Partial Iowa Caucus Results Announced

Approximately 2/3 (62%) of the Iowa Results were just released:

Poular vote

  • Sanders first place 28,200, 190 more than
  • Pete B. with 27, 030
  • Elizabeth, Biden, Klobuchar, Yang next

Percentage of state delegates among these 62% (41 total):

  • Pete, 26.9
  • Sanders, 25.1
  • Warren 18.3
  • Biden, 15.6
  • Klobuchar 12.6

It looks to me that Biden lost 2,000 popular votes from the first to second round because he didn't hit the 15% threshold, and those 2,000 votes went to the other candidates. Andrew Yang got 5,750 votes in the first round and 4,636 of those votes went to the other candidates.

Summary: Biden is the biggest loser in these first results. [More...]

Original Post:

Chair of the Party News Conference: Their number one priority is the accuracy of the results. They will report 62% of precincts from all 99 countys. No reply to question about when the rest will be released.

They know this reporting is accurate. They also have a paper trial. They worked from through the night. This was a coding error on one of the servers on the back end. But the data has always been secure.

The party chair says this is personal to him. He's a lifelong Iowan who has attended caucuses for 20 years.

He is taking questions.

Back to top for updates and results

< "Reporting Problems" Delay Iowa Results | Trump's SOTU >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I was channel surfing (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    and saw a couple of talking heads on different channels say with 40% of the vote still out it was too early to call the election.

    I still don't get how the whole mess works but is it possible that Sanders overtakes Buttigieg in the delegate count.  Not saying it will happen but seems too early to call it.  Also wondering about how long till the final results are in; the Iowa guy who is suppose to be in charge refused to answer questions about that.

    Also saw that Nevada has just said it will not be using the same software; but no indication of what software will be used.

    They should use what works. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 10:01:28 PM EST
    Pencil, paper and phone in the results.

    What is really shocking the Iowa system was untested.  25% of precinct captains were unable to load the app!  An early first phase of rollout testing should have been to see if all of the users could load and successfully operate the app and upload dummy data for candidates A, B, and C.  What a clown show.


    YES (for the first time I remember) (none / 0) (#23)
    by jmacWA on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 05:49:44 AM EST
    What is really shocking the Iowa system was untested.  25% of precinct captains were unable to load the app!

    This is what I saw too, and it is unconscionable.  This is what happens when IT is run by the marketing department.  Although, I guess now that some of the IT department has never worked at a time when software was supposed to work.  I doubt that the app was untested by the standards of the vendor... but it certainly wasn't tested up to the standards that I was held to during my early career which I followed to the end


    Another tip off is the $60k figure. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 10:13:44 AM EST
    That number is way too low to allow testing to ensure among the large user set.

    You have to make sure each of the hundreds of captains can load and Successfully operate the app. That will take a boatload hours.


    Naw (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 12:13:00 AM EST
    it's pretty much been called for Pete. Sanders lost Iowa after spending 5 years campaigning there. Every time more votes come in Pete seems to be gaining ground.

    Last I saw with 71% reporting (none / 0) (#22)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 02:25:04 AM EST
    Sanders had made a tiny gain of .1% closer to Buttigieg; still 500 precincts or 29% still not reporting yet.  Sanders had the lead in votes, Buttigieg the lead in SDEs; both had 10 delegates.

    A total of 24 delegates have been awarded out of the 41 Iowa gets to award.  The 41 is from memory; feel free to correct if you know better.


    That's not how you count (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 06:55:35 AM EST
    a win there though. It's in those percentages.Bernie's people showed up in the wrong places in Iowa. And he's been campaigning there for 5 years. He's pretty much toast at this point. And laughably he was the one that instated these idiotic rules on the Unity Commission.

    Iowa (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    was set up to allow everyone to claim they won; or at least did better than expected.

    It also plays into the fears of the Bernie Bros that the system is rigged against him.  In a normal primary the person with the most votes win.

    In Iowa if someone voted for a loser they were advised they could change their vote so they voted for a winner.  Then the actual votes use a crazy system to allocate SDEs.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    As for Sanders being toast you need a reality check.  he goes into NH as the big favorite in the polls with a double digit lead over the second place guy.

    But more importantly Sanders is in it for the duration.  Remember when he stayed in the race in 2016 even when it became clear he had no chance to catch up to Clinton.  What makes you think he won't do the same thing this time around.


    Remember (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 10:35:31 AM EST
    Bernie's supporters wants caucuses, so any claims of a rigged outcome is BS. Mayor Pete beat them at their own game.

    Bernie ran up his vote total in College precints, some of which were actually held on college campuses.

    I agree Bernie is in it to the bitter end.


    The Bernie Bros (none / 0) (#39)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 11:30:23 AM EST
    wanted the changes so the vote total, as opposed to the SDE total only, would be reported.

    Sanders won the vote total in both the first and final rounds; something Sanders and the Bernie Bros are not shy about shouting on the rooftops.

    Just like in 2016 (as Sanders claimed) it seems like the person with the most votes did not get the most SDEs; something everyone but Sanders and the Bernie Bros seem happy with.

    Like I posted earlier play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


    No one (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    Has won the vote total in Iowa yet.

    Agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    The thing is as the vote total has increased marginally the only real change I saw was that Sanders got a 0.1% improvement in his SDE position only to see it slide back to what it was before.

    While it will be interesting to see what happens when the almost 25% of the outstanding votes are used to allocate SDEs it may be more interesting to see how long it takes.

    It seems almost impossible for the Iowa dems to look worse than they did by failing to run an even halfway competent caucus; but the on going delays make them look even worse.  Hard for me to see how Iowa does not lose the first in the nation status unless they go to a straight up primary vote run by the state election commission.


    The Bernie Bros (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    screeched about the NY primary being "rigged" in 2016 because they had to register to party and they were too stupid or lazy to change their registration and Bernie lost there by a sizable margin.

    No, one one voted for a loser. How it works is if their candidate does not meet viability threshold they can move to another candidate. You are lying about changing their vote. What they do is move to another candidate. This is how these caucuses have always worked.

    Nobody doubts Sanders is in it for the duration. He can be the new Kucinich who goes to the convention with 50 delegates.

    Nope, Iowa was a must win for Bernie because he spent 5 years there campaigning and Pete beat him. Even if he wins NH, iffy, he has dropped 35 points in current polling from where he was 4 years ago. Bernie has not gotten more popular over the last four years, he has gotten less. I know you want to run the socialist vs. the sociopath but it isn't going to happen.  


    Reality check time (none / 0) (#45)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    Unless Warren wins in NH her supporters will start migrating to Sanders, it is easy to she him doubling his percentage once she drops out.

    Hard to see her doing well in NH and that may be the end.

    Not a good visual for Warren in Iowa.  Still working on my formatting.

    Pocahontas County
    100% reporting

    Candidate Total SDEs   % SDEs

    Pete Buttigieg   102   34.0%

    Joe Biden        66    22.0%

    Amy Klobuchar    66    22.0%

    Bernie Sanders   30    10.0%

    Elizabeth Warren 24    8.0%

    Andrew Yang      12    4.0%

    Reality check time (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by CST on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 07:16:20 PM EST
    As one of her supporters, if I were Bernie I wouldn't count on it.

    Where would you (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 08:04:06 PM EST
    go if Warren left the race? Do you know?

    I vote on Super Tuesday (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    So it's early enough where I probably won't go anywhere.  If she dropped out before that I'd either still vote for her so she has more power in at the convention or I would just stay home for the primary.

    I started with a top 5 and 4 of them are already gone.  I'm not going to settle any further until the general.  Maybe Amy if I thought she had a shot, she's the only other one that passes the fairly low "up to the job" bar.  But I don't really see a scenario where Warren is out and Amy still has a shot.


    Reality (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 07:56:23 PM EST
    check time. You have not been paying attention. Her supporters did not move to Bernie when Warren did not meet viability. In fact nobody moved to Bernie except maybe a few Yang supporters. You also do not realize how toxic Bernie has been, the fact that many Warren supporters were Hillary supporters and the fact that Bernie's campaign has been calling Warren a snake for a month now and one of the reasons why her supporters did not move to him in the caucus was because he called her a liar on national TV. I don't know where they would go if she dropped out but you can pretty much count on them not going to Bernie.

