8 ms·

I’m not sure we can even distinguish the entities involved in this case. The head of the Iowa Democratic Party was partying with the ACRONYM’s CEO just before t

I’m not sure we can even distinguish the entities involved in this case. The head of the Iowa Democratic Party was partying with the ACRONYM’s CEO just before the election. She is married to a Buttigeig staffer. Her husband’s brother is comms director for Buttigeig and was tweeting out log in PINs during the election. And of course the whole ACRONYM operation is wrapped up with Democratic Party dark money. https://mobile.twitter.com/taraemcg/status/1223990978127724546 https://mobile.twitter.com/taraemcg/status/12239909781277245... https://mobile.twitter.com/bhalle87/status/1224558925946793985 https://mobile.twitter.com/bhalle87/status/12245589259467939... https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-dem-dark-money-group-is-invading-the-news https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-dem-dark-money-group-is-...

matchbok 7y ago
Yep, the DNC planned a whole conspiracy for.... Iowa.
- sixQuarks 7y ago
  You’re naive if you think they WONT try to screw Bernie again
  - ianai 7y ago
    Big claims require big evidence. It’s dangerous to embrace the worst case scenario like corruption with open arms and requiring little evidence. People are doing it all the time now and it’s how the trolls win.
    - buzzkillington 7y ago
      Surely we can blame Russia for this, since there's no evidence that just means the Russians have been extra careful with the hacking.
    - sixQuarks 7y ago
      umm, it's pretty obvious if you dig into it just a little bit, and don't just rely on mainstream news. start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Huh? Sanders did really well. If there's a conspiracy, it's not a particularly effective one.
    - ianai 7y ago
      And that’s an example of misleading representations fueling FUD in this discussion. Edit-what you pointed out is the misrepresentation, I mean.
    - sixQuarks 7y ago
      Look at how they are making it look like Pete is the winner so far. This is what stays in people's minds. Later we will find out Bernie won, but the effect won't be as strong. It's like when a newspaper makes a correction, most people don't see it.
      - Spooky23 7y ago
        That's a different problem -- it's the politics as sport/entertainment model that 24x7 "news" outlets need to survive. Pete's camp has fanned the flames on that and he's been identified as the more interesting candidate, with lots of drama. My guess is that it won't last. A similar thing happened with the GOP in 2016. You had a collection of boring candidates in a never ending campaign. Trump's erratic nature made him a novelty that attracted attention. IMO, if we are stuck with these stupid news channels, we need a new distraction... a kid stuck in a well, another OJ, whatever. Years of constant attention on inane politics is too much of a grind.
      - Bendingo 7y ago
        This is 100% what's going on.
    - pwinnski 7y ago
      People invent conspiracies to explain things they don't like and don't understand. The facts, and the effectiveness of the invented conspiracy, are irrelevant.
  - matchbok 7y ago
    Like the majority of the US? The vast majority of the country does not support him or his ideas.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Please take this stuff to some other site? There are commenters here with firsthand knowledge of how this stuff works --- we even had a commenter yesterday who apparently got the IDP RFP for this application, and turned it down. If your only background in this subject is supporting a particular candidate and reading a conspiracy piece by Matt Stoller, maybe you should ask questions more than make statements.
    - mzs 7y ago
      Thanks for the heads-up, here's a good thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22241404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22241404
    - sixQuarks 7y ago
      from Matt Karp on twitter: "Sanders leads the Iowa popular vote, but an unprecedented 40+hr delay lets another candidate, who leads only by a metric so arcane experts can barely explain it, to claim “victory” & media spotlight" Are you telling me this is acceptable?
      - tptacek 7y ago
