I am a tad confused here.

[sheshe2]

How did a relatively unknown candidate, Mayor Pete win Iowa and then NH? Sanders barely squeaked by.

Long time ago, another place in time, we were told BS was not doing well because, "name recognition"! He now has been campaigning relentlessly for the past five years. I am told on DU that he is the most popular politician in the world. Yes, the world, not making that up. Seventy % of America adores him!

So my question to his supports, why in two very white states is he not doing better when a relative unknown with no name recognition is kicking ass?

Mayor Pete is not my choice at this time, however I see great things in his future.

Side note, read the other day he was sick. Be well Pete, you will be back on the trail soon. Warren herself could barely speak, laryngitis, for a week. I have no clue how any of you have the stamina for such a grueling race.

Good luck all in SC and on Super Tuesday.

I will be voting Tuesday!!!!

[mcar]

1. Bernie has been running for 3 years

and loses to a small city mayor? Interesting.

[sheshe2]

8. It is, isn't it.

Perhaps some want some fresh ideas and a different approach.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

2. I'm glad you're voting!

Can't wait for my turn

[Bev54]

3. Not sure who you have been talking to

but he has barely over 30% popularity in the dem primary so he is nowhere close to 70%

[sheshe2]

9. Go read in DP forum.

[highplainsdem]

14. I think that's his net favorability, and other candidates are just about as high. The ONLY possible

reason I can think of that Sanders might be a smidgeon higher on net favorability is that a lot of his supporters simply don't look favorably on the Democratic Party and the possibility of anyone else being the nominee. They're Bernie-or-Busters. And those people would drive up the unfavorable ratings for the other candidates when they're polled.

[TwilightZone]

15. Some Sanders supporters are using "popularity among Democrats" data to claim 70% support him.

It's a bit disingenuous and doesn't represent what's happening in the primary.

[sheshe2]

24. You are correct...

and I will not name names.

[redstateblues]

28. I'm sure he will be posting a divisive, outboard motor in a cesspool post any minute

[sheshe2]

37. 3...2..1

[CrawlingChaos]

4. Mayor Pete is getting a big push from people with money and power

Bernie is swimming upstream against all that, and still winning.

But you already knew that.

[sheshe2]

13. Umhm.

Lol.

Follow Our Revolution. It is enlightening.

$

[highplainsdem]

16. Sanders has only a fraction of the support he had four years ago, even in NH, his backyard.

But you already knew that.

And he has only a fraction of the support after all the years of additional campaigning.

[showblue22]

27. Bernie spent 50 million in Iowa.

[IndianaDave]

34. Sorry, Crawling, but someone is giving you distorted info about Pete.

I'm a retired teacher living on a very small pension and Social Security. I have -- since March of last year -- consistently contributed small to moderate amounts to Pete, and even put some donations on a credit card to support Pete. I have contributed over $1,000 over that year in increments of $3 to $25, and a couple larger donations from my credit card.

PLEASE NOTE -- The wealthy people who have contributed to Pete constitute .16 (that's SIXTEEN TENTHS of ONE PERCENT) of his donations. And those wealthy people are limited to total contributions of $2,800 -- just like me and all the other 99.84 percent of ordinary contributors to Pete. Pete is neither corrupt nor indebted to his wealthy contributors. Any more than he's indebted to me.

I'm perfectly comfortable that you are committed to Bernie Sanders, but please base your arguments on facts, rather than talking points or distorted and misleading information. -- Thanks -- Dave

[leftieNanner]

5. Very good questions she.

This whole thing has me flummoxed! I've decided to stay undecided at this point (Elizabeth), although I do have a favorite (Elizabeth). It's not Bernie, BTW (Elizabeth).

Tomorrow and Tuesday will be very interesting indeed.

Sadly, Oregon doesn't vote until May, so my choices will likely be very limited (Elizabeth).

[sheshe2]

19. Hey you.

I am for Elizabeth.

I want to see SC before I vote.....and no it will not be Sanders. I just want to win this thing.