    Reality check (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 09:39:33 PM EST
    you cherry picked one county where she did bad there are plenty of counties where Sanders got squat.

    Looking at the (almost) final vote tally, Warren 20% Buttigieg 25, Bernie 26, that's not exactly a distant third as portrayed by the media. Not as good as they hoped 6 months ago but better than it looked 6 days ago.

    Warren's expectations are not that high in NH so a showing in the high teens will be be enough for her to continue, under 15 will be problematic.

    SC will probably be tough for her and who knows what is going to happen in the Nevada Caucuses, but I suspect she will hold her own there.


    Yeah, I wondered why he was focused on one (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 10:40:08 PM EST
    county. Then, it hit me...'Pocahontas County'.

    Ragebot is not really concerned about Bernie or Warren or the prospects of any other democratic candidate, he's just being a bit of a sh!t stirrer.


    You win the prize today (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 12:08:20 AM EST
    Until I started following the results in details I did not even realize there was a Pocahontas County; once I saw that name it was a no brainer.  As Lt Caffey said in "A Few Good Men"  'that was at least a little bit funny'.

    I still predict it will wind up being a Sanders v Bloomberg convention.  Both have a very different type of baggage.  Bloomberg seems to be burning hundred dollar bills at an unrealistic rate.  I read somewhere last time he was elected mayor he spent $US170 for every vote he got.  That winds being around twelve billion dollars or so to be prez.  While it is something he can afford I am not sure that is the way it models out.  A lot of things that play well in NYC are not really popular outside the city.  Bottom line is we have never seen an election with this type of spending.  Even after the 2016 election where Trump was greatly outspent and seemed to prove there is more to winning that drowning the voters in money.

    As for Sanders bashing Warren it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that everyone is bashing Sanders; both pubs and dems.  Yet he still is in the mix to win the first three contests.  He is still the favorite in NH and seems to be surging in NV.  By the time we get to SC Biden may well be on his last leg.


    What he (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 06:33:00 AM EST
    wants is a socialist vs. sociopath race for the president in November. Conservatives have been loud and proud about that fact for quite a while now. The GOP in SC has been organizing for Bernie in attempt to help him in SC not because they are going to vote for him in the general but because they want us to nominate him.

    They are now saying Sanders (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 07:19:46 AM EST
    Is looking like he wins in Iowa.  All of it.  We will apparently know soon.

    Common Dreams (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 07:39:53 AM EST
    A new batch of Iowa Democratic caucus results released in the early hours of Thursday morning showed Sen. Bernie Sanders almost completely wiping out Pete Buttigieg's narrow lead in state delegate equivalents while extending his popular vote lead over the former South Bend, Indiana mayor to more than 2,500 votes.

    With 97% of precincts reporting, Sanders trails Buttigieg by just three state delegate equivalents--550 to 547--or one-tenth of a percentage point. In the popular vote in the final alignment of the caucus, Sanders leads Buttigieg 44,753 to 42,235.

    After projecting late Wednesday that Buttigieg would "very likely" emerge victorious from the Iowa debacle, the New York Times drastically changed its prediction following the latest results, giving Sanders a 54% probability of winning the caucus hours after stating such a result was "barely possible."

    "We think the race is a toss-up with Bernie favored very narrowly," tweeted Times reporter Nate Cohn.

    And this (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    His donor (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    numbers apparently have dropped but it doesn't matter if the ones he has are giving bigger donations. He has a very high burn rate though, higher than most. I don't know why though.

    "We will know soon" (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    I just heard a remarkable thing that I have not heard before.

    The reason we don't have final results is after the caucus the precinct managers tried to call, got no response and then just dropped the results in the mail.

    We are literally waiting for the mail to be delivered.  Let's hope the USPS is more dependable in Iowa than it is here or their next door neighbor is just as likely to get the results.

    We are waiting on the mail.  Worth repeating.  Just let that sink in.


    And how likely is it that the reason (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 12:29:01 PM EST
    the caucus chairs could not get through to the central data-collection phone number is that Republican-organized rat-f*kers deliberately jammed that line with harassing calls, a kind of denial of service attack? And then, characteristically, blamed the Democratic Party for designing a system that didn't work, where Republican operatives themselves were the ones who, in bad faith, caused it not to work? I like this theory.

    Not really a theory (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    MSM is walking back (none / 0) (#102)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:23:56 PM EST
    the claim that problems were from prank calls.

    "I wouldn't blame the Republicans," said Tom Courtney, co-chair of the Des Moines County Democratic Party and a precinct chair. "I'd love to blame the Republicans and the Trumpers, but I don't know."
    Mike Carberry, chair for a precinct in Iowa City, also said he doubted prank calls were the primary reason for long wait times.
    "I'm sure that they got some calls, but those could be sorted through relatively quickly," he said.
    Another hotline staffer who asked to remain anonymous said they were aware of the prank calls but that they were not the main reason that results were delayed.
    "It was definitely a problem," the staffer said. "But it was definitely not the reason that results were a mess."

    You have no idea what I want (none / 0) (#58)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 10:16:20 AM EST
    You seem upset that what I post is not just something you don't want and something you fear; rather that it is true.

    Sanders is in this for the long haul and as the Capt has pointed out it is looking like he may well eek out a narrow win in Iowa as well as out raising all the other candidates.

    Sanders most realistic challenger is Bloomberg who is probably the worst retail pol option the dems have; not to mention Bloomberg has massive baggage.  Bloomberg also has a massive war chest and has already outspent all other candidates combined.

    Of course Bloomberg buying office is nothing new.  As I posted earlier last time Bloomberg ran for mayor he spent $US170 per vote; and he seems on pace to exceed that in his quest to be prez.

    One of the biggest reasons I suspect Sanders is the favorite is the Bernie Bros are very loyal to Sanders while I doubt the same is true for Bloomberg.

    What I would like to see is a candidate I could vote for without (as Ann Coulter put it) holding my nose.  Sad to say that seems to be unlikely.  


    Sorry (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    but Bernie has 1/2 the support he had in 2016. Most conservatives promote him because it is wishful thinking on their part.

    Nobody said Sanders wasn't in it for the long haul I even said he was unless he runs out of money.

    There will be no candidate you can vote for without holding your nose so to speak because you will move the goalposts. Frankly I think the last person we need to be listening to is you or Ann Coulter. I mean you guys voted for a Russian asset while we're trying keep a Russian asset out of the oval office.


    Uh, you DO realize that you have ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    ... a very well-documented history here? I'd say the folks who post here at TL likely have a pretty good idea what you're really about, and I'd offer better than even odds that you're not "Feelin' the Bern."

    Anyone laboring under the delusion (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    I support Sanders has not been paying attention.

    On the other hand anyone who thinks Sanders does not have the best shot at the nomination is also laboring under a delusion.

    More to the point anyone who thinks if Sanders is not the nominee lots of dems will not vote for a dem who they view as stealing the nomination from Sanders is really laboring under a huge delusion.

    Bottom line is Sanders is currently the best candidate the dems have and the majority of dems don't view him as a winner.  The more the establishment dems bash Sanders the more they PO the Bernie Bros.

    I don't see any candidate moving in front of Sanders at least until Super Tuesday and even then he will still have enough support and money to prevent anyone from being a clear leader.

    If you disagree tell me the name of the candidate that can displace Sanders.  


    Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 07:34:32 PM EST
    will almost certainly be leading going into Super Tuesday, but that would be like leading the first lap at Daytona and being declared the probable winner.

    Iowa and NH were always going to be good for Bernie, in fact the tie in Iowa was not a really good outcome for him although Biden's meltdown helped a lot.

    In any case the amount of delegates and any lead he does take into ST will be tiny.

    Super Tuesday this year is indeed super

    The participating states included Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado (with caucuses), Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota (with caucuses), Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia.
     I don't think he is going to win everyone of them or run away with any of them if he does (except Vt).

    He might even struggle in AL,AR,GA, TX, who really knows?  In the end he will probably grab around 30% of the delegates, his main advantage is that the remaining delegates will be split among 3,4 or even 5 people.