        I'm telling you that when there are people on these threads that actually have firsthand knowledge of the subject, and all you've got are citations to Twitter and Matt Stoller, you should ask more questions and make fewer sweeping statements. Thankfully, this got flagged off the front page, and there's little point in continuing to argue it.
        sixQuarks 7y ago
        How does that poster have first hand knowledge of what’s going on here? He doesn’t know the inner workings. New info came out that all 177 precincts have reported since yesterday, yet they keep showing the 65-72% that makes it so Pete is winning. If it turns out Bernie actually won, there’s definitely shady stuff going on
        7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- overthemoon 7y ago
  Iowa goes first. It sets the tone of the entire primary. It sucks, it's ridiculous, it's antidemocratic, but it's the reality on the ground, it's an important part of any serious Democrat primary campaign since Carter won it in '76. Without making any claim about the intent of the DNC and the malice/incompetence axis, ~IF~ someone was going to ratfuck a candidate out of a primary victory, Iowa would be an important component. *Edited for missing word
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- halfjoking 7y ago
  Pete being able to claim he won is a huge boost for his campaign. If 100% of the votes come in and the truth is that Bernie won, then there is a very strong case that the DNC cherry-picked results to screw Bernie and take momentum away from his campaign.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    Please refrain from baseless speculation about fudged results. Sanders own campaign tabulated numbers basically match the Iowa results so far and there's little reason to believe that the remaining numbers aren't going to largely match the existing result pools.
    - Bendingo 7y ago
      > basically match the Iowa results so far Actually, they don't quite match at all. Sanders campaign released partial results on 4th/Feb that shows Sanders:29% and Buttigieg:24% [1][2] [1] https://twitter.com/HCTrudo/status/1224578194948468739 https://twitter.com/HCTrudo/status/1224578194948468739 [2] https://www.salon.com/2020/02/04/sanders-campaign-releases-internal-caucus-numbers-signaling-victory-in-iowa/ https://www.salon.com/2020/02/04/sanders-campaign-releases-i...?
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        That's pretty close and note those are going to be predominantly from places where Sanders has the most organized physical presence because they're the first ones into his campaign model.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Yes, Iowa impacts everything so that makes complete sense.
sixQuarks 7y ago
Also, why did Buttigeg donate $42k to shadow inc? This should be illegal
- 1stcity3rdcoast 7y ago
  All the candidates donated, not just Buttigieg. It was a joint venture between all of the primary candidates in Iowa.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    This isn’t true. The Sanders campaign never gave anything to Shadow or ACRONYM. From the reporting I’ve seen, Buttigeig was the largest purchaser of their services, with Biden as a distant second. https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-apparent-app-issue-11580801699 https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-... EDIT: Since this is apparently a “controversial” statement, here is the FEC data proving this is entirely true: https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&recipient_name=Shadow+Inc&two_year_transaction_period=2020 https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&...
    - dqv 7y ago
      Thanks for this. We're flagged off now so no one can see it unfortunately.
    - mzs 7y ago
      I mean, who knows, you have to be a lot more sophisticated to grok the FEC db, for example here's over a half million to AmEx from the Bernie camp, for what? https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 Here's almost half a million to consultants from a big group of donors. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 There's just so many payments and transfers to/from Senate and Presidential campaign and big donors that just go opaque as without knowing what the recipient really did with that money for every candidate that takes donations, this is a very hard problem to answer without a serious investigation by a team of journalists and lawyers.