S**t is falling all around us right now and we need to get trump out of office along with his toadies. Coronavirus is a hoax!!!!!?????????????//

[Progressive2020]

6. Umm...

Mayor Pete did not win New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders did. And as far as squeaking by- that is what Pete did in Iowa. He won by a tenth of one percent, and Sanders had more votes there. Then Sanders won Nevada decisively. Maybe you are a tad confused?

[TwilightZone]

10. "...NH? Sanders barely squeaked by."

Looking at the statement in context, the OP noted that Sanders won.

[Progressive2020]

18. Nope

Quote from the OP:

"How did a relatively unknown candidate, Mayor Pete win Iowa and then NH?"

It is a pretty clear English sentence. It said that Mayor Pete won in Iowa and then NH.

That is simply incorrect. Bernie won New Hampshire, and then had a decisive win in Nevada.

[TwilightZone]

20. No, you left out the context that clarifies the statement.

"How did a relatively unknown candidate, Mayor Pete win Iowa and then NH? Sanders barely squeaked by."

You can't just ignore the sentence at the end. It clearly refers back to NH. What else could it mean? Seems obvious.

Look at it from a conversational standpoint, with slightly different punctuation.

How did a relatively unknown candidate, Mayor Pete win Iowa...and then NH? Sanders barely squeaked by.

The first part, before the ellipsis, is the first statement. The second part, after the ellipsis, is the second statement. The last sentence clearly refers back to NH.

The punctuation makes it a bit confusing, but reading it in context makes what it's saying obvious.

[rzemanfl]

29. Always read profiles. It'll save keystrokes.

[sheshe2]

25. That is what happenes when you cherry pick a quote.

I said:

How did a relatively unknown candidate, Mayor Pete win Iowa and then NH? Sanders barely squeaked by.

I repeat:

NH? Sanders barely squeaked by.

Read it again then you can apologize for calling me confused and misquoting me.

[nsd]

47. Well, actually ...

Your phrasing was confusing. I also read it like you thought Pete had won both IA and NH. Progressive2020 doesn't owe you an apology and they didn't misquote you. Honest and reasonable misunderstanding.

[Progressive2020]

51. Thanks

The sentence in question was poorly formulated.

[NYMinute]

60. Sentences are not "formulated"

Perhaps you mean "formatted"

Chemical and pharmaceutical products are "formulated" -- i.e. they follow a formula.

[melman]

64. lol what?

The key words are "lol what"

[Progressive2020]

65. Wrong

"Formulated" (definition)- "create or devise methodically (a strategy or proposal)" -or- "express (an idea) in a concise or systematic way".

Google "formulated definition" and you will get the above. So the original post in question was poorly devised or poorly expressed. It was poorly formulated. The word was used correctly.

[NYMinute]

69. No, no and no.

[Progressive2020]

72. Contradiction

Contradiction is not an argument. You have not responded to the fact that you did not understand the definition of the word "formulated". So you have no counter-argument.

[Progressive2020]

67. Also

Sentences in English DO have formulas- typically Subject-Verb-Object. It is pretty basic English grammar, and if it is not followed, statements and arguments become unclear. That was my point about the OP- the sentence structure was unclear and poorly devised. It implied that Mayor Pete won both Iowa and New Hampshire. I understand now that was not what the OP meant, but that is what it looked like from the poorly stated sentence in the beginning. If you can't write clear, basic English, you can not have a proper discussion and be understood. So I am sorry, but that is the case here.

[NYMinute]

70. Nice face-saving try

bravo

[Progressive2020]

73. No Need

No need to save face when I am right and you are wrong. Your positions and arguments are weak. In some cases you have no argument at all, just repeating "no"over and over. Childish and weak.

[George II]

63. Buttigied DID win both Iowa and New Hampshire:

Delegate counts:

Iowa Buttigieg 13, Sanders 12
NH Buttigieg 9, Sanders 9

How is that not winning both?

[Progressive2020]

48. Bad English

Your language is unclear and poorly formulated. If you have to analyze your poor sentence structure to explain your point, you might want to reconsider your initial statement. Try simple English maybe. Sorry.

