Pete won Iowa
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lets discuss
-->
@TheRealNihilist
this is a joke right?
Sanders got thousands more votes. The tallies are riddled with errors, and most went against sanders. The new york times wrote an article about how they found over 100 errors in the data.
We have no idea who got the most delegates yet because we don't have accurate calculations. What we do know is that sanders got the most votes in both the 1st and 2nd rounds.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No one can possibly say they know who got the most delegates in Iowa because the results are so obviously flawed.
The only thing we can say for certain is who got the most votes, which is sanders.
-->
@HistoryBuff
this is a joke right?
No.
Sanders got thousands more votes. The tallies are riddled with errors, and most went against sanders. The new york times wrote an article about how they found over 100 errors in the data.
Hillary had more votes in 2016 yet she still lost. Since I have rebutted that claim I would you like to provide proof of the tallies riddled with errors?
We have no idea who got the most delegates yet because we don't have accurate calculations. What we do know is that sanders got the most votes in both the 1st and 2nd rounds.
If there are inaccuracies in who had the delegates why isn't their errors in the number of votes?
No one can possibly say they know who got the most delegates in Iowa because the results are so obviously flawed.
It being flawed doesn't mean Pete lost.
Lololol Democrats can’t run a caucus and they want to run our healthcare 😂😂. That being said Trump v Bernie is the easiest Trump win ever
what a win
for trump
-->
@ILikePie5
Obama did well with healthcare and he was a Democrat.
Democrats hire people for a job and they did bad. I would say it the Democrats fault for trusting an innovation in delivering a caucus but I would say there is still some amount of blame given to the company. I don't really know how to divey the blame so I would blame both.
Pete did win Iowa and Bernie is currently no winning New Hampshire so...
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Obama did well with healthcare and he was a Democrat.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Obamacare was a disaster that penalized individual choice
<br>Democrats hire people for a job and they did bad. I would say it the Democrats fault for trusting an innovation in delivering a caucus but I would say there is still some amount of blame given to the company. I don't really know how to divey the blame so I would blame both.Pete did win Iowa and Bernie is currently no winning New Hampshire so...
A recount is happening in Iowa so Pete technically hasn’t won. And Bernie is up in NH by an average of 7-8 points.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Hillary had more votes in 2016 yet she still lost. Since I have rebutted that claim I would you like to provide proof of the tallies riddled with errors?
my point is that the tallies for the purposes with delegates are horrendously flawed. Therefore trying to judge a winner by a metric that we know for certain is wrong is a horrible idea. We know for certain that sanders got the most votes. Since that is the only metric we know is correct, why would we use any other metric?
Here is a link directly to a times article. I don't have a subscription so I can't quote it directly.
Here is an article discussing how they can't/won't fix obvious errors on the worksheets they used to calculate
There were examples of delegates given to the wrong candidates. Lots of examples of more people apparently voting in the 2nd round than the 1st, which is supposed to be impossible.
Basically, it is impossible to say if butigieg or Sanders won the most delegates because the counts are utterly fucked up.
If there are inaccuracies in who had the delegates why isn't their errors in the number of votes?
primarily the errors are in adding numbers together. So after a 1st round they would give the wrong numbers of supporters to the wrong candidate. They added numbers together wrong, that sort of thing. We have the tallies of the number of people between each round. It is possible they fucked up vote counts too, but there is no reason to believe that pete got more votes than Sanders. There is ample evidence that the delegate tallies are fucked up.
I can't find the source i had at the moment, but there was one case where on the 2nd round they counted the people who had moved to sanders in the 2nd round as voting for Steyer instead of sanders.
It being flawed doesn't mean Pete lost.
it means that the only metric by which pete "won" was massively screwed up. The metric by which we have more accurate data, ie raw votes, says sanders won. If we have 1 fairly reliable metric and 1 obviously inaccurate metric, why would you choose to use the inaccurate one? The only reason to do that is to try to crown Pete the winner.
