media outlets,what ever you think of him,he is an expert when it comes to mass media and how to use it,you are playing a game you will not win,like Hillary found out.

Try getting him out of your head long enough to concentrate on what you are doing,no surprise,I support him all day long but I also believe that this is America where anybody can become president and anybody that wants to can run and you have to respect that.

**oladub** · February-07-20, 11:45 AM

NBC has an interesting article about fuzzy math it found in Iowa primary results. Things just didn't add up. It wasn't just the app. For instance,

Inconsistencies in Des Moines’ 62nd precinct caucus results

Fewer votes were somehow tallied in the initial preference round than the, later, reallocated preference round.

Source: NBC News Decision Desk analysis of results from the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses

In "at least 77 precincts, or 4.5 percent, where the total votes for what is known as "reallocated candidate preference" is greater than the total votes for "initial candidate preference" — a difference that makes no sense."

Maybe the DNC has learned its lesson. There is a wisdom in correcting how people voted before the election to prevent the messy process of overturning a Bernie victory over the next 3+ years. Angela Merkel is having the same problem in Germany right now and is trying to overturn the election of the new Thuringian state Prime Minister. It is more antiseptic to reverse and correct the will of voters before rather than after election results are published.

**ABetterDetroit** · February-07-20, 07:47 PM

The above 2 posts are evidence of what the die hard Republicans want very badly. Bernie to win the nomination.

The question Democrats need to ask themselves is do they want to be the next iteration of an American Socialist Party and inherit that losing streak or do they want to win the Presidency with a candidate to the left of Trump?

There is quite a bit of ground in between the two is an understatement.

**Richard** · February-07-20, 10:04 PM

Well I am not a die hard republican,but Trump needs to win in order to buy time for the Democratic Party to find its way again.

It does not matter at this point who wins the nomination on the democrat side.

What we are seeing at this stage is support for the progressive party that comes from some of the large urban population centers,it is a big country out there and most Americans still have and believe in core values.

We are a diverse population

Buttigieg may be seeing promising support from the liberal cities but the majority of African Americans,most Hispanics and definitely most conservatives are not going to support a president with a man by his side as a First Lady.

Bernie can promise all the free stuff he wants but being an admitted socialist democrat kinda kills the whole concept and their only argument is everybody is so stupid that they automatically view socialism with communism.

He is funny though now that he is a millionaire he has changed his mantra from going after the millionaires and billionaires,to just the billionaires,I guess millionaires are not so bad when you become one.

Elizabeth warren has already shot herself in the foot so many times she will be lucky to last a few more months.

Biden is Biden he is just a comfortable and safe candidate,nothing spectacular.

The Democrats created this mess and it is their job to clean it up but it is hard for them also because you have so many learning institutions churning out anti democratic plebs.

You get people like AOC that wins their seat with 2000 votes and then they come in pants on fire and going to fix the country in 3 months.

The voting public can see cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles and see where the promises of free stuff gets you.

They are really not selling anything new.

Charisma wins elections.

So we will go through the motions for the next 9 months with predictable results,Trump will win again,not because he is Trump but because he knows how to read people and motivate with obtainable goals that people can relate to.

The progressives actually scare people with all of these trillion dollar programs when the majority of the working population knows exactly who’s pocket those funds come out of.

Not for nothing but the governor of Michigan was at the Sate of the Union yelling about fixing potholes.

Somebody might want to tell her potholes are a local government issue where as federal highways are federal highway budgets.

A state governor should know that a president has no power over local roads.

But that is the problem,misdirected energy,so concerned about trying to look cool while accomplishing nothing in the process.

**Pam** · February-08-20, 08:25 AM

It is more antiseptic to reverse and correct the will of voters before rather than after election results are published.

It sounds like you are in favor of election fraud. I hope you are kidding.

**jcole** · February-08-20, 08:53 AM

I was glad to see the candidates pulling together no matter who wins the primary. I totally agree with them.

**ABetterDetroit** · February-10-20, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Pam

I don't know what you thought I said. Bernie was favored to win and I think they tried to rig it against him. That's what I was trying to say.

It is disconcerting at the frequency that both the far right and far left are throwing around “rigged” pertaining to close elections in the last few. Hell, it is happing before they have actually lost anything. If they are ahead they gloat and if they slip behind then “it’s rigged!”

It is statistically possible for election results to be close. In fact that has been the norm for awhile in many places in the country for some time. If there was a clear majority all this nasty partisan crap we live and breath daily would not be necessary.

