GDT: Iowa Caucus

[B-Man]

 

 

 

THIS IS JUST SAD: 

 

Iowa Democratic Party releases 85% of caucus results but an error forces correction.

 

 

 

 

.

[/dev/null]

33 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

You know, Soros...guy who autographs your payroll check?

 

c'mon dude, you know soros doesn't sign those checks.  there's at least 3 or 4 intermediary organizations between soros and his serfs

[njbuff]

I could be drunk and passed out and I could still get a count correctly.

 

What's the Dems excuse?

[CoudyBills]

5 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

c'mon dude, you know soros doesn't sign those checks.  there's at least 3 or 4 intermediary organizations between soros and his serfs

Ahhhhhh dang it, you're right.  My bad.  

3 minutes ago, njbuff said:

I could be drunk and passed out and I could still get a count correctly.

 

What's the Dems excuse?

Too busy hammering fat coke rails off 14 year old butts on their rape planes to be bothered with a vote.  

[njbuff]

3 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Ahhhhhh dang it, you're right.  My bad.  

Too busy hammering fat coke rails off 14 year old butts on their rape planes to be bothered with a vote.  

 

Yikes.

[CoudyBills]

3 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

Yikes.

Too fire?

[njbuff]

4 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Too fire?

 

I was having a Scarface flashback for some reason.

 

?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

THIS IS JUST SAD: 

 

Iowa Democratic Party releases 85% of caucus results but an error forces correction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.

[KD in CA]

20 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Or......they didn't do a trial run with the app and used it when it wasn't ready because they're incompetent.  Just from a common sense perspective, the last thing the DNC wants to do after the bad reputation they got in 2016 is to make it look like they're rigging the primaries.    

 

Actually, the last thing they want (quite clearly) is to fail to rig their primary.  How it looks is a distant second to getting the result they want......especially since they can count on the media and the vast majority of their mindless party followers to completely ignore the obvious corruption.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Actually, the last thing they want (quite clearly) is to fail to rig their primary.  How it looks is a distant second to getting the result they want......especially since they can count on the media and the vast majority of their mindless party followers to completely ignore the obvious corruption.

 

 

Oh god.  I have no doubt the DNC will try to rig it.  The last thing they want is Bernie to win as they'd rather see Trump in office than him.  The lobbyists on both sides are happy as lobbying spending is at a nine year high and this 2019 was the first year we had above a trillion dollar spending deficit when we weren't in a great recession.  

 

They usually do it in more subtle ways like only releasing 61% of the votes even though it looks now that Bernie might take Iowa when all the votes are counted.

[njbuff]

It only took 3 days for them to blame Trump and Trump supporters.

[Buffalo_Gal]

30 minutes ago, njbuff said:

It only took 3 days for them to blame Trump and Trump supporters.

 

For those wondering...

 

Trump supporters flood hotline for Iowa precinct chairs, adding to the confusion: report

 

</snip>
 

 

Ken Sagar, a Democratic central committee member in the state, told a conference call Wednesday that on the night of the caucus, Trump backers were calling in to voice their support for the president, Bloomberg reported. Sagar was reportedly one of the people answering the calls.
 

The report was based on two participants from the conference call that was between IDP staff and the party's governing body. Sagar did not comment for the report. He did not immediately respond to an after-hours email from Fox News. The IDP did not confirm that Trump supporters were to blame when reached by Bloomberg and did not respond to an email from Fox News.

 

</snip>

 

 

[Nanker]

Buttgig did better in rural counties that have been apportioned more delegates to fewer voters than more urban areas that have fewer delegates to greater numbers of voters in those caucuses. Bernie did better in urban areas, ergo he got more votes than Butgig but reaped fewer delegates than him/her/it. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Buttgig did better in rural counties that have been apportioned more delegates to fewer voters than more urban areas that have fewer delegates to greater numbers of voters in those caucuses. Bernie did better in urban areas, ergo he got more votes than Butgig but reaped fewer delegates than him/her/it. 

I wonder if the Latins ever contemplated time where their cool new word “ergo” would be paired with “Butgig” and make perfect sense to the reader. 

[SoCal Deek]

I’ve watched the ticker move as results have trickled in over the last couple of days. I find it to be a virtual statistical impossibility that the percentage going to each of these candidates would remain virtually unchanged throughout the process. Something foul is afoot here! No large and diverse voting block can possibly be that monolithic, without someone messing with the results or without extraordinary pre-coordination. Impossible!

