3 ms·

This does have the unfortunate consequence of removing the steam from whomever has won (still unknown). But Biden is old school; he'd want to win this fair and

This does have the unfortunate consequence of removing the steam from whomever has won (still unknown). But Biden is old school; he'd want to win this fair and square. If the Democratic party wants the best shot at winning 2020, they may be more open to the people's choice this time around. (In 2016, many superdelegates publicly declared support before the caucuses and primaries -- it could have as well swayed voters). All of the reporting in 2016, showed Clinton up by ~800 delegates compared to all candidates, without much explanation into how those delegates are not democratically elected. Even in light of what happened this evening, the party learned from 2016 and is running a more fair process.

mercer 7y ago
> If the Democratic party wants the best shot at winning 2020, they may be more open to the people's choice this time around I'll admit that I'm unusually cynical of the mainstream Democrats, so far from objective. That said, I truly believe that it's quite possible they would rather have Trump for another term than Sanders, and from that perspective a lot of what's happened makes a perverse kind of sense.
aksss 7y ago
> [Biden would] want to win this fair and square Ummm.. yes, but that doesn't mean he'd like someone else to win by cheating or skulduggery explained as "simple human incompetence". That latter happens all-to-often in local/regional inside-party politics ("whoops, we lost all the ballots from your precinct in a boating accident"). > the party learned from 2016 and is running a more fair process Yeah, involving a company called "Shadow" staffed by ex-Clintonites to represent final tallies in the first primary and changing the debate rules upon the sudden appearance of a guy worth $60 billion, and they're off to a great start! For what it's worth, I strongly subscribe to the maxim of not ascribing to malicious intent that which can be better explained by incompetence.
- mercer 7y ago
  > For what it's worth, I strongly subscribe to the maxim of not ascribing to malicious intent that which can be better explained by incompetence. Me too, but it's really difficult to not suspect at least some malicious intent in this case. It's not just Buttigieg's links to Shadow, on top of the ex-Clintonites. It's also things like: - cancelling the Des Moines Register poll (afaik first time this happened) - 'mistakes' in the poll results that somehow benefit Buttigieg at the expense of Bernie (others too, but Bernie moreso) - spending a ridiculous amount of time on reporting the Bernie-favoring results, which basically robs Bernie from declaring victory, and which arguably is the main importance of the whole thing (and iirc this has a big effect on how the rest of the elections go, because Iowa is the first). - MSM focusing on state delegates when the popular vote clearly favors Bernie, and IMO should be the most important statistic. There's a bunch more, but even just the above makes it difficult for me to assume that there isn't at least some malice towards a candidate who is generally not favored by the DNC and the DNC-aligned MSM (and corporate interests). EDIT: I'll add that I'm very open to being wrong. I want to be wrong about all this, and as a non-American I have relatively little actual skin in the game.

mercer 7y ago

> If the Democratic party wants the best shot at winning 2020, they may be more open to the people's choice this time around I'll admit that I'm unusually cynical of the mainstream Democrats, so far from objective. That said, I truly believe that it's quite possible they would rather have Trump for another term than Sanders, and from that perspective a lot of what's happened makes a perverse kind of sense.

aksss 7y ago

> [Biden would] want to win this fair and square Ummm.. yes, but that doesn't mean he'd like someone else to win by cheating or skulduggery explained as "simple human incompetence". That latter happens all-to-often in local/regional inside-party politics ("whoops, we lost all the ballots from your precinct in a boating accident"). > the party learned from 2016 and is running a more fair process Yeah, involving a company called "Shadow" staffed by ex-Clintonites to represent final tallies in the first primary and changing the debate rules upon the sudden appearance of a guy worth $60 billion, and they're off to a great start! For what it's worth, I strongly subscribe to the maxim of not ascribing to malicious intent that which can be better explained by incompetence.

mercer 7y ago
> For what it's worth, I strongly subscribe to the maxim of not ascribing to malicious intent that which can be better explained by incompetence. Me too, but it's really difficult to not suspect at least some malicious intent in this case. It's not just Buttigieg's links to Shadow, on top of the ex-Clintonites. It's also things like: - cancelling the Des Moines Register poll (afaik first time this happened) - 'mistakes' in the poll results that somehow benefit Buttigieg at the expense of Bernie (others too, but Bernie moreso) - spending a ridiculous amount of time on reporting the Bernie-favoring results, which basically robs Bernie from declaring victory, and which arguably is the main importance of the whole thing (and iirc this has a big effect on how the rest of the elections go, because Iowa is the first). - MSM focusing on state delegates when the popular vote clearly favors Bernie, and IMO should be the most important statistic. There's a bunch more, but even just the above makes it difficult for me to assume that there isn't at least some malice towards a candidate who is generally not favored by the DNC and the DNC-aligned MSM (and corporate interests). EDIT: I'll add that I'm very open to being wrong. I want to be wrong about all this, and as a non-American I have relatively little actual skin in the game.