    Bernie will (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 07:42:50 PM EST
    win probably one state on Super Tuesday and that is Vermont. Minnesota got rid of caucuses and now is doing a primary and I think Colorado too got rid of them. There are very few caucuses this year only 4 I think.

    Sanders is (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    polling around 25% or less. He's been running for president for 5 years now. The people who are saying they won't vote for anyone else but Sanders are the same people that voted for him in the primary that said they were going to vote for Trump in 2016 and wouldn't vote for Sanders if he won the nomination. Those voters do not matter. Sanders is being heavily pushed by the GOP. It's probably Republicans that are donating to his campaign too. I guess that's kind of a good thing though since he can take money from Trump. Sanders had a chance to prove his theory in 2018. Look at all the losing candidates from Our Revolution. Our Revolution couldn't even put forward winning candidates in blue states. He failed to flip one seat from blue to red while Bloomberg was essential in flipping a lot of those red to blue seats. So you really don't know what is going on here. Our winning strategy does not depend on Sanders and we showed we could win without him in 2018.

    Iowa has not been called (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    No winner has been declared for Iowa and the DNC has called for the party to recanvas the results.

    Tom Perez, DNC Chair, (none / 0) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 08:57:15 PM EST
    clarified on Rachel Maddow's show that he is calling for a "surgical" re-canvas in areas where there may be questions.  Not a statewide re-canvas.  

    The Iowa State Democratic Party rules regarding re-canvassing are based on a request by a candidate/campaign.  The re-canvas would be conducted at the expense of the candidate/campaign.  It does not appear that there is an appetite, at least so far, for a re-canvas.


    Canvass (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 08:43:36 AM EST
    I do not fabricate the difference.

    Results, 100:percent reporting, (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:52:01 PM EST
    top two candidates, Pete 26.2 %:  Bernie 26.1 %.

    In 2016, Hillary 49.84 %; Bernie 49.59 %.


    Yes, it is (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 10:22:36 PM EST
    now official that Bernie lost.

    Iowa and beyond (none / 0) (#67)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    Pete and Bernie are essentially tied in Iowa. That's Pete overachieving and Bernie underachieving, I think. Warren came in third but actually did better than expected. Biden is obviously the big loser.

    Backtracking on my other post, I think Sanders will win NH with Pete or Warren 2nd. If Biden comes in 4th in NH and then doesn't do well in NV or SC, he could be toast. Support will go to Bloomberg (where else could it go?). I think that could very well result in a Sanders nomination. He has a clear path to a majority of the delegates if Biden falters.

    If it is a contested nomination, what a sh!t show. While most may think it best to go with Bloomberg or some other moderate, I think the preferable way to go is to give it to Bernie if he has the plurality of delegates. Think about it. Many of Bernie's supporters may well NOT vote for a selected Dem candidate. Pick Bernie and they will ALL vote for him and the rest of the Democrats can hold their noses and vote to beat Trump.

    The alternative is to go with Warren, who has run a solid campaign and who very well could pull Dem voters from both the left and center.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    I agree that if Biden doesn't do well he likely is done. I don't see how Sanders gets the nomination when it goes down to 2. Sanders has not been building bridges with any other candidates and in fact his campaign has been very good at turning other candidate's supporters against him.

    The problem with your theory about other people voting for Bernie is that Bernie also lessens our chances of flipping the senate. There's also a high probability of Bernie having another health incident and completely killing off his campaign and having to be replaced at the last minute with another candidate. Bernie slept through the impeachment hearings. If he can't handle those hearings then he has some major issues he is not telling us about.


    The Bern (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 08:52:24 PM EST
    Is on the same path as The Donald in 2016. The Donald had a low ceiling and a high floor. I couldn't see how The Donald could get the nomination when it came down to 2 people...except it was too late when it finally came down to 2 people. The Bern will be picking delegates in every state, I think it was a 538 review expecting The Bern to have the most delegates, but not enough to win in the 1st round. Then things get interesting. The Super Delegates could probably pick anyone they want at that point. Bloomberg would probably gracefully step aside, and spend a billion, if Kloubachar was the Superdelegates choice. The wild card is the Bernistas.

    Well, the Bern (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:25:43 PM EST
    lost Iowa like Trump. So there's that but Trump was polling at 40% not 25% like Bernie and you predicted Bernie would win in 2016. Bernie is not meeting viability in a lot of states. After Nevada there's not much there for him other than Vermont. He also is in poor health and looked terrible today like he was really sick. A 78 year old cardiac care patient really shouldn't be running for president. But either way I know the Russian trolls like you are working for him once again.

    Its a nice (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 04:51:24 AM EST
    World to live in , so black and white. Russian trolls , or Democrat supporters.

    Like 2016, Bernie will make it to the convention. I am just a eyes wide open observer of the contest, much like you watching the Republican (clown car was it) primary in 2016.

    I think the best bet for the Dem's is Kloubachar, with a huge financial backing from Bloomberg. It could be Bloomberg himself, or Buttegieg. But what really matters is how the nomination is won...is it really won, or is bestowed upon their chosen candidate once again. If that happens, be wary of Chicago 1968 Redux.  The Bernie Bros do have some Antifa element to them


    Chicken enchiladas (Serves 6): (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Its a nice World to live in , so black and white. Russian trolls , or Democrat supporters."


    • 1 tablespoon butter
    • 1/2 cup green onions chopped
    • 1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
    • 1 can (4 ounce) diced green chiles
    • 1 can cream of mushroom soup
    • 1/2 cup sour cream
    • 1 1/2 cups chicken breasts cooked and cubed
    • 1 cup Cheddar cheese shredded and divided
    • 6 flour tortillas (12 inch)
    • 1/4 cup milk

    Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Lightly grease a large baking dish.

    In a medium saucepan over medium heat, melt the butter and saute the green onion until tender (about 3 to 4 minutes). Add the garlic powder, then stir in the green chiles, cream of mushroom soup and sour cream. Mix well. Reserve 3/4 of this sauce and set aside. To the remaining 1/4 of the sauce in the saucepan, add the chicken and 1/2 cup of shredded Cheddar cheese. Stir together.

    Fill each flour tortilla with the chicken mixture and roll up. Place seam side down in the prepared baking dish.

    In a small bowl combine the reserved 3/4 of the sauce with the milk. Spoon this mixture over the rolled tortillas and top with the remaining 1/2 cup of shredded Cheddar cheese. Bake in the preheated oven for 30 to 35 minutes, or until cheese is bubbly.

    Midori Margarita (optional):

    • 1 oz. Midori melon liqueur
    • 1 1⁄2 oz. tequila
    • 2 oz. sweet-and-sour mix

    Blend with crushed ice or serve over the rocks.

    well (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    you're carrying obvious water for the Kremlin. So it's easy to notice it.

    The biggest difference (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 09:37:26 AM EST
    Is that we don't have winner takes all primaries.  Which means you have to have a higher ceiling or it's a contested convention.  That's not something Trump had to deal with, he was able to kneecap his rivals early because they weren't splitting the delegates, they were going home with nothing.

    What you say makes sense on a practical level. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    Many of Bernie's supporters may well NOT vote for a selected Dem candidate. Pick Bernie and they will ALL vote for him and the rest of the Democrats can hold their noses and vote to beat Trump.

    However, I absolutely hate the idea of rewarding hostage takers.


    Shoe, meet other foot (none / 0) (#129)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    The moderates in the Dem party have been holding  the progressives hostage for the last bunch of election cycles. When does running a centrist candidate and losing become worse that going far left? Don't you think the centrist Dems will want to vote out Trump?

    In what way? (none / 0) (#134)
    by vml68 on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    The moderates in the Dem party have been holding  the progressives hostage for the last bunch of election cycles.

    How many Progressive vs Moderate candidates have been elected to office? In 2018, when we had huge turnout, how many seats were won by progressive candidates vs moderate candidates.
    I believe most voters tend to be in the middle but I could be wrong. If Bernie gets nominated, we will find out.