[sodbuster]

52 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I wonder if the Latins ever contemplated time where their cool new word “ergo” would be paired with “Butgig” and make perfect sense to the reader. 

Now, I'm not an expert in Roman culture, but I would bet the farm that this isn't the first time that the Latin language has been exposed to a butt gig.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve watched the ticker move as results have trickled in over the last couple of days. I find it to be a virtual statistical impossibility that the percentage going to each of these candidates would remain virtually unchanged throughout the process. Something foul is afoot here! No large and diverse voting block can possibly be that monolithic, without someone messing with the results or without extraordinary pre-coordination. Impossible!

 

I apologize in advance.

 

[Nanker]

Anyone else think it’s a bit odd that adult voters who accused the President of being “Putin’s B word” for the past three years are seriously aligning themselves with the man who’s running that actually has a husband. 
 

He’s toe to toe with the sebaceous communist Sanders who also happens to be a millionaire. 

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

For those wondering...

 

Trump supporters flood hotline for Iowa precinct chairs, adding to the confusion: report

 

This is so awesome. It's like watching a football team that has not completed a single pass in the entire first half of the game spend the entire second half of the game only throwing passes. These tools are simply incapable of correcting their own errors.

 

Maybe one day the DNC will realize that even some of it's base members wish they'd once...just once...take responsibility for their incompetence.

 

Maybe.

 

One day.

 

Ah, who are we kidding.

[B-Man]

 

 

What a surprise.............Mayor Pete did not really "win"

 

Buttigieg, Sanders nearly tied as Iowa caucus results narrow

https://apnews.com/93f841a150b2b7eec8901bcc9e865624

[B-Man]

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

I guess York doesn't understand that the SDEs are what count, so Buttigieg actually won. Not Sanders.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 6, 2020 by B-Man

[B-Man]

 

[KRC]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Sounds like they didn't get the results they wanted, so let's do it again. Also, I didn't know Perez was a Bills fan.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

?

 

 

 

[section122]

On 2/4/2020 at 6:57 PM, Taro T said:

 

Thank you very much for the perspective.  Would've expected ticked off to be the reaction, but can definitely see how it all could be amusing from your perspective.  So, are you a Sanders supporter or do you back one of the others? (Assuming from your reply that you do support Bernie.)

 

Agree that caucuses have a ton of flaws.  Counterintuitive that there are still a handful of states that hold them to allocate delegates.  It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes the 2 parties make to their caucus rules in Iowa and elsewhere.

 

 

Sorry for the delay in responding.  I like to post on PPP from a computer as it is easier to be a windbag than it is with my phone 

 

Yes I am a Sanders supporter.  I was last go around as well.  He has a tremendous track record of being on the right side of issues from segregation to gay marriage to conflicts that we have engaged in.  I don't agree with all of his policies namely the college loan forgiveness but I am a big believer in single payer or universal health care.  Being the greatest nation on earth means we should take care of our people.  Health care in America is less than ideal to put it mildly.  Insurance companies have made bank off of the ACA because it is a half measure.  We dipped a toe in and all it did was allow insurance companies to raise their rates astronomically while offering worse coverage.  People have to make decisions on whether food or medicine is more important, stay at terrible jobs because they need insurance, and go broke trying to pay hospital bills.  I would like to see health care fixed in this country above all else.  That is my most important issue in this election.

 

All that said I am on record saying Trump gets re-elected and this cluster does nothing to change that prediction.

 

On 2/4/2020 at 5:49 PM, reddogblitz said:

 

We had them in my state until they decided to go with a primary this time.

 

It was kindof fun I guess if you're a political junkie.  About 1 hour in I started to think, what about the people with small children that can't afford a baby sitter?  Or the people who's kids had a soccer game that morning?   Or the people that can't sit/stand for 2 hours?  Or the people that have to work on Saturday ...

 

Meanwhile, my wife and I who have no kids left at home and don't work Saturday were able to be there. 

 

Doesn't seem fair or inclusive. At least in my state, I think that was the point.

 

All of this is exactly what we were talking about.  It is almost set up to be overly represented by young people with no responsibilities (who are generally apathetic) and older people (who generally participate).  That would skew results with an unrepresentative (is that a word? lol) total of the state.  Voting is less than 5 minutes generally from the time I park until the time I am back in my car.  2 hours?  Can't do that.  As you said unfortunately that is probably the point.