**jcole** · February-11-20, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

It is disconcerting at the frequency that both the far right and far left are throwing around “rigged” pertaining to close elections in the last few. Hell, it is happing before they have actually lost anything. If they are ahead they gloat and if they slip behind then “it’s rigged!”

It is statistically possible for election results to be close. In fact that has been the norm for awhile in many places in the country for some time. If there was a clear majority all this nasty partisan crap we live and breath daily would not be necessary.

To bad there is no "Thumbs UP" emoji for this

**bust** · February-11-20, 10:03 AM

Yeah, Pam's long gone. But her example is instructive.

She's a perfect example how someone absolutely opposed to Trump can be remote controlled to unwittingly suppress the democratic vote and help him win election. She does nothing here except share conspiracy theories, doctored videos, and other propaganda -- and never against a republican, always against a democrat who would be a much better choice.

Voter suppression has been a key republican strategy for decades. Consider what Paul Weyrich said in 1980. He's a founder of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which eventually helped write voter suppression legislation that spread like a cancer across the country... "I don't want everybody to vote. Our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Voter suppression comes in many forms. Legislation to make it harder to vote is just part of it. One of the most effective strategies, widely used at least since the 2016 election, is to turn likely democratic voters against each other, or to convince them their vote doesn't matter, so if their favored candidate doesn't win they stay home on election day, cast a "protest vote", or leave the presidential portion of their ballot blank. Over 80,000 Michigan voters left it blank in 2016, and Trump won the state by just over 10,000 votes.

Pam takes it much further, and loudly encourages everyone to do the same.

It's time to wise up, grow up, and defeat the real menace to our society -- even if it means voting for someone who isn't exactly what we want.

I was never a Clinton fan, either of them. But you had better believe I voted for them in every general election.

Vote for whomever you really want to win in the primary.
But think twice before promoting the conspiracy theories and doctored videos spreading across the internet like widfire.
And if it comes down to it, vote for the lesser of two evils on election day.

I'm very encouraged this time around there are some really good democratic candidates. There is not one I would not much rather have as our president than the toxic charlatan we have today.

Originally Posted by bust

A key part of the strategy to support Trump is to sow divisions among his opposition.
Richard promotes this propaganda like it's his job.
It meshes perfectly with the republican voter suppression campaign.
Pam fell hard for it years ago.
Don't you too!

Reports show Russia mounted sweeping effort to sow divisions, support Trump
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...report-1067113

The Internet Research Agency, Social Media and Political Polarization in the United States, 2012-2018
https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpe...2/document.pdf

**jcole** · February-11-20, 10:20 AM

Dixville Notch NH went Bloomberg!

**jcole** · February-11-20, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by bust

Yeah, Pam's long gone.

She's remote controlled, unwittingly suppressing the democratic vote by sharing conspiracy theories, doctored videos, and other propaganda -- and never against a republican, always against a democrat who would be a much better choice.

Voter suppression has been a key republican strategy for decades. Consider what Paul Weyrich said in 1980. He's a founder of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which eventually helped write voter suppression legislation that spread like a cancer across the country... "I don't want everybody to vote. Our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Voter suppression comes in many forms, and legislation to make it harder to vote is just part of it. One of the most effective strategies, widely used at least since the 2016 election, is to turn likely democratic voters against each other, or to convince them their vote doesn't matter, so if their favored candidate doesn't win they stay home on election day, cast a "protest vote" for a 3rd party candidate, or leave the presidential portion of their ballot blank. Over 80,000 Michigan voters did that in 2016, and Trump won the state by just over 10,000 votes.

Pam takes it much further, and loudly encourages everyone to do the same.

It's time to wise up, grow up, and defeat the real menace to our society -- even if it means voting for someone who isn't exactly what we want.

I was never a Clinton fan, either of them. But you had better believe I voted for them in every general election.

Vote for whomever you really want to win in the primary.
But think twice before promoting the conspiracy theories and doctored videos spreading across the internet like widfire.
And if it comes down to it, vote for the lesser of two evils on election day.

I am very encouraged that while I am much less enthusiastic about some of the democratic candidates than others, there are really good ones, and there is not one I would not much rather have as our president than the toxic charlatan we have today.

Another Thumbs UP post

**Richard** · February-11-20, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by bust

Yeah, Pam's long gone. But her example is instructive.

She's a perfect example how someone whose ideology is

Why?

She supports the candidate that that she supports,it’s no different then the ones that do not support the current president,you are not going to change their minds.

Politics is politics it has not change in 2000 years and not likely to start now,it’s always been dog eat dog.

To say one would support anybody but the current one is probably not looking at the bigger picture and based on emotions.

