8 ms·
Yep, the DNC planned a whole conspiracy for.... Iowa.
by matchbok 7y ago
Yep, the DNC planned a whole conspiracy for.... Iowa.
- sixQuarks 7y agoYou’re naive if you think they WONT try to screw Bernie again
- ianai 7y agoBig 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 agoSurely 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 agoumm, 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 agoHuh? Sanders did really well. If there's a conspiracy, it's not a particularly effective one.
- ianai 7y agoAnd that’s an example of misleading representations fueling FUD in this discussion. Edit-what you pointed out is the misrepresentation, I mean.
- sixQuarks 7y agoLook 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 agoThat'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 agoThis is 100% what's going on.
- pwinnski 7y agoPeople 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 agoLike the majority of the US? The vast majority of the country does not support him or his ideas.
- tptacek 7y agoPlease 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 agoThanks 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 agofrom 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 agoI'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 agoHow 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 agoIowa 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 agoPete 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 agoPlease 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 agoThat'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 agoYes, Iowa impacts everything so that makes complete sense.