    Here's the problem (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    the so called progressives are only around 30% of the party. Also these candidates have been found to only be able to win in deep blue districts. They are like the blue version of Doug Collins. There isn't enough support for their ideas and proposals across the country and frankly people that didn't see Trump as the threat he is to the country in 2016 don't carry much weight in 2020.

    hostage takers. (none / 0) (#156)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 07:59:17 PM EST
    Bernie himself will bend the knee if it comes to that, Bloomberg will make it worthwhile. But its a portion of his supporters that border on anarchy that may not be controllable, you are correct, they might try and take the party hostage

    Too early to tell of course.. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by NoSides on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    but it appears that the one to suffer the most from the spotlight coming from the impeachment hearings was Joe Biden.

    The establishment press is trying to bury and defame Sanders - but it looks as if the people might have another idea.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    are correct, the Senate carried out the hit job that Zelensky was reluctant to do.

    You are incorrect on the press trying to bury Sanders. They are harsher on Biden and Warren, IMO


    Their continued kicking (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    Of Biden is a bit like kicking a dead horse.

    I imagine new orders are "confused" at this point.

    So continue with plan A for now.

    And start thinking about how there is just TOO much money in our elections


    Seriously (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:12:19 PM EST
    are they so sure Biden is going to be the nominee? Like you say they may be so confused or stupid they may not have that figured out yet.

    He won't be (none / 0) (#75)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    His viability is due to Obama picking him as VP which brings AA support on its coattails. He's too old, he excites nobody. Once he looks less electable, like now, those voters are going elsewhere. I doubt they go to Bernie or Pete. I pick Bloomberg.

    And you only need to look at Russian Troll bot activity supporting Sanders, Trump calling things rigged against him , the GOP turning out rat-f*ckers in SC to vote Sanders, plus the  carpetbombing on FB against Warren, to tell you who the WH wants, and doesn't want, to run against


    There is a reason (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:10:11 PM EST
    he's run 2 or 3 times before and never gotten anywhere. Iowa took him out before too. He's not a bad guy. He's just too old like Bernie. Both of them should have realized that their time is past.

    I really think (none / 0) (#81)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    We could be stuck w Bernie.
    He'll have no downstream coattails. He's never helped a VT Dem. He'd campaign for no one but himself.

    it could be a real disaster. Like a 40-state disaster. If Biden never got anywhere, the Socialist tag is electoral suicide.
    And there has been ZERO oppo v Bernie as of yet.

    A real disaster. I'd hope like hell we can hang onto the House.


    Welcome (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    to 4 more years of Trump with Bernie. And total GOP control of the house and senate. We have the opportunity to pick up 2 senate seats here in GA and they definitely would be gone with Bernie at the top of the ticket. Pelosi said we would lose the house with Bernie. With Bernie we would be gambling it all on him winning which is unlikely and then being to keep the house and even pick up senate seats. Lots of people are in denial as to how deadly the socialist label is. And I know the GOP is going to call everyone a socialist even a moderate like Amy but Bernie makes it easy by calling himself one.

    It's Joe's fault (none / 0) (#71)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:52:56 PM EST
    And the fault of his campaign. He and Pete had Iowa to themselves. Pete outperformed, out-organized and out-spent, the Biden campaign.

    Biggest problem for Bloomberg is that he is not (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 06:29:51 PM EST
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloomberg-wont-release-women-sued-secrecy-agreements/story?id=681710 36.

    Everyone knew before hand that Trump was a cad who treated women badly so no one was shocked when the details came out.

    Not so sure they are aware of Bloomberg's history with this sorta thing.

    Even when Bloomberg was running for mayor he spent money like a drunken sailor; something like $US170 a vote.  To a great extent this is because Bloomberg is a terrible retail pol.  He is not getting crowds and is avoiding pressers.

    Warren has pointed out that so far Bloomberg has not been under the microscope.  Things like 'stop and frisk' and Bloomberg's support of Bush, just to name a few, will be raised.

    If there is one thing the Bernie Bros hate it is someone trying to buy the nomination.  I suspect Bloomberg would lose more of the Bernie Bros than any other potential nominee.

    So what? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    Trump won't release all of his people from NDAs. Get back to me when Trump releases everybody from NDAs. Otherwise nobody is gonna care.

    And again, the Bernie Bros lost us flippable seats in 2018 with their candidates. And we won without their votes in an off year election.


    The difference is everyone knew (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:13:54 PM EST
    Trump was a cad and a reality TV star.

    Few folks know Bloomberg has a long history and three on going cases as well as Bloomberg does not have the TV presence Trump does.

    But I don't really see a Bloomberg v Trump; as someone posted earlier if the convention is contested Bloomberg will step aside and the dem establishment will select someone other than Bernie making the Bernie Bros mad.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:28:16 PM EST
    but nobody is going to care. You really don't know how Bloomberg has been funding a lot of candidates and organizations do you?

    Who cares about the Bernie Bros. Again, I have shown you time and again that they do not matter. It's like you're trying to convince yourself that they matter.


    so 20-25% of dem voters don't matter (none / 0) (#108)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    Must be the new math

    2018 proved (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 06:08:13 AM EST
    that they don't matter. These are Republicans messing around in our primary.

    I (none / 0) (#114)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 06:34:46 AM EST
    would think that the other 75%-80% have plenty to say, you know the old math.

    Just because the not Bernie vote has not coalesced around one or two candidates doesn't mean we should shut up.


    If (none / 0) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 04:46:01 AM EST
    If only 20% of the Bernie bros sit out the election, that matters. Remind me by how much did The Donald win those 3 midwestern states

    These (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 06:09:10 AM EST
    are Republicans messing around in our primary. They don't count because they never were going to vote for us. They just want Bernie to win like you because they believe he is the weakest general election candidate.

    Your failure to realize (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:42:04 AM EST
    not everyone who is not a dem has to be a pub makes you look silly.

    For as long as I can remember the rough numbers are 30% dems, 30%pubs, and 40% independents.

    By insulting the largest single voting block from the get go you decrease your chances to win them later on.

    Sanders seems best positioned to attract independents.  For what I will call conservative/moderate dems there is the problem of why vote for a conservative dem when you can vote for the real thing a conservative pub.  Sanders is far and away the leader in 'what you see is what you get'; something every other dem seems to lack.  There is a reason Sanders is in a tie to win Iowa. favored to win NH, is leading in NV, and will likely enter Super Tuesday with the most delegates and only trail Bloomberg in money in the bank.

    Your constant dissing Sanders only hardens the Bernie Bros claim that there is an effort by dems to hurt him.  Like it or not Sanders is currently the leading face for the dems.


    No, those (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    numbers are incorrect. According to Pew the numbers are 48% Dem 39% R. So the GOP is the one that should worry about people not voting for them not the Dems. There is a reason why Trump's approval numbers have been continually low. We have about a 10 point built in advantage and there's only about 13% of swing voters. So we can afford to lose those Bernie Bro children and still win.

    Polling (none / 0) (#157)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:13:08 PM EST
    Gallup. As of December 2019, Gallup polling found that 28% of Americans identified as Democrat, 28% identified as Republican, and 41% as Independent.

    Now Pew says this...
    Among the general public, recent Pew Research Center telephone surveys find that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents outnumber Republicans and Republican leaners by about 7 percentage points, registered voters, the Democratic advantage in party affiliation is typically about 3 percentage points smaller than it is among the general public in our surveys. The reasons for this are well understood: Compared with the general public, registered voters tend to be older, wealthier and more likely to be non-Hispanic whites and homeowners, all of which are characteristics associated with a higher probability of being a Republican.


    Pete! (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    I like that.

    Everybody (none / 0) (#2)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    out-preformed the polls except Biden.

    On 538 no (none / 0) (#70)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    Bernie and Biden both underperformed, Sanders only by about -3% but Biden was a significant -12.8.
    Warren and Pete both about +5, Amy +3.

    But both women have been erased from coverage.
    Girl Cooties and all.


    Also Bernie's turnout (none / 0) (#73)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    Failed to happen.
    But it's still his nom to lose given the weakness of The field.
    Heaven help us because that might be a disaster.

    Iowa does get credit, (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 05:27:07 PM EST
    2008 Barack Obama, 2016 Hillary Clinton, and 2020 Pete Buttigieg. While Pete may not go the distance, it is a good mark for him against the Bernie, Biden and Warren competition.