People work with others everyday that they do not like or agree with but they still stick with accomplishing goals in the bigger picture.

Notice how the conspiracy theories are becoming reality.

**oladub** · February-11-20, 03:31 PM

"The Democratic contest, as of now, is now between Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders. That's a disaster for Democrats. The party can either nominate Bernie and go full socialist, or steal the nomination from Bernie and face some sort of real cataclysm at the convention in Milwaukee and beyond Milwaukee." -

Shouldn't Russia being supporting Bernie? Even I voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary to keep Hillary out. I wouldn't rule out Hillary showing up to save a deadlocked convention. It will be a stretch for Bernie supporters to endorse a billionaire worth $70B. "Power to the Oligarchs!" will replace "A chicken in every pot".

The Iowa caucus results have not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and the New Hampshire primary is upon us. When something looks too much like a coincidence, it often isn't a coincidence. That Buttigieg was a contributor to the company that made that app, that Buttigieg boldly announced that he was the winner before any results were in, that the Des Moines newspaper scuttled the results of its poll before the caucus and that the DNC changed its rules to let Bloomberg into the Iowa debate were coincidences. Bernie supporters would have betray their every instinct except hating Trump to let all of that slide. That isn't any more likely than Bloomberg and Steyer allowing AOC to control their portfolios.

**Jimaz** · February-11-20, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by bust

...

Voter suppression has been a key republican strategy for decades. Consider what Paul Weyrich said in 1980. He's a founder of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which eventually helped write voter suppression legislation that spread like a cancer across the country... "I don't want everybody to vote. Our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Voter suppression comes in many forms. Legislation to make it harder to vote is just part of it....

Maybe that house of cards is finally starting to topple. We can hope.

DetroitYES Forums » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » Voter Purge Lawsuit Forces Gov. Kemp To Expose Purge List [[w/Greg Palast)

Federal Judge Eleanor Ross has declared Gov. Brian Kemp the loser in a lawsuit brought by investigative journalist Greg Palast to compel the State of Georgia to open up its complete files on the mass purge of over half a million voters from the rolls....

**Pam** · February-12-20, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by bust

Yeah, Pam's long gone. But her example is instructive.

She's a perfect example how someone absolutely opposed to Trump can be remote controlled to unwittingly suppress the democratic vote and help him win election. She does nothing here except share conspiracy theories, doctored videos, and other propaganda -- and never against a republican, always against a democrat who would be a much better choice.

Voter suppression has been a key republican strategy for decades. Consider what Paul Weyrich said in 1980. He's a founder of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which eventually helped write voter suppression legislation that spread like a cancer across the country... "I don't want everybody to vote. Our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Voter suppression comes in many forms. Legislation to make it harder to vote is just part of it. One of the most effective strategies, widely used at least since the 2016 election, is to turn likely democratic voters against each other, or to convince them their vote doesn't matter, so if their favored candidate doesn't win they stay home on election day, cast a "protest vote", or leave the presidential portion of their ballot blank. Over 80,000 Michigan voters left it blank in 2016, and Trump won the state by just over 10,000 votes.

Pam takes it much further, and loudly encourages everyone to do the same.

It's time to wise up, grow up, and defeat the real menace to our society -- even if it means voting for someone who isn't exactly what we want.

I was never a Clinton fan, either of them. But you had better believe I voted for them in every general election.

Vote for whomever you really want to win in the primary.
But think twice before promoting the conspiracy theories and doctored videos spreading across the internet like widfire.
And if it comes down to it, vote for the lesser of two evils on election day.

I'm very encouraged this time around there are some really good democratic candidates. There is not one I would not much rather have as our president than the toxic charlatan we have today.

What are you talking about? "remote controlled" WTF does that mean?

What "doctored video" have I posted? I am a Bernie supporter. The media and the DNC are against him. I post stuff that points that out. If you don't care about that, put me on ignore. I've been on this site way longer than you. I don't like your insinuation that I am some kind of troll.

**Pam** · February-12-20, 03:36 PM

Here's a video for you Bust. It's not doctored though it is on You Tube. Is that ok? It's Krystal Ball, she used to be on MSNBC so maybe you will feel she is acceptable.

Krystal Ball dismantles media's outrageous coverage of Bernie's win

https://youtu.be/Ra_uS0mg8Wc

**Pam** · February-12-20, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by jcole

Another Thumbs UP post

Forgot to add, gee thanks for giving a thumbs up to someone insulting me. I don't have a beef with you. You have been here long enough to remember when we had actual trolls like Karl etc.