Come, Mister tally man, tally me bananaDaylight come and me wan' go home
-->
@ILikePie5
I guess you care about individual choice more than safety? Okay. I value the other.I wholeheartedly disagree. Obamacare was a disaster that penalized individual choice
A recount is happening in Iowa so Pete technically hasn’t won. And Bernie is up in NH by an average of 7-8 points.
A recount only means they are counting the same votes again. Very unlikely Bernie will be on top of that.
Oh yeah he is up in NH.
-->
@HistoryBuff
my point is that the tallies for the purposes with delegates are horrendously flawed.
Something being horrendously flawed doesn't discount Pete's victory. These are two different things.
Laws can be bad but under the law this person is jailed. Do you understand?
why would we use any other metric?
Hasn't Caucus' always been a shitshow? Your saying it was based on popular votes before. I don't think it was.
"In these cases, it is not obvious whether the state delegates or the final alignment results were reported inaccurately."
So you don't actually know there are errors?
They did not in anyway explain the errors instead they are making guesses on how many delegates people should have. This is a bad article. Doesn't in anyway show how it is riddled with inconsistencies instead guesses what the Iowa caucus' are and then says it is consistent. Iowa or the DNC have not released how they divey out delegates so this is guess work unless they did and I would gladly see how they divey out delegates if you do have the information.
Doesn't work for me :(
There were examples of delegates given to the wrong candidates.
Do you know how delegates are given out?
Lots of examples of more people apparently voting in the 2nd round than the 1st, which is supposed to be impossible.
The first link doesn't show that. I'm guessing it is the second link. Do you have another link that is similar to the second one?
The first link is the NYT source which I think is their example collection sheets not actual ones.
It is possible they fucked up vote counts too, but there is no reason to believe that pete got more votes than Sanders.
Do you have the reasons that Sanders had more votes than Pete?
I can't find the source i had at the moment, but there was one case where on the 2nd round they counted the people who had moved to sanders in the 2nd round as voting for Steyer instead of sanders.
Do tell me if you find it :)
it means that the only metric by which pete "won" was massively screwed up. The metric by which we have more accurate data, ie raw votes, says sanders won. If we have 1 fairly reliable metric and 1 obviously inaccurate metric, why would you choose to use the inaccurate one?
Do you have any evidence that previous Caucus' were not like this or were they the same?
The only reason to do that is to try to crown Pete the winner.
With the available information you gave me I don't see how you got this. I find this to be a conspiracy theory do you disagree?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Something being horrendously flawed doesn't discount Pete's victory. These are two different things.
no, they are not. The numbers that were used to say pete won are wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong. So saying that pete won is at best disingenuous and at worst an outright lie.
Hasn't Caucus' always been a shitshow? Your saying it was based on popular votes before. I don't think it was.
yes and no. It has always been a bit of a shitshow, that is true. But they have never released all this much information before. They only released the final numbers. And without any information about how those numbers were reached, people assumed they were accurate. Now that we see how they got those numbers and we know they did it wrong, it is pretty clear they have been doing it horrendously for a while but no one could tell.
So you don't actually know there are errors?
as i said, i don't have a subscription to the times so I can't quote the article itself. But the article is saying there are hundreds of errors.
Do you have the reasons that Sanders had more votes than Pete?
I'm not sure I understand. He got more votes because he is more popular.
The first link doesn't show that. I'm guessing it is the second link. Do you have another link that is similar to the second one?
Try this one, they are discussing that the supervisor for a location tweeted out the results of that location. But the "official" results that were posted were wrong. They got delegates wrong giving some sanders delegates to Duval patrick and some warren delegates to Steyer.
stuff like this happened all over the place. And it suspiciously usually seemed to be giving progressive candidate's supporters to corportist candidates. Although it could just be a coincidence.
Do you have any evidence that previous Caucus' were not like this or were they the same?
no one knows. Until Sanders forced them to release the additional information, people only had the final results to work off of. They could have been rigging/screwing up this information for a long time and no one would know.
