5 ms·

Bias Check: I didn't vote Bernie in 2016, I won't be voting Bernie in 2020, and I can honestly say there's not a single politician running that would actually r

Bias Check: I didn't vote Bernie in 2016, I won't be voting Bernie in 2020, and I can honestly say there's not a single politician running that would actually represent my opinions and values. "It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a community." I don't know. I have serious doubts about whether or not we're seeing foul-play here. What we know for sure is that the app in question was partially funded by a(at least one) candidate. Essentially, a candidate gave money to the system that counted their votes. The company behind the app was founded by people tied to the Democratic 'establishment' (specifically, Hillary Clinton). And, as far as I can tell, the Democratic party has done everything in their power to ensure the candidate with the most name recognition and popular support in the race (Bernie Sanders) isn't their nominee. From what I have seen thus far this cycle, and from what I saw in 2016, I can't help but be suspicious.

arcticfox 7y ago
The baffling thing to me about so many conspiracy theories from Sanders' camp is that the delay hurt Buttigieg far worse than Sanders. Sanders is fine with no news from Iowa, the next primary is in his backyard and he has nationwide name recognition. Buttigieg on the other hand needs Iowa to be huge for him, and this fiasco certainly hurt that strategy.
- beeftime 7y ago
  The idea that the delay(s) hurt Buttigieg in any way is a profound misreading of the situation. Iowa has a small number of delegates, and it's only important in as much as it creates momentum for the winner going into the next three states. If they released the vote totals on time and Bernie won, that would have given his campaign momentum, which could have lead (still might) to a NH blowout. Instead, Pete got to "declare victory" twice -- night-of, and again after the 60% release. Now it really doesn't matter if they release the results and Bernie is shown to have won, because we're already multiple news cycles away from caucus night and most people aren't really paying attention, so it's going to be hard for Sanders to capture any momentum, if it's shown he has won. Pete, on the other hand, got a significant NH bump from the IA results in the latest polls. I think the only way it's hurt Pete is through IDP incompetence, where to most Americans (who hate a cheater and love a conspiracy theory) it looks, for lack of a better term, extremely shady. It's also fired up Bernie's base of die-hards, who are now on the warpath (or even more so) for the early states
- wycy 7y ago
  If Buttigieg holds onto the win once 100% of the votes are counted, it'd be clear evidence not only that there was no conspiracy but also that Buttigieg was absolutely robbed. If the winning number of SDEs does flip to Sanders by the time they're all counted, though, that'll be pretty damning. I'm currently on the "no conspiracy" train, since a caucus is pretty hard to fabricate.
- cjbillington 7y ago
  At the time the theories were put forward, Sanders supporters believed Sanders was to come out in front, so they thought the delay was harming him. Both sanders and Buttigieg were claiming their internal numbers showed them in front. Sanders may yet come out ahead when full results come out - the betting markets put it at 25%, so the theorists might yet be right that the delay hurt Sanders the most (not necessarily right about their theories, but I sympathise with the general level of paranoia - although an given theory probably isn't correct, I think those dismissing them all as crazy lack imagination). Arguably, since by all accounts Sanders performed much better than Biden (who is seen as Sander's main competition, not Buttigieg), it's still relevant that the delay hurt well-performing candidates in Iowa (Sanders and Buttigieg) and benefited poorly performing candidates (Biden).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hak8or 7y ago
You are going to vote though, correct? Lesser of two evils and all that. If you do not make your voice known, you will be out into the same camp as voter apathy, at which point why should those running care about you if you don't vote?
- Proziam 7y ago
  Supporting either party at this point goes against my moral values. Both parties support war (or other violent action) and I refuse to support any such action that isn't purely defensive. That issue alone is a disqualifying factor for me, and I care about more than one issue. That said, I'll continue to support individual issues I care about, and I'll happily call my reps to tell them how they could earn my vote.
- sykick 7y ago
  People running for office ought to care about all of the people in their voting district. Children can't and don't vote but their interests ought to be looked after by politicians. Wouldn't it be a sad state of affairs that those who run for office are only expected to care about people who can potentially and directly help them? I believe we Americans have mostly come to the point of accepting this as normative.
- mint2 7y ago
  Unfortunately there is a large number of people who somehow feel apathy and silence is the best way to get attention in a huge crowd of people making their choices known. Our culture is good at creating very individualistic princes and princes. No compromise whatsoever. My way or the highway.
- salawat 7y ago
  The real issue is that voting anyway doesn't solve the problem of not having a truly representative candidate, and a two party system which has a duopolistic stranglehold on the moral character of the nation. The correct approach is to run and compete, but the disparity in financial amplification created by the two established parties keeps anything from being able to take root.