 

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

From your link:

 

The latest Emerson College tracking poll, however, shows Buttigieg has gotten a large bump in support thanks to his surprise success in Iowa. The delay in reporting the results of the Iowa caucuses has led some to speculate that the entire debacle was a calculated move by the Democratic National Committee to let Buttigieg soak up the spotlight ahead of New Hampshire.

 

[Foxx]

you just can't make this ***** up.

https://twitter.com/tylerpager/status/1225494446206279686

 

[njbuff]

It’s all Trump’s fault.
 

Orange man do evil things.

 

?

[Foxx]

of course it is.

https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/1225419917132025856

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

30 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

Sorry for the delay in responding.  I like to post on PPP from a computer as it is easier to be a windbag than it is with my phone 

 

Yes I am a Sanders supporter.  I was last go around as well.  He has a tremendous track record of being on the right side of issues from segregation to gay marriage to conflicts that we have engaged in.  I don't agree with all of his policies namely the college loan forgiveness but I am a big believer in single payer or universal health care.  Being the greatest nation on earth means we should take care of our people.  Health care in America is less than ideal to put it mildly.  Insurance companies have made bank off of the ACA because it is a half measure.  We dipped a toe in and all it did was allow insurance companies to raise their rates astronomically while offering worse coverage.  People have to make decisions on whether food or medicine is more important, stay at terrible jobs because they need insurance, and go broke trying to pay hospital bills.  I would like to see health care fixed in this country above all else.  That is my most important issue in this election.

 

All that said I am on record saying Trump gets re-elected and this cluster does nothing to change that prediction.

 

 

All of this is exactly what we were talking about.  It is almost set up to be overly represented by young people with no responsibilities (who are generally apathetic) and older people (who generally participate).  That would skew results with an unrepresentative (is that a word? lol) total of the state.  Voting is less than 5 minutes generally from the time I park until the time I am back in my car.  2 hours?  Can't do that.  As you said unfortunately that is probably the point.

 

 

From your link:

 

The latest Emerson College tracking poll, however, shows Buttigieg has gotten a large bump in support thanks to his surprise success in Iowa. The delay in reporting the results of the Iowa caucuses has led some to speculate that the entire debacle was a calculated move by the Democratic National Committee to let Buttigieg soak up the spotlight ahead of New Hampshire.

 

Great write up. I likely see Sanders the way you see Trump, but that's beside the point. 

 

The issue on health insurance is just flat wrong. You've been duped, at least partially. I'm not singing the praises of health insurance carriers but consider:

 

1. The rules of the game were written by 50 different state regulators 50 different ways creating 50 different kingdoms. The game was fixed, in large part by the people you want to hand total control to. 

 

2. While companies/people can make mistakes or be corrupt, all the b-s you have been fed re: coverage, pre-existing conditions, expense and profit ratios and premium increasing or decreasing was designed, implemented and regulated by the state.  That's the way it is, the way it was, and the way it continues to be, albeit on this $$$$#ed up ACA platform.  The fact that some crazy old millionaire with a funny accent screams something else doesn't change that.

 

BS pitches bs on this issue. Trade the tyranny of the insurance billionaires (following the rules established by government employees) for the tyranny of the federal govt and the plan is we all come out ahead?  

 

 

At the heart of the matter for me, beyond what's outlined above, is the thought of transitioning a system where employees work in private industry, with a vested interest in continued employment, with relatively modest benefit packages to a system staffed by govt lifers, benefit rich packages, near-guaranteed employment, with multiple redundant departments doing the same work, all with a promise  to be retired by 58 and living on pension for another 30. 

 

Medicare for all would be a disaster, much as it has been with Medicare for some, as social security and on and on are. 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

of course it is.

https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/1225419917132025856

 

....well, if Sheila says so.....SMH.........

[section122]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Great write up. I likely see Sanders the way you see Trump, but that's beside the point. 

 

The issue on health insurance is just flat wrong. You've been duped, at least partially. I'm not singing the praises of health insurance carriers but consider:

 

1. The rules of the game were written by 50 different state regulators 50 different ways creating 50 different kingdoms. The game was fixed, in large part by the people you want to hand total control to. 

