Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[Santander]

Ohohohoho

https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1227765248108748801

I love Krystal Ball.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

[atheist4thecause]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

[Tartarus Sauce]

While I think Sanders has a decent chance of winning a plurality of delegates, I'm not optimistic about his chances of winning a majority. It seems like there's a considerable number of Democrats who have bought into Republican talking points like "socialism bad", "free stuff bad", "too left unelectable", and would vote for literally any Democratic candidate to stop Sanders from getting the nomination. Hell, if Ted Cruz ran as a Democrat, they'd back him over Sanders for the nomination, since at least he's not an "unelectable" old socialist or named Trump. A lot of Democrats still personally blame Sanders for Trump winning, and a lot would go to great lengths to prevent him from getting the nomination, including picking someone else at the convention even if Sanders wins the most delegates, pretty much handing the election to Trump on a silver platter, since they're so "sure" that Sanders would lose like McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis.

Now, part of the problem is that Sanders isn't turning out all of his supporters from 2016, and that's bad for him in the primary as well as the general, but I'm really not sure what he can do to expand his base, since to appeal to some Democrats, he'd have to abandon everything his movement is about, and even then, many would still refuse to back him, since it's "his fault" Clinton lost, and he's still "not a Democrat." Man, Democrats really should've nominated him in 2016.

As somebody straddling the Democratic divide between the progressive and non-progressive wing, I can say that this portrait you're painting of establishment and more moderately inclined Democrats is an inaccurate one. While many may wish to vote for anybody other than Sanders in the primary, and are concerned about his electability in the general (whether those concerns are justifiable is another debate entirely), they hate Donald Trump way more than they hate Bernie Sanders. If Bernie Sanders enters the convention with a clear and convincing lead in delegates, he wins the nomination. The party organization will acquiesce and rally behind him.

I recognize that's a difficult concept for a lot of progressives to give credence too, but the establishment really wants to beat Donald Trump, and that means rallying behind whomever wins. If it's Sanders, then so be it, they're not going to pull the rug out from under him if he marches into the convention as the undisputed leader. They are not going to commit political suicide.

[adamevans]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

This is really poor analysis. They "accepted" the results because it's not like they could just "decline" them. It's not their job to object to it. I imagine if the candidates decided the rules, considering most support a direct national popular vote system, it would have been purely based on who won the most votes.

[Xing]

While I think Sanders has a decent chance of winning a plurality of delegates, I'm not optimistic about his chances of winning a majority. It seems like there's a considerable number of Democrats who have bought into Republican talking points like "socialism bad", "free stuff bad", "too left unelectable", and would vote for literally any Democratic candidate to stop Sanders from getting the nomination. Hell, if Ted Cruz ran as a Democrat, they'd back him over Sanders for the nomination, since at least he's not an "unelectable" old socialist or named Trump. A lot of Democrats still personally blame Sanders for Trump winning, and a lot would go to great lengths to prevent him from getting the nomination, including picking someone else at the convention even if Sanders wins the most delegates, pretty much handing the election to Trump on a silver platter, since they're so "sure" that Sanders would lose like McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis.

Now, part of the problem is that Sanders isn't turning out all of his supporters from 2016, and that's bad for him in the primary as well as the general, but I'm really not sure what he can do to expand his base, since to appeal to some Democrats, he'd have to abandon everything his movement is about, and even then, many would still refuse to back him, since it's "his fault" Clinton lost, and he's still "not a Democrat." Man, Democrats really should've nominated him in 2016.

As somebody straddling the Democratic divide between the progressive and non-progressive wing, I can say that this portrait you're painting of establishment and more moderately inclined Democrats is an inaccurate one. While many may wish to vote for anybody other than Sanders in the primary, and are concerned about his electability in the general (whether those concerns are justifiable is another debate entirely), they hate Donald Trump way more than they hate Bernie Sanders. If Bernie Sanders enters the convention with a clear and convincing lead in delegates, he wins the nomination. The party organization will acquiesce and rally behind him.

I recognize that's a difficult concept for a lot of progressives to give credence too, but the establishment really wants to beat Donald Trump, and that means rallying behind whomever wins. If it's Sanders, then so be it, they're not going to pull the rug out from under him if he marches into the convention as the undisputed leader. They are not going to commit political suicide.