[sheshe2]

53. Wow.

Anything else you care to throw at me tonight?

I didn't have to analyze anything I wrote, you misread it.

Thanks so much for berating me.

[Progressive2020]

54. Unclear

Listen, your first post was unclear, misleading, and poorly written. It is not my responsibility to decipher a badly written post. It is not a misunderstanding or poor reading on my part. It was an incoherent and poorly written post. Sorry again. Have a good night anyway.

[NYMinute]

61. See post #60

[Progressive2020]

66. See Post #65

[NYMinute]

71. See post No. 69

[sheshe2]

21. Read my post again.

I said BS squeaked by in NH!

Read again before insulting me.

[Progressive2020]

52. I Did

I re-read the post. It was poorly written and not clear as a result. Sorry.

[Celerity]

26. No, they tied in NH delegate-wise, which is the only metric that counts, and Pete beat BS in IA

in terms of delegates.

[Progressive2020]

74. Not A Strong Position

It is not a strong position. Pete and Bernie were neck and neck in Iowa and close in New Hampshire. Nevada was a decisive Sanders win. The argument will probably be moot on Wednesday morning. Super Tuesday will be a contest between Bernie and Biden, with Bloomberg as a possible wild card. Pete will likely lead the also-rans, followed by Warren and Klobuchar.

[Celerity]

75. I am sure all but Biden and Sanders (and maybe Bloomberg, unfortunately) will be gone after ST

If they all do poorly they all need to drop out and endorse Biden, especially Warren, and Bloomberg (if he drops out, he also needs to back Joe with half a billion of adverts buys.)

We all must come together and get Biden to over 1990 for a first ballot so Sanders cannot sabotage the party with a divided convention.

[Progressive2020]

76. Maybe

We will see what happens. Super Tuesday is going to be interesting, and things will probably clearer on Wednesday morning.

[TwilightZone]

7. He underperformed in IA and NH.

Going in, he should have won IA pretty easily and steamrolled in NH. Neither happened.

That's probably the most underreported story of the campaign. His win in NV was larger, but also pretty much as expected.

The Sanders campaign essentially created a "surge" where none existed, and the fabricated surge did what they wanted it to do. They convinced the media and a lot of voters that it was real.

[PatSeg]

11. In Bernie's case

I think name recognition is both a positive and a negative. He has some loyal supporters, plus some new voters, but many people who have known him for a long time, aren't terribly impressed anymore. I've listened to Bernie for twenty years and not much has changed, except for my perception of him.

[sheshe2]

22. +1000

[thesquanderer]

12. re: "why is BS not doing better when a relative unknown with no name recognition is kicking ass?"

I think that Buttigieg had a really strong strategy and ground game in those states. IOW, he may be a "relative unknown" compared to Sanders on the national stage, but I suspect he was very well known in those states by the time those states held their contests.

The thing about name recognition that I think people miss is that it's not really that name recognition gets you votes, but more that it's that LACK of name recognition PREVENTS people from voting for you (pretty much nobody votes for someone they haven't heard of), so that in turn benefits the people they've heard of.

[Kurt V.]

17. he's like the shiny object. Honestly i think his only future in politics is as

a lobbyist. Perhaps a powerful one even.

[BluesRunTheGame]

23. Currently, Bernie has 45 delegates. Pete has 25.

Bernie will likely continue to pick up delegates at a rapid clip. Pete will probably get a few more.

[rzemanfl]

31. I am reading what I always read. n/t

[showblue22]

30. For the amount of money Bernie spent, 50 million...

One would think he should have done better.

[TTUBatfan2008]

32. Better question for you...

Why didn't Joe Biden do better in those states? VP to an extremely popular President. Household name to say the least. He's got a chance to build some good momentum in South Carolina, but those early states were a terrible start considering his background and popularity within the Democratic Party voting base.

[sheshe2]

35. Whatabout?

You want to post an Op about Biden, please proceed.

My OP was about Pete and Bernie.

[TTUBatfan2008]

38. Guess I just don't understand the point of it.

Biden (and Pete) are both really strong evidence that you can't necessarily read much into those early results.