With the available information you gave me I don't see how you got this. I find this to be a conspiracy theory do you disagree?
how so? We know for a fact that there were dozens if not hundreds of errors in the data. That is not disputed. And those are just the ones journalists and people on twitter found. It is not a conspiracy theory to say the data is wrong, it is a fact. Now there are conspiracy theories about why the data is wrong and that the errors seem to consistently undermine sanders and warren, but that is a separate question.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I guess you care about individual choice more than safety? Okay. I value the other.
So you’re ok with forcing people to pay for something they don’t want or need? Plus the govt shouldn’t be deciding whether I need something or not..
A recount only means they are counting the same votes again. Very unlikely Bernie will be on top of that.
Not true. Over a 100 precincts didn’t match up and since the margin is so small it’s more than plausible that Bernie will come out on top.
Oh yeah he is up in NH.
He won now
-->
@HistoryBuff
as i said, i don't have a subscription to the times so I can't quote the article itself. But the article is saying there are hundreds of errors.
I read the article. Do you want to find another article since your not going accept what I am saying? I read it and they were using hypothetical tables. The only link they gave was to the results not to where the supposed errors they used to create the hypothetical tables.
I'm not sure I understand. He got more votes because he is more popular.
Why do you accept that Bernie won more votes but not that he lost on delegates? Your earlier reply didn't really answer the question.
Try this one, they are discussing that the supervisor for a location tweeted out the results of that location. But the "official" results that were posted were wrong. They got delegates wrong giving some sanders delegates to Duval patrick and some warren delegates to Steyer.
Claim 1: Supervisor tweet results
It is in the link.
Claim 2: Official results were different
Okay but what proof does Chris Schwartz give other than his word that his findings are more accurate?
Claim 3: Sanders delegates were given to Duval patrick, Warren and Steyer
Is this Phil's tweets? I can't read it. Do you have a link to his tweets?
no one knows. Until Sanders forced them to release the additional information, people only had the final results to work off of. They could have been rigging/screwing up this information for a long time and no one would know.
If someone is making a cake and you say this has a lot of strawberries in it. I ask you to ask the baker about the strawberries. You said you have but they didn't reply. Is me saying well I am not going to believe you until I get word that the cake has strawberries valid?
We know for a fact that there were dozens if not hundreds of errors in the data. That is not disputed.
Not a single one of your links support this. Unless the second link you gave me was but the 1st and 3rd one are not. The 1st one is an article about supposed errors using hypothetical tables. The third one was literally a tweet. No mention of the methodology so we have is well his word his findings are correct.
-->
@ILikePie5
So you’re ok with forcing people to pay for something they don’t want or need?
Everyone needs healthcare because people eventually get sick. It is been demonstrated across the developed countries of how effective the public option is. I reject even answering the loaded question.
Plus the govt shouldn’t be deciding whether I need something or not..
The government decides:
- Whether you can drink and drive
There is plenty of things the government does excluding whether you need it or not. This is payed by you through taxes. You need to pay your taxes or you will go to jail. By paying taxes you accept that you can't drink and drive. That is the government stopping you from doing something that you have accepted by paying for the police services.
Not true. Over a 100 precincts didn’t match up and since the margin is so small it’s more than plausible that Bernie will come out on top.
Found no data supporting the claim. HistoryBuff has failed to do so currently I'll wait to see if you can do it if you want.
He won now
Yep.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why do you accept that Bernie won more votes but not that he lost on delegates? Your earlier reply didn't really answer the question.
The issues appear to be around when the calculated the number of people to assign delegates. They did the math wrong in dozens of cases. They are also refusing to fix those errors. So the raw vote counts, from what I have seen, appear to be correct. The counts for the delegates are considerably off.
Claim 2: Official results were differentOkay but what proof does Chris Schwartz give other than his word that his findings are more accurate?
what do you mean? the results the local official announced are different than the results that were released as official. That is a very obvious red flag.
Claim 3: Sanders delegates were given to Duval patrick, Warren and SteyerIs this Phil's tweets? I can't read it. Do you have a link to his tweets?
I don't link to twitter much. Hopefully this works. But these are just the obvious errors that people on twitter found. If the new york times can find over 100 errors in a day, there are serious problems with the numbers.