My point isn’t that everyone who doesn’t currently support Sanders hates him. I know that there are some Democrats who don’t have a specific issue with Sanders, and simply prefer another candidate. That’s fine. I also don’t doubt that many who do dislike Sanders would vote for him over Trump if it came to that, but I do think that there are a significant amount who would be fine giving the nomination to someone else even if Sanders gets a plurality of delegates, to avoid having to vote for him over Trump, perhaps because they’re convinced that even giving another candidate the nomination is more likely to result in Trump losing than Sanders being the nominee, who some see as destined to lose to him. If you’re one of the Democrats who prefers another candidate without making everything about opposing Sanders, then my post doesn’t apply to you.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/PatrickAKarlson/status/1227792891872858113

“Sanders was honored to have been endorsed for the Democratic nomination by seven black members of the South Carolina legislature, he announced in a tweet.”

“...two of the lawmakers had collected a combined total of almost $150,000 Sanders’s campaign, according to records.”

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

https://twitter.com/PatrickAKarlson/status/1227792891872858113

“Sanders was honored to have been endorsed for the Democratic nomination by seven black members of the South Carolina legislature, he announced in a tweet.”

“...two of the lawmakers had collected a combined total of almost $150,000 Sanders’s campaign, according to records.”

You know you can just come out and say the racist thing you want to say instead of imply it

[GoTfan]

https://twitter.com/PatrickAKarlson/status/1227792891872858113

“Sanders was honored to have been endorsed for the Democratic nomination by seven black members of the South Carolina legislature, he announced in a tweet.”

“...two of the lawmakers had collected a combined total of almost $150,000 Sanders’s campaign, according to records.”

Buttigieg: Multiple conflicts of interest

"Get over it Bernie Bros"

Sanders: Endorsed by minorities

"Wait that's illegal"

[atheist4thecause]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

This is really poor analysis. They "accepted" the results because it's not like they could just "decline" them. It's not their job to object to it. I imagine if the candidates decided the rules, considering most support a direct national popular vote system, it would have been purely based on who won the most votes.

Sanders and his campaign had lots of influence over rule changes from 2016. He more than most candidates can't complain. And to his credit, he doesn't complain about the rules (at least that I've heard).

[atheist4thecause]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

As a voter in Wisconsin, maybe you should contact Iowans and convince them to change their system. Or if you want, consider Iowa's popular vote and vote with that. I don't know why you would do that but you can if you want to. Your interests aren't particularly relevant to the discussion, though.

[atheist4thecause]

I see a lot of people doing the "if you combine the moderate vote, it's way more than Sanders!" thing, which reveals a very superficial understanding of the average American voter. Most people aren't taking political compass tests to firmly establish their ideological position that applies to every issue. Frankly, many people call themselves "moderate" because it sounds nice/reasonable rather than necessarily having moderate beliefs on many issues.

And then there's the simple fact that people are more likely to vote based on personality or personal appeal of a candidate rather than specific policy planks. Thats why, for instance, Bernie Sanders is the second choice of many Biden voters. People aren't sifting through policy papers.

Bold: That's a coastal thing. In the Midwest, people vote mostly based on policy. "Personal appeal" doesn't mean anything because if I vote based on policy and I like Amy Klobuchar's policies the best, then I'll say she has the best personal appeal to me. But if I think she has the best personality and I want to vote on personality, I'll also say she has the best personal appeal to me. It's an all-encompassing term, therefore, it is a term with no meaning.

[GeneralMacArthur]

This is exactly the kind of corruption by favor-trading that Sanders routinely criticizes. What on earth would make pointing that out an act of racism?

For some reason this is the talking point coming out of the Sanders+Steyer SC operation.

Accusing everybody else of corruption with no evidence is A-OK.  But if you accuse a black person of corruption, it's racist, even if there's pretty solid evidence they were bribed for their endorsement.

I've never actually heard a black person express this sentiment, not counting the guy who was, in fact, bribed to endorse Steyer and got called out by Biden's team.

Someone should ask Joe Rogan whether this is racist.  After all, Sanders thinks he's a valuable voice and key endorsement.

[catographer]

White college educated voters, especially the Twitterati, love calling everyone they don't like racist, sexist, corrupt, etc. Get outside of the bubble, meet people in the real world.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

As a voter in Wisconsin, maybe you should contact Iowans and convince them to change their system. Or if you want, consider Iowa's popular vote and vote with that. I don't know why you would do that but you can if you want to. Your interests aren't particularly relevant to the discussion, though.

In a primary, of course I am interested in how people in other states are voting. It helps me determine who is a viable candidate and who is not (Yang was my first choice but alas). And since in most states the winner is the person who gets the most votes, I am most interested in that metric. I suspect Iowans feel the same way, and wouldn't have known otherwise before 2020 since all they used to release was the SDE numbers.

[Florida Man for Crime]

In the Midwest, people vote mostly based on policy.