arcticfox 7y ago

The baffling thing to me about so many conspiracy theories from Sanders' camp is that the delay hurt Buttigieg far worse than Sanders. Sanders is fine with no news from Iowa, the next primary is in his backyard and he has nationwide name recognition. Buttigieg on the other hand needs Iowa to be huge for him, and this fiasco certainly hurt that strategy.

beeftime 7y ago
The idea that the delay(s) hurt Buttigieg in any way is a profound misreading of the situation. Iowa has a small number of delegates, and it's only important in as much as it creates momentum for the winner going into the next three states. If they released the vote totals on time and Bernie won, that would have given his campaign momentum, which could have lead (still might) to a NH blowout. Instead, Pete got to "declare victory" twice -- night-of, and again after the 60% release. Now it really doesn't matter if they release the results and Bernie is shown to have won, because we're already multiple news cycles away from caucus night and most people aren't really paying attention, so it's going to be hard for Sanders to capture any momentum, if it's shown he has won. Pete, on the other hand, got a significant NH bump from the IA results in the latest polls. I think the only way it's hurt Pete is through IDP incompetence, where to most Americans (who hate a cheater and love a conspiracy theory) it looks, for lack of a better term, extremely shady. It's also fired up Bernie's base of die-hards, who are now on the warpath (or even more so) for the early states
wycy 7y ago
If Buttigieg holds onto the win once 100% of the votes are counted, it'd be clear evidence not only that there was no conspiracy but also that Buttigieg was absolutely robbed. If the winning number of SDEs does flip to Sanders by the time they're all counted, though, that'll be pretty damning. I'm currently on the "no conspiracy" train, since a caucus is pretty hard to fabricate.
cjbillington 7y ago
At the time the theories were put forward, Sanders supporters believed Sanders was to come out in front, so they thought the delay was harming him. Both sanders and Buttigieg were claiming their internal numbers showed them in front. Sanders may yet come out ahead when full results come out - the betting markets put it at 25%, so the theorists might yet be right that the delay hurt Sanders the most (not necessarily right about their theories, but I sympathise with the general level of paranoia - although an given theory probably isn't correct, I think those dismissing them all as crazy lack imagination). Arguably, since by all accounts Sanders performed much better than Biden (who is seen as Sander's main competition, not Buttigieg), it's still relevant that the delay hurt well-performing candidates in Iowa (Sanders and Buttigieg) and benefited poorly performing candidates (Biden).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

hak8or 7y ago

You are going to vote though, correct? Lesser of two evils and all that. If you do not make your voice known, you will be out into the same camp as voter apathy, at which point why should those running care about you if you don't vote?

Proziam 7y ago
Supporting either party at this point goes against my moral values. Both parties support war (or other violent action) and I refuse to support any such action that isn't purely defensive. That issue alone is a disqualifying factor for me, and I care about more than one issue. That said, I'll continue to support individual issues I care about, and I'll happily call my reps to tell them how they could earn my vote.
sykick 7y ago
People running for office ought to care about all of the people in their voting district. Children can't and don't vote but their interests ought to be looked after by politicians. Wouldn't it be a sad state of affairs that those who run for office are only expected to care about people who can potentially and directly help them? I believe we Americans have mostly come to the point of accepting this as normative.
mint2 7y ago
Unfortunately there is a large number of people who somehow feel apathy and silence is the best way to get attention in a huge crowd of people making their choices known. Our culture is good at creating very individualistic princes and princes. No compromise whatsoever. My way or the highway.
salawat 7y ago
The real issue is that voting anyway doesn't solve the problem of not having a truly representative candidate, and a two party system which has a duopolistic stranglehold on the moral character of the nation. The correct approach is to run and compete, but the disparity in financial amplification created by the two established parties keeps anything from being able to take root.