    It won't be Pete (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    But I'm very glad he won the first contest.

    Everybody (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    outside of Bernie supporters is happy that Pete won or at least fine with it. Never Bernie is the 2nd choice of apparently 60% of primary voters. Watch and it will be the same with NH. If Warren wins everybody will be fine with it because it's Not Bernie.

    Tho as I understand how this worked (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 07:10:24 PM EST
    He won because of a state equivalent of the electoral college.  So I understand why Sanders is saying he won.

    But really.  That electoral college thing works so well at the national level we should definitely institute them in all 50 states.

    That was sarcasm

    That said.  I'm still glad Pete "won"


    Sanders won the (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 07:50:29 PM EST
    popular vote in the 62% reported.
    Also: what happens at the state convention? Are the delegates from the caucuses obligated to vote for the same person? What happens if their candidate drops out on an early convention vote, don't they become free agents?

    State convention delegates ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    ... elect the delegates to the national convention. National convention delegates are pledged to support their candidate on the first ballot. Like Iowa, Hawaii is also a caucus state, so I can explain how we do it here.

    Hawaii has 32 pledged delegates to the upcoming Democratic National Convention. Let's say that next month, the allocation per our caucuses falls to 16 delegates pledged to Bernie Sanders, 10 to Joe Biden and 6 to Elizabeth Warren.

    At the state convention, there may be 25 people who want to go to the DNC as pledged to Bernie, but because there are only 16 slots, the state convention delegates will then elect the 16 DNC Bernie delegates from among the 25 Bernie-supporting state delegates who want to go. The same goes for the allocated national convention delegates for the other candidates.

    State delegate elections are different from caucus allocations. Each precinct in Hawaii gets to elect up to seven state convention delegates, so each campaign works to get as many of their supporters as possible to the caucuses to get themselves elected as a state delegate. While you're not formally pledged per se, you'll be attending the state convention with people from your neighborhood or town, so peer pressure from your own precinct will generally keep you in line.

    If you are elected by your precinct to be a delegate to the Hawaii state convention as a supporter of Bernie Sanders, it would be very bad form to then run for one of our national delegate slots that's been pledged to one of the other candidates. It would surely be brought to the attention of other state delegates at the convention, so you'd likely go nowhere and further garner a reputation in your own precinct as a faithless or stealth delegate. However, should Bernie drop out prior to the state convention, you are effectively a free agent who can re-pledge to someone else who's still in the race.

    At least, that's how it generally works here in Hawaii. If we have someone from Iowa who can explain how it works there, I'd love to hear from them. But I'm guessing that we're roughly similar processes.



    Capt. did you forget (none / 0) (#18)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 08:46:00 PM EST
    some of the delegates are determined by a coin flip.

    That's no fun. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    We resolve our ties out here with a cage match, two out of three falls.

    If you saw (none / 0) (#158)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:14:46 PM EST
    The video of one coin flip, it was the Ralph Kramden, Heads I win , tails you lose type of coin flip.

    I think the most impactful result (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 04:33:51 PM EST
    Regardless of what happens with the other 40% is that the field will not be significantly winnowed until after Super Tuesday at the earliest, perhaps even later.

    The odds of a contested convention are increasing.

    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    it is going to be contested. A lot depends on what happens on Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday may winnow it down to 2-3 candidates. Every time we have a primary people start talking about a contested convention and yet it never seems to happen. I mean this could be the one time 'cause there's the stopped watch theory. Warren has pulled out of SC and NV and is putting everything into NH. So if she doesn't win NH she may be out.

    I think the biggest factor (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    Will be money.  But I seriously doubt any of the top 5 will drop out before Super Tuesday.  Not as long as everyone looks beatable, which at sub 30% they all do.

    If Biden is 4 in NH (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    It might be him that drops out.

    from your fingers (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    to G-d's ear.

    NBC News' Chuck Todd is ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    ... never more banal than when he's talking in glittering generalities.

    Democracy is doomed.

    Is there ever a time ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    ... when he doesn't do that?

    He is just painful to watch.


    ... and coveted position at NBC News and while he is certainly glib, when it comes to active policy discussions he's just not very bright. You'd think the network's head honchos would have noticed by now that he's a 25-watt light bulb who's occupying a 100-watt socket -- unless, of course, their own bulbs are just as dim as his.

    Well, it's more (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 05:44:06 PM EST
    important to get the results fast, than with accuracy.  Chuck and anchors, otherwise, are left to interviewing themselves. It may have been news to Chuck et al. that caucuses are imperfect.

    CNN actually did a (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 07:52:56 PM EST
    good job when the numbers were just being revealed. Wolf and John King and another number cruncher did a good job explaining it all, both the popular vote, the delegate stuff, who got Biden's votes after he didn't qualify, who got Yang's votes, etc.

    If memory serves (none / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 04, 2020 at 10:03:37 PM EST

    The result for Biden is a big improvement from his last Iowa caucus.

    Woman wants her vote back. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 08:31:45 AM EST
    After discovering Pete Buttigieg is gay.

    This, my friends, is the caliber of the American voter. This is who is who is choosing the leaders of tomorrow for your children and grandchildren. (I, thankfully, don't have any.). This is the uninformed that put a reality show host and con man in the White House.

    I first saw this video on Reddit. The woman is aghast that Mayor Pete is gay. Wants to know why this wasn't brought out "before." Fer chrissakes, this was the lede when he announced.  How does a person showing up for the Iowa Democratic Caucus not know this? How?

    This country is doomed.

    That a local TV reporter could find one (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 09:00:41 AM EST
    such person proves nothing. There is no reason to extrapolate from that one interview of one stupid, uninformed, religiously bigoted person to generalities about Democratic primary voters, or Iowans, or anything else. Show me a scientifically validated poll or survey, or never mind.

    If you listened to (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    The hours of "interviews" on the night of, since there was nothing else to do, you could actually, IMO, extrapolate quite a lot.

    I would say exactly the opposite.  If he found her there are others.


    I (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    agree, the level of ignorance on display was astounding.

    The people who attend caucuses are supposedly more politically astute than your average primary voter.

    I saw nothing of the sort.


    I really think (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 09:32:43 AM EST
    The hours and hours we all spent with caucus goers will as much as almost anything inform a lot of the coming calls for a rules change.

    Yeah, after preparing for 3 1/2 years with one job they screwed it up.  But the parade of embarrassing ignorance from the locals was pretty shocking.

    I commented on it that night and I think you did too.

    I finally just turned it off.  I didn't even know about the snafu till Tuesday.


    (Gasp!) Pete Buttigieg is gay? (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    Well, then, all the more reason to vote for the guy who traded in two wives for a newer model (literally and figuratively), fathered five children by three women, and currently has 17 (and counting) civil cases pending against him for sexual assault, battery and harassment.

    Saw that (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 08:43:51 AM EST
    New Hampshire is next (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    With Sanders not getting a big win in Iowa and Warren meeting expectations, NH will be a big test. Gut feeling is that Pete peters out in NH, Sanders does OK, but Warren wins. If Biden doesn't come in 1st or 2nd in NH, not sure what he does next. He won't drop out, but would be wounded. It could be Warren and Sanders going forward. But the DNC will probably coalesce around Bloomberg, of all people.

    Fantasy future: Warren and Sanders agree to try to unify the party going forward by being positive and accentuating their slight differences in positions. I think they both want Trump to lose.

    I (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    don't think Pete will bomb in NH he already got a bounce
    Day 3 of the 7 News/ Emerson College tracking poll of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary finds former Mayor Pete Buttigieg with a bounce out of Iowa as his numbers increased from 12% on Monday to 17% on Tuesday night. This separates him from the field and places him in second behind the frontrunner, Senator Bernie Sanders, whose numbers held at 32%. Former VP Joe Biden comes in third at 13%, followed by Senator Amy Klobuchar at 11%, and Senator Elizabeth Warren at 11%
    Bernie and Pete look comfortably in the vaiable range, the other 3 are struggling to make it.

    I saw a clip of Biden in NH this morning and he looked tired and defeated, another fourth for him spells doom.

    Warren and Klobuchar need to out perform or else their campaigns are in trouble.


