• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

2020 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ghost

Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
352
Location
NW AL
Apparently there are problems getting in the results of the Iowa caucus. So anyone know what the deal is? Seems very suspicious. Russians hacking again? Or the Dem results not going to plan?
 

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
299
Location
Meridianville
Apparently there are problems getting in the results of the Iowa caucus. So anyone know what the deal is? Seems very suspicious. Russians hacking again? Or the Dem results not going to plan?
I’m pretty sure it’s the Dems not being able to do anything right.
 

WesL

"Bill, I'm talkin' imminent rueage"
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,344
Reaction score
2,614
Location
Fayetteville, AR
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
I’m pretty sure it’s the Dems not being able to do anything right.
Let's just state the obvious it is a stupid and flawed system in Iowa no matter which party is running it. Just go vote and get it over with. Ain't got time to stand around in circles and switch candidates and such.
 

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
697
Location
Huntsville, AL
Also interesting....


That is an interesting finding. I'd like to see more than one states not yet released caucus results though. I feel less enthused myself actually, now that I'm thinking about it. Not sure exactly why. Perhaps disappointment with the Trump shenanigans? I'm still going to vote though.
As far as that tweeters statement on underreporting, it's odd to follow that up with a CNN video and online the top of CNN reads: "Analysis: Early Iowa turnout signs point to lagging Democratic enthusiasm". Seems like an appropriate amount of media attention.
 

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
299
Location
Meridianville
That is an interesting finding. I'd like to see more than one states not yet released caucus results though. I feel less enthused myself actually, now that I'm thinking about it. Not sure exactly why. Perhaps disappointment with the Trump shenanigans? I'm still going to vote though.
As far as that tweeters statement on underreporting, it's odd to follow that up with a CNN video and online the top of CNN reads: "Analysis: Early Iowa turnout signs point to lagging Democratic enthusiasm". Seems like an appropriate amount of media attention.
I just don't have a democratic candidate I know I could support - at all. I know I dislike Trump, but that doesn't mean I like anybody else. All of the democratic frontrunners are very flawed.
 

ghost

Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
352
Location
NW AL
Trump's approval rating is at an all-time high (49%). Riding high going into the election year and the Dems are bungling around shooting themselves in the foot.
 

ghost

Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
352
Location
NW AL
I just don't have a democratic candidate I know I could support - at all. I know I dislike Trump, but that doesn't mean I like anybody else. All of the democratic frontrunners are very flawed.
Gabbard and maybe Bloomberg are the closest I could support but right now in the campaign I couldn't pull the lever for either one
 

Mike S

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,991
Reaction score
1,115
Location
Meridianville, Al
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Gabbard and maybe Bloomberg are the closest I could support but right now in the campaign I couldn't pull the lever for either one

Gabbard had a nice tweet wishing Rush Limbaugh well. I just happened across it and didn't look any further but I can't imagine any of the other candidates made any mention of him.
 

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
697
Location
Huntsville, AL
Releasing 62% of the results from Iowa midway through the day and not updating it again is a weird thing to do.. I figure they'd do hourly or every couple hours give us some more information.
 

Kory

Member
Messages
4,928
Reaction score
2,119
Location
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
I just don't have a democratic candidate I know I could support - at all. I know I dislike Trump, but that doesn't mean I like anybody else. All of the democratic frontrunners are very flawed.
I have a few boxes to check before I entertain supporting a candidate. (1) My taxes shouldn’t go up. Over a quarter of my pay check already goes to the government. I don’t need more. (2) Don’t tell me what I can and can’t own to exercise my right to self defense/preservation. We have a political party that demonizes a sector of pro 2A folks. That automatically eliminates anyone nominated by that political party. (3) Said candidate should not be apart of a political party that is pro murder. We’ve seen the current front runner of the Iowa Caucus (lol) say the Democratic Party has no room for pro lifers. Whoops, guess I’m being turned away! The Republican Party doesn’t always check those boxes and they’re hard to assess whether a candidate will hold true to them. But, I know for certain, one party WON’T.

Looks like one political party has completely eliminated themselves from my consideration.

Also thought this was funny. The idea of government run universal healthcare should be dead because we’ve seen an ample display of how one party, who promotes it, can’t even county pieces of paper to tally a caucus for a few thousand people.
 

Jack Watkins

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Rest in Peace
Messages
82
Reaction score
52
Location
Panama City Beach, FL
Pelosi displayed exactly what is wrong in Congress when she ripped up President Trump's SOTU address. She should at the very least be censured.
 

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
697
Location
Huntsville, AL
Very comforting.

I can't view NYT, I guess my monthly limit has been reached. Can you copy paste the article into a quote or PM it to me so I can read? I've been checking the IDP website for caucus results 20+x a day and so far there hasn't been any changes since yesterday.

Edit: Nevermind I made a fake account. Gotta love 10minutemail.
 

Kory

Member
Messages
4,928
Reaction score
2,119
Location
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Some of the charts came out weird but here it is.
Results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed by “quality control checks” on Monday night. Days later, quality control issues have not been resolved.
The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

2020 ELECTION
Follow the latest developments, including a call for a recanvass, in today’s live coverage of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and they do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.
But not all of the errors are minor, and they raise questions about whether the public will ever get a completely precise account of the Iowa results. With Mr. Sanders closing to within 0.1 percentage points with 97 percent of 1,765 precincts reporting, the race could easily grow close enough for even the most minor errors to delay a final projection or raise doubts about a declared winner.

The errors suggest that many Iowa caucus leaders struggled to follow the rules of their party’s caucuses, or to adopt the additional reporting requirements introduced since 2016. They show that the Iowa Democratic Party, despite the long delays, failed to validate all of the results fully before releasing them to the public.