If someone is making a cake and you say this has a lot of strawberries in it. I ask you to ask the baker about the strawberries. You said you have but they didn't reply. Is me saying well I am not going to believe you until I get word that the cake has strawberries valid?
I'm not sure i understand the implication you are going for. We know for a fact the results of this caucus were screwed up. There were errors in over 100 sites and there was no mechanism in place to prevent it. They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurred. Given that they had no way to deal with errors in place, it is reasonable to believe this was true in previous caucuses as well.
Not a single one of your links support this. Unless the second link you gave me was but the 1st and 3rd one are not. The 1st one is an article about supposed errors using hypothetical tables. The third one was literally a tweet. No mention of the methodology so we have is well his word his findings are correct.
what are you talking about? The new york times found over 100 errors. The tweet showed them making 2 errors. Why are you continuing to insist errors didn't happen?
The sanders campaign when they requested a recount showed that in at least 25 sites errors were made that lowered sanders' results and increased pete's. In just those 25 sites, they show pete getting 3 too many delegates and sanders getting 2 less than he should have.
with these kinds of inaccuracies and the results being so narrow, you cannot make the case that we know who got the most delegates. But we do know who got the most votes.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I think I know what’s best for me than the govt 🤷♂️.Everyone needs healthcare because people eventually get sick. It is been demonstrated across the developed countries of how effective the public option is. I reject even answering the loaded question.
Whether you can drink and drive
That’s not something I need. Terrible analogy.
Found no data supporting the claim. HistoryBuff has failed to do so currently I'll wait to see if you can do it if you want.
Such a shame he couldn’t.
-->
@ILikePie5
Okay. Well when you find yourself ill without the money to pay for it I am sure you will be wanting public healthcare but guess not now.I think I know what’s best for me than the govt 🤷♂️.
That’s not something I need. Terrible analogy.
Guess you don't need a police force keeping you in check and others.
Such a shame he couldn’t.
This was the first link he gave. I have already addressed this. They do not know the methodology, they are going by some sort of error system that might be correct. Without that information I can't accept it since how do they know it is right?
-->
@HistoryBuff
The counts for the delegates are considerably off.
How are the delegates normally distributed? Link would be nice.
what do you mean? the results the local official announced are different than the results that were released as official. That is a very obvious red flag.
How are you verifying Chris' data to say it is accurate?
I don't link to twitter much. Hopefully this works. But these are just the obvious errors that people on twitter found.
Thank you :)
Just looked at the official link the twitter user was mentioning and it was fixed. If that person was giving reliable information at the time then it was an error. If they fixed the problem do you still have a problem?
If the new york times can find over 100 errors in a day, there are serious problems with the numbers.
With the link you gave they provided hypothetical errors not links to the errors.
They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurred
Link?
what are you talking about? The new york times found over 100 errors. The tweet showed them making 2 errors. Why are you continuing to insist errors didn't happen?
If you could read the NYT article you would realize they didn't link to the error merely showed what the errors looked like.
In just those 25 sites, they show pete getting 3 too many delegates and sanders getting 2 less than he should have.
Do you have data on how the delegates are distributed if not why are saying Pete had 3 too many?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Okay. Well when you find yourself ill without the money to pay for it I am sure you will be wanting public healthcare but guess not now.
And that’s the risk people are willing to take.
Guess you don't need a police force keeping you in check and others.
Apples to oranges comparison again.
This was the first link he gave. I have already addressed this. They do not know the methodology, they are going by some sort of error system that might be correct. Without that information I can't accept it since how do they know it is right?
Why would they be claiming that without some sort of evidence. No network has called Iowa. Each network has their own number crunchers and non of them have called it. It’s a number thing that multiple networks have reported. The main claim is that the result is not 100% rn so you can’t really say Pete won. It’s your prerogative to not believe them. But different organizations have reached the same conclusion based on the numbers.
-->
@ILikePie5
Hopefully enough people realize how important it is.And that’s the risk people are willing to take.
Apples to oranges comparison again.