matchbok 7y ago

Yep, the DNC planned a whole conspiracy for.... Iowa.

sixQuarks 7y ago
You’re naive if you think they WONT try to screw Bernie again
- ianai 7y ago
  Big claims require big evidence. It’s dangerous to embrace the worst case scenario like corruption with open arms and requiring little evidence. People are doing it all the time now and it’s how the trolls win.
  - buzzkillington 7y ago
    Surely we can blame Russia for this, since there's no evidence that just means the Russians have been extra careful with the hacking.
  - sixQuarks 7y ago
    umm, it's pretty obvious if you dig into it just a little bit, and don't just rely on mainstream news. start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Huh? Sanders did really well. If there's a conspiracy, it's not a particularly effective one.
  - ianai 7y ago
    And that’s an example of misleading representations fueling FUD in this discussion. Edit-what you pointed out is the misrepresentation, I mean.
  - sixQuarks 7y ago
    Look at how they are making it look like Pete is the winner so far. This is what stays in people's minds. Later we will find out Bernie won, but the effect won't be as strong. It's like when a newspaper makes a correction, most people don't see it.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      That's a different problem -- it's the politics as sport/entertainment model that 24x7 "news" outlets need to survive. Pete's camp has fanned the flames on that and he's been identified as the more interesting candidate, with lots of drama. My guess is that it won't last. A similar thing happened with the GOP in 2016. You had a collection of boring candidates in a never ending campaign. Trump's erratic nature made him a novelty that attracted attention. IMO, if we are stuck with these stupid news channels, we need a new distraction... a kid stuck in a well, another OJ, whatever. Years of constant attention on inane politics is too much of a grind.
    - Bendingo 7y ago
      This is 100% what's going on.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    People invent conspiracies to explain things they don't like and don't understand. The facts, and the effectiveness of the invented conspiracy, are irrelevant.
- matchbok 7y ago
  Like the majority of the US? The vast majority of the country does not support him or his ideas.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Please take this stuff to some other site? There are commenters here with firsthand knowledge of how this stuff works --- we even had a commenter yesterday who apparently got the IDP RFP for this application, and turned it down. If your only background in this subject is supporting a particular candidate and reading a conspiracy piece by Matt Stoller, maybe you should ask questions more than make statements.
  - mzs 7y ago
    Thanks for the heads-up, here's a good thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22241404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22241404
  - sixQuarks 7y ago
    from Matt Karp on twitter: "Sanders leads the Iowa popular vote, but an unprecedented 40+hr delay lets another candidate, who leads only by a metric so arcane experts can barely explain it, to claim “victory” & media spotlight" Are you telling me this is acceptable?
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I'm telling you that when there are people on these threads that actually have firsthand knowledge of the subject, and all you've got are citations to Twitter and Matt Stoller, you should ask more questions and make fewer sweeping statements. Thankfully, this got flagged off the front page, and there's little point in continuing to argue it.
      - sixQuarks 7y ago
        How does that poster have first hand knowledge of what’s going on here? He doesn’t know the inner workings. New info came out that all 177 precincts have reported since yesterday, yet they keep showing the 65-72% that makes it so Pete is winning. If it turns out Bernie actually won, there’s definitely shady stuff going on
        7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
overthemoon 7y ago
Iowa goes first. It sets the tone of the entire primary. It sucks, it's ridiculous, it's antidemocratic, but it's the reality on the ground, it's an important part of any serious Democrat primary campaign since Carter won it in '76. Without making any claim about the intent of the DNC and the malice/incompetence axis, ~IF~ someone was going to ratfuck a candidate out of a primary victory, Iowa would be an important component. *Edited for missing word
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
halfjoking 7y ago
Pete being able to claim he won is a huge boost for his campaign. If 100% of the votes come in and the truth is that Bernie won, then there is a very strong case that the DNC cherry-picked results to screw Bernie and take momentum away from his campaign.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  Please refrain from baseless speculation about fudged results. Sanders own campaign tabulated numbers basically match the Iowa results so far and there's little reason to believe that the remaining numbers aren't going to largely match the existing result pools.
  - Bendingo 7y ago
    > basically match the Iowa results so far Actually, they don't quite match at all. Sanders campaign released partial results on 4th/Feb that shows Sanders:29% and Buttigieg:24% [1][2] [1] https://twitter.com/HCTrudo/status/1224578194948468739 https://twitter.com/HCTrudo/status/1224578194948468739 [2] https://www.salon.com/2020/02/04/sanders-campaign-releases-internal-caucus-numbers-signaling-victory-in-iowa/ https://www.salon.com/2020/02/04/sanders-campaign-releases-i...?
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      That's pretty close and note those are going to be predominantly from places where Sanders has the most organized physical presence because they're the first ones into his campaign model.
r00fus 7y ago
Yes, Iowa impacts everything so that makes complete sense.

sixQuarks 7y ago

Also, why did Buttigeg donate $42k to shadow inc? This should be illegal

1stcity3rdcoast 7y ago
All the candidates donated, not just Buttigieg. It was a joint venture between all of the primary candidates in Iowa.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  This isn’t true. The Sanders campaign never gave anything to Shadow or ACRONYM. From the reporting I’ve seen, Buttigeig was the largest purchaser of their services, with Biden as a distant second. https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-apparent-app-issue-11580801699 https://www.wsj.com/articles/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-by-... EDIT: Since this is apparently a “controversial” statement, here is the FEC data proving this is entirely true: https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&recipient_name=Shadow+Inc&two_year_transaction_period=2020 https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&...
  - dqv 7y ago
    Thanks for this. We're flagged off now so no one can see it unfortunately.
  - mzs 7y ago
    I mean, who knows, you have to be a lot more sophisticated to grok the FEC db, for example here's over a half million to AmEx from the Bernie camp, for what? https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201912199166621206 Here's almost half a million to consultants from a big group of donors. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201904159146174550 There's just so many payments and transfers to/from Senate and Presidential campaign and big donors that just go opaque as without knowing what the recipient really did with that money for every candidate that takes donations, this is a very hard problem to answer without a serious investigation by a team of journalists and lawyers.