[left-of-center2012]

33. "Seventy % of America adores him (Sanders)!"

Seriously?

no. just no.

[sheshe2]

36. Some sayin' it. nt

[Moderateguy]

45. Yes and according to one Bernie supporter on here

With Sanders as the candidate Indiana would be in play (the state that elected dumbass Pence as governor)

[radical noodle]

58. LOL!

I don't know who thinks that but I hope they didn't bet any big money on it.

[AngelicaHora]

39. Buttigieg is simply a very good and compelling candidate

He spent a lot of time and campaign funds getting his message out in Iowa and New Hampshire and people responded to that. He's the only candidate other than Sanders (and Warren for some time) who can turn out crowds and show grassroots excitement. So just being known well in those states positioned him to do well. Head-to-head polls in these states also show him as the strongest candidate against Trump.

As a new face on the scene, he needed the momentum from winning these states in order to get media attention, a financial injection, and to propel his national campaign to the next level. But after Iowa we only heard about the app, and after New Hampshire all the attention went to Klobuchar (who finished quite some distance behind him) and Bloomberg (who hasn't even been on any ballot yet). Now there's no way for him to compete as strongly in the other states.

So it's not that Sanders was weak in IA and NH. It's just that the candidate best positioned to beat him only had the resources to compete in those two states.

[sheshe2]

41. Why did BS have to drop 50 million in Iowa of all places?

[NYMinute]

40. lol

You take away the free tuition and college debt forgiveness vote and Sanders can barely reach 10%

[sheshe2]

42. ;)

[bucolic_frolic]

43. I think Mayor Pete has tapped into a Tolerance Coalition

People who are not uptight about much of anything and like the positive intelligent message.

[radical noodle]

59. Or perhaps, like me,

they are tired of yelling and chaos and want someone measured and calm. It's a plus that he can speak in full sentences above third-grade level.

[Drunken Irishman]

44. Someone alerted on this thread...

For the life of me I not know why.

[sheshe2]

49. OMG.

[NJCher]

55. I would guess

It just seems like more Bernie bashing.

I don't see the question as being interesting, revealing, or significant in any way. Don't even know why I read to the bottom of the thread.

[jamezwithaz]

46. Trump has more black support than Pete.

"Today is the last day we can pretend Pete is a viable candidate, so why not get a bit of disingenuous thinly-veiled Bernie bashing in."

Good luck to your candidate, lol.

[gordianot]

50. I remember wondering who is Jimmy Carter.

Living on the Arkansas border I was not impressed with Bill Clinton. In later years my opinion improved. Who ever makes it to 2020 they have my vote. Mayor Pete as a nominee or not has a bright future.

[7horses]

56. Well...

Pete spent a year trying to win Iowa. He lost the vote, while being given 2 more delegates than Sanders. Those came from certain districts in rural areas. Votes should count. The Iowa count was held for a week with Pete's name ahead of Sanders in the media(who have pushed a stop Bernie movement since the whole thing began), as winning in Iowa with only 62% of the vote counted. On to NH, where in 2016 Bernie carried an overwhelming % of the vote. This time he still wins NH against 10 others. Then on to Nevada, where he beat them all by more than double(Biden) or more for the rest. Pete is almost finished. SC will be a test in which Biden should win. But even if Sanders comes in second, he wins, because Super Tuesday is three days away and Sen. Sanders will carry many of those states and leave the others in the dust per delegate count.

[sheshe2]

57. Welp.

Sanders spent a whopping $50 million in the last three months of 2019 to set up his surge, at least $15 million more than any of Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg, the other main contenders in Iowa.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/01/bernie-sanders-fec-spending-110157

50 million to win a small white state. Mayor Pete was the actual winner. They are calling it a statistical tie.

[brooklynite]

62. Bernie isn't that popular...

He has his base of 30-35% and that's pretty much it. He did as well as he did in 2016 because, as his supporters themselves point out, Clinton was the only other choice.

[fallout87]

68. You're worried about why bernie hasn't won more?

Hes running away with the nomination if you ask just about every person who understands momentum.