That is wildly incorrect. Try talking to some voters some time.

http://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/

[atheist4thecause]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

As a voter in Wisconsin, maybe you should contact Iowans and convince them to change their system. Or if you want, consider Iowa's popular vote and vote with that. I don't know why you would do that but you can if you want to. Your interests aren't particularly relevant to the discussion, though.

In a primary, of course I am interested in how people in other states are voting. It helps me determine who is a viable candidate and who is not (Yang was my first choice but alas). And since in most states the winner is the person who gets the most votes, I am most interested in that metric. I suspect Iowans feel the same way, and wouldn't have known otherwise before 2020 since all they used to release was the SDE numbers.

Are you new to watching elections or something? It has been known for decades that the candidate that gets the most delegates may lose the popular vote. I'm shocked if you think this is just coming to the forefront.

[Sbane]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

More people in Iowa voted for Bernie than Pete. That is a fact.

That's also because Bernie tends to run it up in population centers and Buttigieg tends to get support from all over the state. The delegate objection is like when Democrats object to Republicans winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote. If the race was just for the popular vote then candidates would campaign differently. So it makes sense for Sanders to point out that he got the popular vote, but it's not exactly unfair and every candidate knew (and accepted) the rules going in.

As a voter in Texas, I am more interested in how the people of Iowa voted, not in how many SDE each candidate got.

As a voter in Wisconsin, maybe you should contact Iowans and convince them to change their system. Or if you want, consider Iowa's popular vote and vote with that. I don't know why you would do that but you can if you want to. Your interests aren't particularly relevant to the discussion, though.

In a primary, of course I am interested in how people in other states are voting. It helps me determine who is a viable candidate and who is not (Yang was my first choice but alas). And since in most states the winner is the person who gets the most votes, I am most interested in that metric. I suspect Iowans feel the same way, and wouldn't have known otherwise before 2020 since all they used to release was the SDE numbers.

Are you new to watching elections or something? It has been known for decades that the candidate that gets the most delegates may lose the popular vote. I'm shocked if you think this is just coming to the forefront.

That can happen, but usually due to the difference in candidate preference in a caucus vs a primary.

[atheist4thecause]

In the Midwest, people vote mostly based on policy.

That is wildly incorrect. Try talking to some voters some time.

http://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/

Your response is humorous for many reasons:
1) You claim what I said is "wildly incorrect" but then don't say why. You just post a link.
2) The link you posted is of Chris Hayes, not exactly a formidable source. That doesn't discount what is said alone, but raises suspicion.
3) The blog is from 2004.
4) The blog post is talking about a specific group of voters, not a broad base of voters.
5) The blog post itself declares it's claims "highly anecdotal".

Do I need to go on? You literally couldn't have posted something worse. Now more specifically about the claims:
A) Rationality is an interesting term to bring up. I'm not sure it's all that useful to label people as rational or irrational. Rationality would be more based on a specific issue. Of course, people are open to manipulation, but even then there isn't much difference between manipulation and education. It's basically how you spin things. If someone says putting troops in Afghanistan makes us safer to fight terrorists for X, Y, and Z reasons, Progressives might call that manipulation and Liberals might call that education.
B) The example of whether Cheney could get us off foreign oil and whether the rational was sound or not is completely subjective. Basically, Chris Hayes is assuming the guy's logic is an incorrect way of thinking, but that's not necessarily so. This is a policy disagreement. Imagine if I assumed I was the correct one and everybody else was irrational every time I disagreed with someone.
C) On the stem cell issue, yes, sometimes people can be wrong. There are things like false memories. But the important point here is not whether Bush supported stem cell research or not, it's that the logic was a policy issue. She didn't switch to Bush because she liked him as a person, she switched to Bush because of what she thought his policy was.
D) Chris (no surprise here) is thinking about undecided voters completely wrong. Undecided voters are voters that have not decided. They can be extremely political or mostly apolitical. He's talking about apolitical voters it seems, which most people refer to as the "Silent Majority". These are people who don't follow politics much until election time, then they inform themselves, and then they go vote. They don't talk about politics in their daily lives, they go to work, enjoy life with their families, do their hobbies, raise families, etc. We should never expect undecided voters and the Silent Majority to be equivalent groups.
E) The crypto-racist argument is the height of stupidity. There's a lot of wrong in his argument as well. First of all, almost nobody is an isolationist. An isolationist is someone who wants no military engagement, but also no economic activity around the world. They want nothing to do with the rest of the world and they want the rest of the world to leave them alone. That philosophy is dead. There are a bunch of non-interventionists, people who believe we should be trading around the world but don't want to be involved militarily.