    Klobuchar over (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    performing is more likely than Liz since there are expectations for Liz in NH and virtually none for Amy. I would say though if Liz cannot pull out a win in NH it's probably the end of the line for her. She may continue as long as she has money but NV and SC is not favorable terrain for her or for Sanders.

    Nevada poll 2/6 average 528 (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    https://tinyurl.com/tglr5ko  528 results

    Sanders 23.8
    Biden 23.3
    Warren 12.7
    Buttigieg 7.6

    Not favorable terrain for Sanders ?? Hmmm.


    Sorry but polling (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    at 23% is favorable? And I would say the same thing for Biden. It doesn't look good for either one since both are known quantities and a lot is going to depend on who gets the endorsements.

    Endorsements?? (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    Endorsements haven't resulted in votes so far, otherwise Biden would have come in first in Iowa.

    Leading at 23.8 is favorable any way you cut it. Out funding the other candidates, won't hurt either.

    If Biden does poorly in New Hampshire, it will hurt him in other primaries. Maybe Bloomberg can buy his way to the top but he is not exactly popular in some minority communities.

    I would be all for Warren to realize a surge in the primaries but unfortunately I don't see that happening.


    I'm talking about (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    the culinary union endorsement and who Harry's Reid's team is going to help in Nevada. Whomever gets both of those likely takes Nevada. Rumors are that Biden is going to get the culinary endorsement but we shall see. We will probably not know who Reid's turnout team helped until after the caucus.

    Bernie's problem is that he is not bringing in any new voters to his campaign and he is repelling the supporters of other candidates. Turnout for him in Iowa was nothing to write home about and he has lost 1/2 his support from 2016.

    If Warren can pull out NH she'll still be in the game for sure.

    Bloomberg has been gathering the endorsements of African America Mayors because of his support of them. He helped us flip the house in 2018. He has been running training schools on how to run for office and a number of his candidates have won. He is far from perfect but he's done more for the party than Bernie ever has. All Bernie has ever done is tell us how worthless we are while Bloomberg kept his mouth shut and started rolling out his money to take down Trump. Steyer even used his money to set up a bank to help people denied access to regular banking channels helping them buy homes. This is why he's been polling behind Biden in SC.


    I think Harry will be (none / 0) (#77)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    VERY careful about who he helps.  I'm not sold it will be Biden at all.
    At some point the establishment will pick between Biden and Bloomberg, is my sense.

    I think so too (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    and I don't think it is going to be Bernie who according to polling has us losing VA and can't even begin to compete in Florida. Maybe rally around another moderate like Amy? It could very well be Bloomberg.

    The irony is (none / 0) (#82)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:19:27 PM EST
    Probably only Biden could win FL.

    Had Joe not face planted, a Biden/Castro ticket could have put TX in play too.
    Or Biden/Amy, the Midwest.

    But he's just never been a good candidate, and his campaign has kept him from even getting out there for fear of gaffes. They play to half full venues and he takes no/minimal questions.


    Bloomberg helped Rs hold the Senate (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 09, 2020 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    and several house seats.
    2014 individual contributions to Susan Collins
    PAC: Bob Dold, R-Ill.: $1.9 million and
    Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.: $174,000
    Overall in 2014, Bloomberg spent $2.1 million on Dold and two other Republican candidates--almost four times as much as on Democratic candidates that year.      


    The 2016 Election
    One race stood out during this period: Pennsylvania's Senate race between Republican incumbent Pat Toomey and Democrat Katie McGinty. It was an extremely close race, and one, as the New York Times notes, that seemed key to Democrats' strategy for retaking the Senate. Toomey, the Republican incumbent, had led an unsuccessful effort to expand background checks for guns, and it may have been this effort that won over Bloomberg. In the end, Bloomberg showered Toomey with $11.7 million, one of the largest contributions in the most expensive Senate race ever at the time. Toomey won by less than 2 percentage points, and Republicans held onto their Senate majority by two seats.

    His personal donations included a number of Republicans, all but one of whom won their races. (Mark Kirk was defeated after making offensive comments.) In terms of pure spending, Bloomberg favored Republicans: He and his PAC spent $5 million more boosting GOP candidates.

    Other Republican Senators included: Mark Kirk (IL) and John McCain (AZ)
    Republican Representatives included: Pete King, R-N.Y. and
     Dan Donovan, R-N.Y.
    Source Slate: https://tinyurl.com/yxyex64k

    Pennsylvania Democrats have not forgotten (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 09, 2020 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    the bitterness of our 2016 failure to win that Senate seat, despite having recently acquired a significant registration edge. Although it is true that McGinty was not a strong candidate, Bloomberg's role was a factor. As a former Philadelphia Congressman once said, "Money talks; bullsh*t walks."

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 09, 2020 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    all of that will be an issue in the primary. However a doddering socialist with medical issues is not going to flip the senate.

    The (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    problem being so far is showing a 20% floor and a 25% ceiling pretty much every where, I suppose his ceiling will rise as others drop out.

    He might gain a bit of momentum from some early victories, but winning with 25-30 % with two or three others nipping as his heels wont impress many people.

    There is a good  chance we will make it to Super Tuesday with 4 or 5 candidates who will have shots to be viable in any given state. Sanders is liable to have several stumbles particularly in the South.  


    23% (none / 0) (#99)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 08:53:46 PM EST
    Is higher than anyone else, so, it is pretty favorable. As long as there are that many candidates in the race, 23% is great. If there were only 2 or 3 candidates , then I would say you were right

    Actually (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    Bernie is behind Biden by a sizable amount nationally. He just lost Iowa. He's lost 1/2 or more of his voters in NH since 2016. Buttigieg possibly may take Bernie out in NH since he's rising and Bernie is stagnant. Then where does Bernie go? He gets wiped out in SC and then gets wiped out on Super Tuesday except for Vermont.

    Pete (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 05, 2020 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    It's said, is the old persons idea of a perfect young person.

    I just realized Bernie is the young persons idea of a perfect old person.

    Both tellingly delusional

    Bloomberg? (none / 0) (#72)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    Does he get Biden voters should Joe continue to falter?
    It's pretty clear Bernie is almost no one's second choice. He's got his core, and his ceiling is a very hard one.

    Pete is at 0%POC which is not viable.
    And Warren and Amy have Girl Cooties, so.....

    I'll be watching Bloomberg closely.

    Considering what a CF (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    Iowa was and likely what NH and NV are going to be you could say those that skipped the 1st 4 were smart.

    Don't count Steyer out with his history of philanthropy in the African American and Hispanic community through Beneficial Bank but I would say Bloomberg simply because he has held elected office before.

    I wish Amy was doing better. I think she would be fantastic against Trump.

    You are correct about Bernie. He's nobody's 2nd choice and actually his campaign has done a great job of repelling voters. He doesn't seem to have a clue as how to get his numbers up other than blackmail to say if we don't nominate him his voters won't vote for anybody else. Bernie would definitely cause a turnout problem among the voting base. If he's the nominee I expect the tape of him in his underwear singing with the Russians to be running in a 24/7 loop. It's one of those things you wish you could unsee.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by smott on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    Bernie's entire ethos is showing contempt for the very voters he needs to form a coalition. Warren gets snake emojis. Pete gets rat emojis.
    These people are literally idiots.
    It's just performative nihilism masquerading as pure leftiiness.
    It's nauseating.

    Iowa Caucus, Republican Version (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 04:07:33 PM EST
    Trump 97.l percent; Weld 1.3 percent, Walsh 1.1 percent.  No re-run of 2012 when Romney was the winner for about two weeks, only to have the win reversed and given to Santorum.  Republican State Senator Kent Sorensen went to jail for bribery--changing votes one candidate for another for under the table consideration.

    In 2020, Republicans are avoiding any pesky voting problems such as encountered by the Democrats by cancelling primaries/caucuses.  Five states cancelled so far: Kansas, Alaska, South Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada. The Soviet streamliner model, est. 1917.

    AP will not declare winner in (none / 0) (#92)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 06:31:32 PM EST

    Most Primaries and Caucuses Are Bizarre (none / 0) (#93)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 06, 2020 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    The strangest feature is that each congressional district gets an allocation of pledged delegates to the national convention and (some of) the voters of the district decide how many each candidate gets of the allocation.  Since most states give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the entire state, this method of choosing delegates makes no sense.