No you said you don't need that. I am not you so I don't really know what you need so I guessed. I guess correctly because you never said you didn't need police services instead attack it based on being a bad comparison. What do you need anyway?
Why would they be claiming that without some sort of evidence.
If they had evidence it wasn't presented in the link. Please just scroll and find the blue colors and see none of them direct to the 100 errors.
No network has called Iowa. Each network has their own number crunchers and non of them have called it. It’s a number thing that multiple networks have reported.
Don't know what you are talking about. Maybe change words and hope that I understand.
The main claim is that the result is not 100% rn so you can’t really say Pete won. It’s your prerogative to not believe them. But different organizations have reached the same conclusion based on the numbers.
The report has already been completed. The errors that HistoryBuff linked were addressed. That Tweet was released on the 5th of this month and in that time they have fixed the error if there was an error. I think it is pretty clear that Pete won since people haven't found errors with the completed reporting. People have a problem with the delegate count. It is up for the relevant officials I think the DNC to publicly announce how they delegate delegates. If you want to see the one I haven't found an error with it is this one: official link
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How are the delegates normally distributed? Link would be nice.
I'm not entirely clear how they do their math. They appear to translate people's votes into state delegates, then use the state delegates to determine the actual delegates that matter. It appears to be a bit convoluted.
How are you verifying Chris' data to say it is accurate?
it isn't Chris' data. That is the data released by the person in charge of that caucus site. This is the data that was given to the democratic party, they then released different data.
If they fixed the problem do you still have a problem?
if they fix all of the hundreds of problems? sure, i guess. but they aren't going to do that.
With the link you gave they provided hypothetical errors not links to the errors.
I can't really see it to confirm, but if i understand correctly they are reporting they found over 100 errors. But didn't explain exactly what all those errors were. Are you saying they are lying they found errors? Or that they don't know what errors are?
They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurredLink?
Here you go. Basically, if the people at the caucus site did the math wrong and signed off on incorrect numbers, they will not fix it. They will stand by the numbers that are demonstrably wrong.
If you could read the NYT article you would realize they didn't link to the error merely showed what the errors looked like.
so you don't believe them that they found the errors?
Do you have data on how the delegates are distributed if not why are saying Pete had 3 too many?
Here is a link to the request from sanders. Pages 3-9 detail the specific examples they were reporting.
The final state delegate count they are going with puts pete at 564 and sanders at 562. If just these errors sanders' team found were corrected then sanders won. And there are many, many more errors as well. So saying that we know who won the most state delegates in Iowa is currently impossible.
The only reliable metric we have at the moment is vote counts, and we know sanders won that.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not entirely clear how they do their math. They appear to translate people's votes into state delegates, then use the state delegates to determine the actual delegates that matter. It appears to be a bit convoluted.
Guess the formula is this:
"For four or more delegates, the threshold is 15%. For three delegates, the threshold is the total number of voters, divided by 6, roughly 16.66%. For two delegates, the threshold is 25%. For one delegate, there is no threshold, and the delegate is elected by a majority vote of eligible voters in attendance, following the first round of alignment.)[13][14"
I don't understand even reading this so guess do you have a source that has worked it and found out by using this they are wrong or are they using a different formula?
it isn't Chris' data. That is the data released by the person in charge of that caucus site. This is the data that was given to the democratic party, they then released different data.
Okay this is the caucus site data. Can you verify the source that Chris gave as accurate or am I supposed to believe it to be the true? I don't ask the same for the DNC because they are an official body not a single person. This is important because drama impacts a company more than an individual.
if they fix all of the hundreds of problems? sure, i guess. but they aren't going to do that.
This official link I gave earlier didn't seem to have the errors that were pointed in the Tweet. I skimmed Patrick again and he had 0 first expression and final.
But didn't explain exactly what all those errors were. Are you saying they are lying they found errors? Or that they don't know what errors are?
I am saying they didn't link to those errors. What they did do was basically show the errors that did occur in a form of a table where votes were given no vote candidates. Basically showing what the errors looked like without actually linking them.
We can move on if you want. Have you tried this link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.amp.html
We can move on if that doesn't work.
