LOL! Sanders had to cherry-pick Iowa results to claims a "strong" 3% victory.

[highplainsdem]

That was with the first round voting.

Sanders was only 1% ahead in the second round.

And so far it's quite likely Buttigieg will still have won the most delegates.

And this is the best Sanders can do for a "strong" victory after his campaigning in Iowa 4 years ago, and after spending more than his rivals?

[DanTex]

1. Hmm, so now "getting more votes" is called "cherry-picking".

[TwilightZone]

4. First-round votes are meaningless.

It seems that people still have no clue how this caucus things works, including Sanders.

[DanTex]

7. First round votes measure top choice support.

Seems pretty meaningful to me, especially since in most states there are no second allocations.

[George II]

12. But Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar had more first round votes than second round votes....

....they're not claiming they did better than they did. Their "top choice support" is higher, but they accept the fact that the second one is the one that counts.

[krissey]

14. True that. So only one complains and changes the rules.

I tell you, all the difference between a Democrat and a different party. We do this differently, consistently. It is one of the many reason that make me proud to be a Democrat.

[Tiggeroshii]

28. That's because they didn't get the most votes.

If they got the most votes, I'm sure they would say that...

[George II]

29. Sanders is using a hybrid "vote count" - boasting about getting the most votes in the first round...

...where he did, then turning around and boasting that he got the most votes after the second round where he did.

No mention of places where he got the most votes in the first round then fell behind in the second round. He's using the best of both worlds.

[Tiggeroshii]

30. No. Hes saying the only metric that should matter are the actual votes.

And he is right. He made clear he would not claim victory off of SDEs

[IndyOp]

33. No candidate gets to set the standard by which victory is determined - that's up to the party.

The way Iowa is doing it sucks, just as the National Electoral College sucks. Once the rules are in place, all that candidates can do is do their best to win given the constraints of the rules.

[LonePirate]

10. You mean the type of meaningless that serves as a requirement to participate in subsequent rounds?

If Sanders did not have the necessary first round votes, his supporters would have fled to other candidates in the second round. How is that meaningless?

[George II]

13. It happened in a number of cases.

[TwilightZone]

21. Meaningless in regards to the end result.

Parading first-round numbers around as some kind of victory is silly. They're irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the number of delegates, which is based off the end result, not the first.

That's how a caucus works. No one gets credit in the end for first-round results. Declaring victory over them is either completely disingenuous or utterly ignorant of the process.

It was stupid for Dems to agree to publish them in the first place. It only added to the confusion.

[Cha]

25. Thank you!

[Voltaire2]

35. kind of like bragging about the popular vote count when it is the electoral votes that matter?

[TwilightZone]

2. Exactly as many predicted he'd do.

Those who said that he'd use the meaningless first-round numbers to declare victory should stand up and take a bow.

[Cha]

3. KR!

[Peacetrain]

5. His people walked out of caucus and did not bother to try and get anyone for 2nd ballot

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2020, 05:52 PM - Edit history (2)

Pete and Elizabeth's people were also viable, and they came in and talked to all the other candidates supporters and they got a bunch of 2nd vote picks.. it was weird

[TwilightZone]

9. It seems that people even within some campaigns still don't get how it works.

It's kind of mind-boggling. Even Sanders seems to have no clue that first-round votes mean nothing, though as I noted above, plenty of people predicted that he'd use them anyway to declare victory.

[Peacetrain]

36. The crazy thing is all the changes were made

were requested by the Sanders campaign from 2016

[Cha]

23. Wow.. thanks for that, Peacetrain.

[Peacetrain]

34. Strange night that is for sure Cha.. strange night

I have never been to a caucus like that before. Between you and me I would rather we primary.. but we have to deal with what we have.

[krissey]

6. Of course he did. While Buttigieg used hard numbers. We always see the difference with our Dems.

Just another reason I have a lifetime being with the Democratic party. There is also something up with Sanders strong showing in the satellites. I am waiting for more on that.

[DanTex]

8. Hard numbers, lol. Really?

By declaring victory twice before the counts were totaled?

[krissey]

11. Internal numbers gave him the right answer.

[DanTex]

17. Looks like they didn't. But those internal numbers aren't "hard" in any case.

[George II]

16. Sanders did the same. But that's okay?

[krissey]

18. And Sanders are using numbers that do not count to state his "win".

[George II]

19. He just sent out a fundraising email using the wrong numbers (4:13)!

[krissey]

20. Nope. See? Not what Democrats do. We do not play like this. I cannot respect it.

[Cha]

24. :(

[Tiggeroshii]

32. He is leading iowa by 6,000 votes or about 4% with 97%

Counted. He didnt declare victory while behind in the popular vote and only half the votes were counted. .

[ehrnst]

26. You know... hard numbers.

Like "a chunk."

[W_HAMILTON]

15. I'm just sooooo glad we had to rewrite the rules for Sanders.

It was really worth it to fuck up even more an already fucked up caucus system just so he could claim victory through a meaningless metric.

[krissey]

22. Yes. Exactly.

[ehrnst]

27. +1000.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. Funny how people who scream they want a primary don't want to count the actual votes.

Suddenly the arcane delegate math that gives the popular vote loser a supposed “win” is just hunky dory.


Sounds like sour grapes