    Of course, from beginning to end, the entire method of choosing candidates makes no sense and costs too much and takes too long. The best way to do it, that I know about, is to let elected officials (Congress, Mayors, Governors) select the candidates and then the electorate as a whole chooses the winner from the top 10 or so by a series of 2 runoff elections.  This would have the added bonus of weakening the two party system in this country.

    Mayor Pete (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 06:29:12 AM EST
    now tied with Bernie in New Hampshire Bernie 24 & Pete 23. It seems Pete got a bounce from winning in IA.

    The more interesting thing there (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 07:47:07 AM EST
    Is Biden is 4th.  If Biden is 4th he might be done.  Stick a fork in him.

    I do love Pete surging.  I love being able to imagine a world where he runs against Trump.  Just not absolutely sure I want to live in that world.  

    That said, if elections are about contrasts, and they usually are, hard to imagine more if a contrast with Trump than Pete.

    Imagine how horrific the attacks against Pete would be.  They might backfire.

    They might not backfire enough.

    I'm very conflicted.   There is really almost nothing I would love more than his winning the primary.   And I am afraid to root for that.


    I assume you are taking about (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:01:40 AM EST

    Sanders 24

    Pete 23

    Warren 13

    Biden 11

    Really not good news for Warren either.


    If (none / 0) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:25:43 AM EST
    Warren hits the 15% level she will be fine especially if she is only 10 or so points behind the leader.

    25% for Bernie in his backyard is not really impressive. Biden in fourth puts him on life support even if he does hit the threshold.


    IMO (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:52:24 AM EST
    Second place would be "fine".  Third, not so much.

    I (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    Meant fine for making it to Super Tuesday, contrary to popular belief neither Bernie nor anyone else is breaking away from the pack.

    This whole horse race narrative surrounding the early states is a joke. Super Tuesday could and should be the real test.


    I don't understand, please explain (none / 0) (#130)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    why New Hampshire is not Liz Warren's backyard (bordering MA) as much as Sanders' (bordering VT), and just as different culturally from one as from the other.  And why, if that is right, not winning in NH would matter more for one of those candidates than for the other.

    Expectations (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:08:05 PM EST
    are the key, Bernie is expected to win Warren is portrayed as struggling.

    Massachusetts is urban and diverse, while NH along with Bernie's home VT is mostly  white and rural.  


    There is absolutely (none / 0) (#141)
    by CST on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    A cultural divide between northern (VT, NH, ME) and southern New England ( MA, RI, CT) and sometimes that divide comes with animosity, pergaps especially in the case of NH.  Sanders is on the right side of that divide for NH, Warren is not.

    Yet there is also a sharp cultural divide between (none / 0) (#145)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    laid-back progressive Vermont and "rock-ribbed conservative" New Hampshire. Remember, historically Vermont was just an upstate corner of New York, not a real New England state (never a separate colony) at all. And I'm not sure buy the characterization of "urban" Massachusetts.  MA is like Pennsylvania:  two urban centers and a lot of rural, less-educated, traditionally conservative space between. (Cue snarky remark by James Carville.) So, too, with Massachusetts, other than Boston and Springfield.

    Having lived in both MA and PA (none / 0) (#148)
    by CST on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 03:33:54 PM EST
    I would not say they are similar in that regard at all.  Springfield is only 2 hours from Boston, where Pittsburgh is about 6 hours from Philadelphia.  With Worcester smack in the middle - which is actually a bigger city than Springfield - there really is very little rural space in between.  The real rural areas are west of Springfield, and greater Boston takes up almost half the geographical area of the entire state, and the overwhelming majority of the population (80%).  Finally, the truly rural parts of MA are not conservative at all.  It's the suburbs (especially Worcester suburbs) and the exurban areas that are more conservative.

    Vermont and NH have different political reputations but are still much more culturally similar to each other than MA.  As NH becomes less conservative, that becomes even more true.


    True about MA (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    In my experience having lived in Boston with friends in the Berkshire's

    Thanks for that analysis of Massachusetts (none / 0) (#152)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    Very interesting. I'm sure you're right. Particularly as I think also of the Northampton/Amherst area north of Springfield (a/k/a the Pioneer Valley).

    One thing that is similar is both (none / 0) (#117)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:17:34 AM EST
    Sanders and Buttigieg seem to lack support from minority voters.  Even with his history of being arrested early in his life for standing up for equal rights for black Sanders has not caught on.  Buttigieg is much more of an unknown but black voters, and especially very religious black voters, tend to be very conservative on social issues.  Hard for me to see being gay selling well in an AME church.

    That (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:30:44 AM EST
    is the huge unanswered question. Where do the AA's go if not Biden? There is not a pollster or pundit can answer that.

    Biden had Obama's coattails (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:48:28 AM EST
    But Biden was never that popular with AAs.  One thing that has always been important to the dems is getting AAs out to vote with a great ground game.

    Even with her great machine Clinton was never able to do that at the level Obama did; they simply stayed home.  It will be telling to see the AA turnout in SC; if it is low that may say a lot about where the AA votes will go; or not go.


    Safe to assume (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    Voters of color can evaluate new information as well as the rest of us.

    IMO there has been strong support for Biden because for months the idiot media has been selling the idea he could win.  He is not winning.

    It's true they came out strong for Obama.  But they did not in the primary until he started winning.

    Also safe to assume voters of color more than maybe anyone want to beat Trump.  I expect they will go to someone who they think can beat Trump.


    Beat Trump (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 09:40:33 AM EST
    I think we are getting there fast.  Strictly, IN MY OPINION, Warren will not.  Pete will not.  There are it seems to me only two possibilities.  Bloomberg, who we know is my choice, and with apologies, Sanders.  

    I agree with, and agree with finding it troubling, a comment yesterday about how Sanders just might win because he has the fanatics and truthfully he would have everyone else if he is the nominee.  Everyone on our side that is.

    We are moving into uncharted places.  

    But here's a thought for what ever difference it might make with some voters, Sanders and his are going to go after Bloomberg hammer and tongs.  They already are.  Bloomberg has said he won't run attack ads against other democrats.

    The thing is, he won't have to.  The establishment will do it for him.  

    And whether it's a political tactic or just the way shi+ happens, I think talking about issues in a positive way while your opponent gutter snipes will be appealing to many voters.


    And here's my fantasy scenario (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 10:15:41 AM EST
    Pete wins NH, SC and NV and Bloomberg drops out and throws all his money and support to Pete.

    It could work.

    What a day it would be the day a gay guy beat Trump.


    If it wasn't evident to (none / 0) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents before Trump's East Room Hellzapoppin, all doubt should have vanished that Trump will do anything and everything, unethical and unlawful,  to be re-elected. He is not only deranged, but he has an army of enablers, who themselves, in their own way, are equally deranged.  

    As a horrifying example, I offer AG Barr, who was front and center, clapping and lapping it all up.  He was jubilant as Trump called FBI scum. And, all investigations of candidates must be personally cleared by him---no doubt with a different standard for Democratic candidates.

    These factors need to be taken into account by all Democratic candidates.  And, by Democratic primary voters, not  by seeking a candidate who is pure as the driven snow, since the quantity of lies by Republicans will only be limited by their imagination, but rather, by an assessment of the candidate's strategies to counter them. More important than, say, their strategies and details to achieve policy goals.

    Neither Pete nor any Democratic candidate will, of course, get the Evangelicals or other right wing radicals.  And, lies and slurs will be tailored made--Pete gets the anti-gay ones, Bernie the Communist/socialist. Elizabeth is a scary woman, Biden is Burisma.  Bloomberg has the money necessary to confront the Republican's terror campaign... for himself or to back another. Bloomberg does well in his very professionally crafted ads, it will instructive to see how he does in the debates and on the stump.


    Not just scary but "strident and (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by vml68 on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    unlikable", as well.

    Elizabeth is a scary woman

    MSNBC's Donny Deutsch: Elizabeth Warren's Problem Is She's Too Strident and Unlikable

    I remember back in the good old "any woman but her" days when Hillary Clinton was the "strident and unlikable" one, and if only Elizabeth Warren was running everything would have been perfect.
    Time to let Elizabeth know she needs to smile more.