 

2. While companies/people can make mistakes or be corrupt, all the b-s you have been fed re: coverage, pre-existing conditions, expense and profit ratios and premium increasing or decreasing was designed, implemented and regulated by the state.  That's the way it is, the way it was, and the way it continues to be, albeit on this $$$$#ed up ACA platform.  The fact that some crazy old millionaire with a funny accent screams something else doesn't change that.

 

BS pitches bs on this issue. Trade the tyranny of the insurance billionaires (following the rules established by government employees) for the tyranny of the federal govt and the plan is we all come out ahead?  

 

 

At the heart of the matter for me, beyond what's outlined above, is the thought of transitioning a system where employees work in private industry, with a vested interest in continued employment, with relatively modest benefit packages to a system staffed by govt lifers, benefit rich packages, near-guaranteed employment, with multiple redundant departments doing the same work, all with a promise  to be retired by 58 and living on pension for another 30. 

 

Medicare for all would be a disaster, much as it has been with Medicare for some, as social security and on and on are. 

 

 

I don't hate Trump.  I think it is embarrassing that our president engages in twitter beefs with people, doesn't know simple geography, etc and I think we can do better.  He isn't this evil dictator that people want to make him out to be.  He is however a troll (in the internet sense of the word) and I will admit that at times it makes me chuckle.  However I don't think that is a role our leader should be playing.

 

As for Health Insurance I appreciate your views.  I work directly every day with benefits in my role as an HR Director and just simply see things a bit differently.  I have watched premiums sky rocket while adding deductibles to plans that didn't have them with worse coverage.  Insurance companies were forced to offer coverage to everyone and pretended that it caused a tremendous burden for them financially.  Meanwhile Excellus made 99.5 million profit in 2016, 182.3 in 2017, and 150 million in 2018.  That is a non-profit company making 432 million dollars in profits in 2 years.  Their CEO received a 23% raise from 2.3 million a year to 2.9.  

 

As I work in a smallish company (about 115 employees) I also see the cost to the employer.  Minimum wage hikes are going to push a lot of businesses out as they struggle to maintain competitiveness while labor costs skyrocket.  If employers weren't on the hook for premiums they would become more sustainable and profitable.  

 

I posted in a separate thread about why Medicare is so expensive.  Part of that is due to the population served and the risk associated with them.  The other part is that the govt is forbidden from negotiating medication prices.  I have family living abroad with socialized medicine and they have no issues with wait times, providers, etc.  All the boogeyman talking points being pushed are exaggerated.  Funny thing is we currently have to go where our insurance says we can go so we already have issues with providers (in network vs out of network), we have to wait sometimes months for specialists as it is,  and most PCPs don't accept walk in appointments anymore.  The talking points are current issues!

[Nanker]

Yes. And I responded by outlining exactly why “Medicare for all” is a bull#### red herring. I welcome people to enjoy Medicare coverages. The premiums alone would bankrupt many families with children. 
 

Dealing with pre-existing conditions, portability, and drug costs could all be addressed by the government and insurers. But the bureaucrats have their heads up their collective asses, and that includes the POTUS. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Quote

 

Aren  R. LeBrun

@proustmalone

Replying to

@TomPerez

The Iowa Democrats trying to steal the caucuses from Bernie in broad daylight, getting caught, getting caught again, getting caught again, getting caught again, getting caught again, failing to steal them, and then trying to redo it so they can steal them again.

 

 

[Foxx]

visions of crowdstrke anyone?

https://twitter.com/HouseAdmnGOP/status/1225506745428172802

 

[Doc]

46 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Yes. And I responded by outlining exactly why “Medicare for all” is a bull#### red herring. I welcome people to enjoy Medicare coverages. The premiums alone would bankrupt many families with children. 
 

Dealing with pre-existing conditions, portability, and drug costs could all be addressed by the government and insurers. But the bureaucrats have their heads up their collective asses, and that includes the POTUS. 

 

Medicare for all would destroy health care.  No one would enter the field faced  with spending 8 years and $500K+ to make a Medicare rate salary at the age of 30.  And those already in it would retire early. 

[RochesterRob]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Medicare for all would destroy health care.  No one would enter the field faced  with spending 8 years and $500K+ to make a Medicare rate salary at the age of 30.  And those already in it would retire early. 

  The socialists would tell you all the education would come from the state at no cost.  What they will mumble through their hat is these doctors will be expected to work at a subsistence salary for many years.