None of the comments Chris mentioned even mentioned race as well. One mentioned Arabs, but it wasn't particularly prejudiced. He was talking about how you can't just force democracy upon a population that isn't ready for it. The DoJ under President Obama agreed with this policy. The other person brought up the power vacuum, and that's commonly talked about on MSNBC by Chris Hayes today. Is he a crypto-racist now?
F) Chris does bring up undecided voters later as a subcategory. When he is talking about how people can't mention political issues, he says it's not semantics but then explains clearly how it was about semantics. They had a different definition of what was political. They weren't considering rising costs of health care to be political, he was. It could easily be argued that rising costs of health care is a symptom of politics, but is not actually politics itself. Either way, it doesn't matter if you call rising cost of health care and other issues political or not, they are still talking about the issues.

I could go on, but I think I got across the stupidity of the blog post, and how it doesn't prove your point at all. I pointed out many ways in which your own blog post makes the point that in fact the anecdotal evidence did show people were focusing on the issues.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

On the surface it may seem solid to Sanders supporters he won in NH right? Except that this 'win' will be short-lived. Buttigieg leads the overall delegate count after the first two states have cast votes. I distinctly remember many Sanders supporters telling me after the 2016 general election that Sanders will easily win those states in 2020. Yeah, okay.  Dems need to be prepared for a long drawn-out primary season in 2020. If Bernie can just barely 'win' in NH over Pete, (and with Pete and Amy's centrist voters---far eclipsing Bernie) he has a VERY TOUGH road ahead. Yesterday morning (pre NH) Sanders was listed here https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ as having a 45% chance of winning more than half of pledged delegates and no one was at 25%. This morning (post NH) Sanders is at 38% and no one is 33%. So post NH there is now a one in three chance that Dems will have a contested convention in mid-July, and won't be able to coalesce behind a single candidate until it's likely too late. Another potential issue in this situation, imagine whichever Dem has a plurality of delegates going into the convention, but not enough outright to win the nomination, goes into the convention and then Superdelegates select someone else to be the party nominee (SD's get to vote on the 2nd ballot and beyond) Yeah, just imagine that cluster. A contested convention is a very real and likely possibility. It would likely be a terrible attempt to unite the party.

https://twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1227440442549112832

Pete won Iowa

Bernie got more votes at final alignment. I don't give two sh**ts about Iowa's SDE's. about who actually won the Iowa Caucus.  Hopefully they get stripped of all delegates after that sh**tshow. because I don't like the person who won.

FTFY

“I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-@$5 decision, I've elected to ignore it.”

[Meclazine for Israel]

(The West Australian)

Bernie needs to cut down Mayor Pete as soon as possible. Otherwise, 2016 will repeat itself.

[Adam Griffin]

(The West Australian)

Bernie needs to cut down Mayor Pete as soon as possible. Otherwise, 2016 will repeat itself.

Pete and Klobie aren't the current enemies. It's Bloomberg. Basically all of Biden's name-rec voters are shifting to him and that poses a bigger problem than either of those 2 bland Midwestern whiteys who have no black, Latino or Asian support; rich old whites are notorious at rendering themselves irrelevant through vote splitting. If Bernie can keep the "moderate" vote divided enough through Super Tuesday, he is likely in the clear - but to do so, Bloomberg has to be neutralized as much as possible in the ST contests. Unlike in 2016, frontloading the South in this primary actually works in Bernie's favor this time given his radical shift in supporter base - but Bloomberg can't be allowed to buy the election.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Bernie should be biting his nails. He lost Iowa to a gay mayor who no one had even heard about a year ago. He came shockingly close to losing NH to said Mayor had it not been for Amy Klobuchar who managed to hold Buttiegeg off enough. Let's be real Bernie didn't win NH as much as he should have. Now he has to face off in NV and SC where the enviorment is more friendly to Biden. And if he does make it past, a man named Mike Bloomberg will be waiting for him on Super Tuesday.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Bernie should be biting his nails. He lost Iowa to a gay mayor who no one had even heard about a year ago. He came shockingly close to losing NH to said Mayor had it not been for Amy Klobuchar who managed to hold Buttiegeg off enough. Let's be real Bernie didn't win NH as much as he should have. Now he has to face off in NV and SC where the enviorment is more friendly to Biden. And if he does make it past, a man named Mike Bloomberg will be waiting for him on Super Tuesday.

While Bernie should certainly be worried, his base doesn't seem to be cracking. The Biden/Klobuchar/Buttigieg trio, however, should be dreading getting the hook from him next month