Here you go. Basically, if the people at the caucus site did the math wrong and signed off on incorrect numbers, they will not fix it. They will stand by the numbers that are demonstrably wrong.
The link does not work. Guess Chicago Tribune just doesn't want to work for me. :(
so you don't believe them that they found the errors?
They never linked it so no but they did highlight what the errors looked like. If you looked at the link they did not list the 100 errors.
Here is a link to the request from sanders. Pages 3-9 detail the specific examples they were reporting.
This is from Bernie's team right? You do understand I can't exactly take this as evidence mainly since it is aimed to support Bernie not give a view outside of it. The DNC might dislike Bernie but I do trust they would maintain their own system more than to change it just for Bernie.
I would say if the findings are true then they messed up but I can't really accept what I consider pro-Bernie propaganda. I don't think they would've re-canvased if Bernie won and still there was errors and I wouldn't accept findings from Pete's sources unless an external source not running for office verified something akin to that so basically I wouldn't accept Pete's sources either.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Okay this is the caucus site data. Can you verify the source that Chris gave as accurate or am I supposed to believe it to be the true? I don't ask the same for the DNC because they are an official body not a single person. This is important because drama impacts a company more than an individual.
it was in the same source. The head of that caucus location tweeted out the information.
This official link I gave earlier didn't seem to have the errors that were pointed in the Tweet. I skimmed Patrick again and he had 0 first expression and final.
I think in this case the democratic party officials made the error, not the people at the caucus site. Therefore they were willing to fix it. if the guy at the caucus site had screwed it up, they would have refused to fix it. So again, if they are willing to fix all the errors, then that would be fine, but so far they are saying they wont do that.
We can move on if that doesn't work.
it's also asking me to subscribe. But i think the short version is that the NYT found over 100 errors, they just didn't explain exactly what those errors were. But combined with all the other examples of errors that have come out, it is pretty clear lots of errors were made.
The link does not work. Guess Chicago Tribune just doesn't want to work for me. :
weird. the short version is that internal emails have shown their lawyers saying that once the local officials sign off on the results, those results are legally binding. It doesn't matter if they made mistakes (or intentionally entered incorrect info), once they sign for them that is it.
This is from Bernie's team right? You do understand I can't exactly take this as evidence mainly since it is aimed to support Bernie not give a view outside of it.
did you look at it? It lists the exact errors that occurred. if you want to you could go and check the data for yourself. You don't have to take their word for it.
The DNC might dislike Bernie but I do trust they would maintain their own system more than to change it just for Bernie.
I'm not arguing they changed their system. I think it was broken before. It allows local officials to make choices about who wins and loses. In one case they literally flipped a coin to give a delegate to warren when the rules said that delegate should go to bernie. Until now there was zero visibility into how they were doing this. Now that we can see how it works, we can see it is a train wreck.
I would say if the findings are true then they messed up but I can't really accept what I consider pro-Bernie propaganda. I don't think they would've re-canvased if Bernie won and still there was errors and I wouldn't accept findings from Pete's sources unless an external source not running for office verified something akin to that so basically I wouldn't accept Pete's sources either.
you don't have to take their word for it. They gave exactly what the errors were. You or anyone else can go and check if you want. there is a mountain of anecdotal cases, multiple news outlets, to people on twitter reporting dozens, if not hundreds of cases of errors being made.
Do you think it is reasonable to say you know who the winner is when there is just 2 state delegate difference between the top 2 candidates and there are hundreds of errors that we know of? The delegate count could potentially shift 10 or 20 in either direction at this point.
Give MSM a few weeks to totally taint Buttgig's campaign with 24/7 coverage with endless paid shills explaining how he is the best Democrat.
Worked for Biden and Sanders lol.
With friends like the MSM, who needs enemies?
-->
@Greyparrot
With friends like the MSM, who needs enemies?
Ever get worried they might catch on and start some reverse psychology silliness?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nah, they can't even find Ukraine on a map.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Also, I meant to say Biden and Warren.
Sanders is persona non grata with the MSM.