Results: The Most Detailed Map of the Iowa Democratic Caucus
See results from every precinct in the Iowa Democratic caucus.

Mandy McClure, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Democratic Party (I.D.P.), said the party reported the data as provided to it by the precinct caucuses.



“The caucus math work sheet is the official report on caucus night to the I.D.P., and the I.D.P. reports the results as delivered by the precinct chair,” she said. “This form must be signed by the caucus chair, the caucus secretary and representatives from each campaign in the room who attest to its accuracy. Under the rules of the delegate selection process, delegates are awarded based off the record of results as provided by each precinct caucus chair.”

Just about every election night includes reporting errors. They can be difficult to identify, but can often be corrected during a recount or a postelection canvass. This year’s Iowa caucuses are the reverse: Errors are now easy to identify, and hard to correct.

The errors are detectable because of changes to the way the Iowa Democratic Party reports its results, put in place after the Sanders campaign criticized the caucus results in 2016. This cycle, and for the first time, the party released three sets of results corresponding to different steps in the caucus process. The rules are complex and thorough, and they create conditions in which the results can be obviously inaccurate or inconsistent within a precinct.


First, caucusgoers express their preference for a candidate upon arrival, and these votes are recorded in a “first alignment.” Then, candidates with limited support at a precinct, usually less than 15 percent, are deemed not viable; their supporters get a chance to realign to support a viable candidate. The preference at this point is recorded as well, and it’s called the final alignment.

Viable candidates can’t lose support on realignment, but there were more than 10 cases where a viable candidate lost vote share in the final alignment, even though that is precluded by the caucus rules.
No new voters are permitted to join the caucus after the first alignment. But in at least 70 precincts, more than 4 percent of the total, there are more tabulated total votes on final alignment than on first alignment.
Many of these cases could be simple tabulation mistakes in a precinct caucus that otherwise went smoothly, like a West Des Moines precinct that reported the first alignment results only for the “nonviable” candidates (those who didn’t meet the 15 percent threshold) but still reported final alignment results for the viable ones. Others appear to be more serious.



At the next step in the process, each precinct allots county delegates based on final preference, and these county delegates are reported to the news media as “state delegate equivalents,” which approximate the number of delegates won at the state convention. Each precinct caucus gets a set number, but a handful of precincts allotted more state delegate equivalents than they had available.
Notably, there are dozens of precincts where there is a discrepancy between the final preference vote and the number of state delegate equivalents allotted. This includes more than 15 cases in which a candidate received fewer state delegate equivalents than another despite receiving more votes in the final alignment.

Problems With Delegate Allocations
In multiple precincts, the candidate who received the most votes did not receive the most state delegate equivalents. Here is an example of how those differed in Cedar Township in Johnson County.

First
Alignment
Votes
Final
Alignment
Votes
S.D.E.
Klobuchar
15
22
0.405
Sanders
20
28
0
Buttigieg
12
12
0
Warren
12
0
0
Biden
5
3
0
Bennet
1
0
0
By The New York Times

In these cases, it is not obvious whether the state delegates or the final alignment results were reported inaccurately.



The Iowa Democratic Party has corrected some errors, but the errors became far more frequent on Wednesday as the count dragged on.
On Wednesday afternoon, the Iowa Democratic Party released a wave of results showing Deval Patrick sweeping central Des Moines. That was incorrect. Mr. Sanders’s votes had been reported as being for Mr. Patrick, while Elizabeth Warren’s tallies went to Tom Steyer.
A plausible explanation is that an Iowa Democratic Party staff member accidentally copied the results of one column too far to the left in a spreadsheet for some precincts. Such errors inevitably occur in manual data entry, but the Iowa Democratic Party does not appear to have enough quality checks to assure that it reports accurate results.
The Iowa Democratic Party quickly corrected these errors, and they are not included in our overall count of discrepancies in more than 100 precincts. The party has not yet addressed other irregularities reported to it or circulating on social media. In another case, The Times alerted the party to an error at 6 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday that remained in the data released several hours later.



Problems With Alignment Counts
In some precincts, viable candidates lost votes in the final alignment, something that the rules preclude. In Indianola’s Second Precinct in Warren County, some votes appeared to be transposed in the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results.


First
Alignment
Votes
Final
Alignment
Votes
S.D.E.
Buttigieg
50
56
0.7
Warren
0
51
0.4667
Sanders
0
44
0.4667
Klobuchar
30
39
0.4667
Steyer
50
0
0
Patrick
41
0
0
Biden
25
0
0
Uncommitted
2
0
0
Gabbard
1
0
0
By The New York Times

The Times is continuing to report the Iowa Democratic caucus results as released by the party and has alerted the party to an extensive list of precinct errors.
There is no reason to believe that Mr. Sanders or Mr. Buttigieg did materially better in the contaminated precincts than they did elsewhere, either over all or controlling for their demographic characteristics. But the tabulated result could be close enough for the remaining ambiguity to preclude a projection of a winner.
Even if the appropriate candidate is deemed the winner, the irregularities in the results are likely to do little to restore public confidence in the Iowa caucuses.

Nate Cohn is a domestic correspondent for The Upshot. He covers elections, polling and demographics. Before joining The Times in 2013, he worked as a staff writer for The New Republic. @Nate_Cohn
Josh Katz is a graphics editor for The Upshot, where he covers a range of topics involving politics, policy and culture. He is the author of “Speaking American: How Y’all, Youse, and You Guys Talk,” a visual exploration of American regional dialects. @jshkatz
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoD

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
299
Location
Meridianville
So the Treasury wouldn't send Trump's tax returns to Congress, but had no problem sending Hunter Biden's. Seems legit.

Also, all campaign finance investigations have to be approved by Barr now. Seems legit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Logo 468x120
Back
Top