I feel exactly the opposite. Hardly anyone will understand the system and the numbers well enough to realize it was a tie. Most people will only be looking at the big “Sanders wins!” headline. People with money and influence aren’t much smarter than average (if they are smarter than average at all). Besides which, Sanders doesn’t rely on “people with money” to get money or “people with influence” to get support.
11 Likes
You seem to be the one “harping on his age.” Please stop looking for a fight.
6 Likes
You didn’t really win the game - it was only by one point.
9 Likes
We’re way too obsessed with even the tiniest the difference between 1st and 2nd place in the US.
Besides which, Sanders doesn’t rely on “people with money” to get money or “people with influence” to get support.
Then I’m back to not understanding why that slight edge matters.
Sanders needed a good showing to show that (a) he was electable, and (b) he was the presumptive standard-bearer for the left. He did both, and would have done both even with a couple of percentage points less. Buttigieg needed a good showing to suggest that he is the standard-bearer for the moderates. He did that. They both won by any meaningful sense of the word.
1 Like
Yes - if meaningful sense excludes the actual definition of the word.
11 Likes
I think this is the point being made by those you are arguing with exactly. America is far too obsessed with even a tiny difference between 1st and 2nd. You may not agree that’s a good way to be, but it is what it is, and therefore coming in first matters, because it matters to people.
8 Likes
I do believe that my statement is correct by the actual definition of “win”. They both came in first (on different measures), and both achieved victory for their objectives.
coming in first matters, because it matters to people.
I get that, I just don’t see being first vs. being tied for first it making any difference at all. In 2016, after his “loss” (by both measures), Sanders himself agreed, saying “Let’s not blow this out of proportion. This is not the biggest deal in the world.” And it wasn’t, his result there was a big boost to his campaign.
I just feel like we’re talking past each other. When you say it doesn’t matter, do you mean it doesn’t matter because in the scheme of getting nominated the difference is incredibly slim or nil, there is no meaningful difference in the score between two people trying to win the game of being nominated?
Or are you saying that you think people broadly won’t care and therefore it will make little difference to donations, morale in the Sanders camp, etc.?
Of course the winner says winning matters and the person who came in second says it’s not a big deal because there’s plenty left to do. The coach gives a different speech depending on whether the team is up or down at halftime. But again, I feel like we’re confounding psychology with numbers. From a numbers perspective the last I saw they literally tied (since popular vote doesn’t count, delegates do). From a psychology perspective wanting to congratulate and motivate your team makes sense.
10 Likes
Not anymore at 97% reporting.
| 97% Reporting | Votes | Sanders | Buttigieg | Warren | Biden |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanders | 44,753 | 0 | 2,518 | 10,441 | 21,702 |
| Buttigieg | 42,235 | -2,518 | 0 | 7,923 | 19,184 |
| Warren | 34,312 | -10,441 | -7,923 | 0 | 11,261 |
| Biden | 23,051 | -21,702 | -19,184 | -11,261 | 0 |
It’s still insane all the focus on a count smaller than the population of Providence, RI.
5 Likes
Both, I think. The latter because he has every right to tell his camp they won (as does Pete), and because I don’t think the difference between a win and a tie will have any impact on anything, even the rants of the idiot press, past the first few days.
Both teams should be over the moon, and not obsessing over a number of votes which is piddling even by Iowa standards.
The amusing thing about this year’s Iowa caucuses was how quickly the establishment narrative shifted once it became clear that Sanders would have a strong showing. Last year, they were talking about how the winner in Iowa would determine the nominee (in the way @anon50609448 describes above), secure in the assumption that Biden would win the lily-white state. Then, last week, the NYT was suddenly saying “welll…there could be more than one winner”, and the Dem establishment and its supporters followed their lead in the goalpost shifting. The only thing more amusing is that they think no-one noticed.
18 Likes
Obviously this would require a counter-factual universe to actually test, but, to be clear, you think that Sanders’ short term fundraising from emails that say, “Please consider donating $5” pulls in the same amount if Sanders can truthfully claim a win? I’m not asking incredulously, I just want to walk away feeling like I understood.
But you and I are the ones obsessing over it, right? Sanders said, “Great job everyone, we won!” That’s not obsessing, that’s congratulating your team and moving on.
10 Likes
I think that if he had been a very clear winner on every metric he might have done better with this…but honestly, probably not. I assume he’s competing for small donations with Warren, and it was obviously really important for him to do better than her for those donations. Doing so much better than Biden was also important from the POV of defusing the “unelectability” narratives. However, I really can’t see the distinction in how he describes the win having any other impact. (Which in any event doesn’t matter, since those two impacts are huge.)
Just t be clear, I feel the same about Buttgieg: doing as well as he did in the caucus is huge, but I also think it was silly for him to be out there doing victory laps. (If anything, he looked more ridiculous than Bernie, since he started with those laps before he knew any results. That could have really backfired.)
1 Like
Combined with the app debacle, it also helped shut the establishment media up about the “wonderful and all-important expression of pure American democracy” that is the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus. While this stupid and discriminatory caucus system might not be gone in four years, Iowa going first might very well be (to the relief of future Dem candidates and the reporters who cover them).
8 Likes
6 Likes
This is what I’m hoping. People are finally seeing the shit show for the shit show that it is and are trying to find a way out of the madhouse. I hope the dweomer continues to fade.
9 Likes
He’ll have to try that with the Electoral College in December
4 Likes
When every episode of incompetence (screwing up the last poll, screwing up the caucus , releasing a biased sample of partial resullts, delaying full results, releasing incorrect results, and not fixing it until an NYT reporter publicly calls you out on it, calling for a re-canvas as soon as the results look like they’re changing) and every thing that “ looks bad, but is actually totally innocent” (company behind the app is run by former Clinton staffers and the spouse of Buttigieg’s campaign manager, poll canceled due to complaints from Buttigeig camp, recanvas called after Buttigeig called to complain about satellite caucuses) just happens to hurt the same person, it is abundantly clear that there is malice and deception (rigging, if you will) at work, too.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.
And there’s a massive gaslighting campaign in the media against anyone who has the temerity to point any of this out.
10 Likes