    A (not that) funny story (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    Not that long ago I was discussing candidates pros and cons with a Democrat I know.   Warren came up.  I said I liked her alright but wasn't sure if blah blah.
    The guy who I don't actually like that much started going on about how he just could not listen to her.  Her voice grated. You have probably heard the rest.

    I said (because I knew this from recently discussing it) wow, was it Warrens voice in your Subaru?  He said it was not but it was close.

    He had recently forced the dealer to change the GPS voice to a male.  Just could take a woman telling him what to do he said.

    True story


    I guess I'm just an unreconstructed (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    philogynist, but to me Warren is everyone's favorite high school teacher. Not strident or unlikable at all. Except when she's reciting her talking points for the umpteenth time (which sounds rote and stale),  as opposed to really answering a question (which is her go-to), I find her tremendously engaging.

    Elizabeth (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    needs to take lessons from warm and cuddly, laugh-a-minute Bernie.

    The both of them... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    warm my heart and make it flutter.  

    It's Pete that I find unlikable on that personal level...why exactly I can't really explain.  I just get two-faced phoney vibes from him for some reason.  Liev Schreiber in The Manchurian Candidate remake kinda vibes.  


    I see what you mean (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    If the military industrial complex wanted to place a sleeper candidate he would definitely be gay.

    No arrhythmia (none / 0) (#151)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    risk to me with any of them,  but I find the labeling of Elizabeth as unlikeable to be out of wack..  She sure comes across as warm and engaging. Bernie's sourness is a part of his sweetness for many.  Pete may not be charming but he is rather pleasant.

    It all does seem superficial, but these traits count to the electorate  After all, George W Bush was just the right guy ---a guy you want to have a beer with.  Forgetting, of course, that he was a much too heavy drinker.


    The minute it started looking like she (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by vml68 on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    I find the labeling of Elizabeth as unlikeable to be out of wack

    had a chance at the nomination, she became "unlikeable". Women in positions of power are familiar with this phenomenon.

    Warren is warm and engaging but even if she was not, she would have to fake it. Can you imagine any woman with Bernie's demeanor getting as far as he has?


    This (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Feb 10, 2020 at 08:02:06 AM EST
    This is where I fall. After 4 years of Trump, competency seems a good trait.

    As Oprah said (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 05:15:44 PM EST
    about Hillary, you don't have to like her, she's not coming over to your house for dinner, you just have to think she'd be better than Trump.

    Subtlety (none / 0) (#160)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    The thing is, he won't have to.  The establishment will do it for him.  

    And that is what will set off the Bernie Bros. The DNC placing their thumb on the scales once again....for a Billionaire!!  Where 2 of the candidates , The Bern and Warren, are actively decrying Billionaires...we have too many billionaires.
    DNC, Bloomberg and The Bern ...have to thread the needle to get Bloomberg as the nominee and not alienate a portion of their base


    Tricky (none / 0) (#161)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:38:52 PM EST
    The thing is, he won't have to.  The establishment will do it for him.  

    And that is what will set off the Bernie Bros. The DNC placing their thumb on the scales once again....for a Billionaire!!  Where 2 of the candidates , The Bern and Warren, are actively decrying Billionaires...we have too many billionaires.
    DNC, Bloomberg and The Bern ...have to thread the needle to get Bloomberg as the nominee and not alienate a portion of their base


    Bernie (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    Is going to lose this all by himself. He lost Iowa and losing in his own backyard should be enough for everybody to start laughing at the bros.

    Trump (none / 0) (#159)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 08:28:53 PM EST
    Got 8% of the AA vote in 2016,
    I expect he will get more than that this time around, just from his outreach

    Well, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    there's a reason why Sanders is not meeting viability in SC in polling. Pete may never get POC support and if doesn't it will end his campaign at some point. However what Pete is doing is proving what an incredibly weak candidate Sanders is.

    MSNBC reporting a brand new (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    NBC/Marist poll

    Biden is 4th again

    Sanders 25

    Pete 21

    Warren 14

    Biden 13

    I think Sanders has (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    this and he knows it.

    A couple of weeks ago (none / 0) (#162)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 07, 2020 at 10:10:21 PM EST
    Sanders passed Biden with the best betting odds and since then has opened a twenty point lead.  Bloomberg is the only one who is close to matching Sanders gains but he is still almost twenty points behind.

    This is with Sanders taking flack from all sides while Bloomberg continues to stay out of the fray.  My takeaway from the debate tonight was basically a place holder; nobody did much to change anything.

    The next debate when Bloomberg gets on the state (wondering if he will also be able to get on a box as well) could be telling.  Already both Sanders and Warren are complaining about Bloomberg buying his way onto the state.  I expect this will increase as it gets closer to the debate.

    I am still convinced Bloomberg will not play well outside of NYC and may well not have a good Super Tuesday.


    he is spending a fortune at (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 01:30:32 AM EST
    Telemundo -- multiple ads per night. I missed the first hour of tonight's debate, but I don't recall   a single question about immigration during the second hour.

    I just got a letter (none / 0) (#169)
    by ragebot on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    addressed to me personally from Bloomberg.  Nothing special so did everyone else in my condo complex.  Always see several of his ads on facebook (my high school's 55 reunion is approaching and this is where we make contact).  Also seeing his ads on TV on a regular basis.

    Bloomberg spent $US170 for every vote he got in his last run for mayor.  I read a projection that that rate would be twelve billion nation wide.  Best I can remember Clinton outspent Trump something like three dollars for every two dollars Trump spent; but her total was around one and a half billion.

    There were also lots of complaints that Trump got free TV time from the MSM which made up for his lack of spending.  Trump seemed to be a master of getting his message out.

    Bottom line is it seems like Bloomberg will wind up far outspending any previous candidate; likely by an order of magnitude.  Currently his spending is in the hundreds of millions while even Sanders is only in the tens of millions and the other are only spending millions.

    It remains to be seen how well this will work.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#170)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 01:09:28 PM EST
    There were at least 2 candidates at that debate actively stating that this country doesn't need another billionaire to run things. Warren and Sanders are both actively anti Bloomberg already.
    Now, Sanders has looked into the idea of making Warren his VP and Treasury Secretary.
    That would be a Dow Jones bounce for the ages

    The (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    Warren Sanders ticket was a Twitter rumor. More likely Bernie would pick Tulsi or Nina Turner

    Another billionaire? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    "country doesn't need another billionaire to run things."

    I know Bloomberg is a billionaire. Who was the first one?


    We know they have no shame (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    But watching republicans worrying about how there is to much money in politics is going to be a treat of its own.

    The other day I was reading this opinion thing by some one who wrote a lot about what Bloomberg did as mayor who says, and this is pure speculation as far as I can tell, one thing he might do that would not be out of character is to buy the office and then lead an effort to reform election funding and transparency using himself as exhibit A.


    Pete (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 08:24:05 AM EST
    Has now passed Bernie in polling in NH. And Bernie has started directly attacking Pete. He is acting desperate.

    As far as I can find (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 08:30:03 AM EST
    He is ahead by 1 point in one poll.

    I would keep the bubbly on ice fir a while


    Seriously (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 08, 2020 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    Though Bernie eking out a win isn't gonna do anything for him heading into NH especially with the culinary union appearing to be dead set against him.

    The (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 09, 2020 at 06:16:09 PM EST
    "final"  national delegates to be awarded in Iowa.
     Buttigieg 14
     Sanders   12
     Warren     8
     Biden      6
     Klobuchar  1

    At least till the (none / 0) (#178)
    by ragebot on Sun Feb 09, 2020 at 10:37:32 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 10, 2020 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    it's not going to change anything. Bernie is just going to have a meltdown. This is the same crap he pulled in 2016 and they found nothing.  

    It's over. (none / 0) (#181)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 10, 2020 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    If serious, conduct a statewide recanvas, not partial.  

    They already (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 10, 2020 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    did a re-canvass after the original results didn't they? it seems the recount only came out worse for Bernie not better. Bernie needs to congratulate Pete and move on.