Iowa Democratic caucuses: live commentary

Live commentary on the US Iowa Democratic caucuses. Also: Sinn Féin surges ahead of Saturday’s Irish election. Guest post by Adrian Beaumont.

9:27am Sunday The exit poll for Saturday’s Irish election has been released.  The governing Fine Gael has 22.4%, the far-left Sinn Fein 22.3% and Fianna Fail 22.2%, so there’s only 0.2% between the top three parties.  The Greens have 7.9%.  The full exit poll is in the comments.  No vote counting in Ireland until tonight AEDT.

5:15pm Friday With all precincts reporting, Buttigieg provisionally wins Iowa’s state delegate count by 0.1%.  However, the AP will not declare a winner owing to irregularities.  We will probably never know for sure who won Iowa’s state delegate count.

Sanders won both of the popular vote measures.  He won the “initial” vote by 3.5% and the “final” vote by 1.5%.

4:37pm This tweet explains why Sanders is doing so well with these satellite caucuses.

4:35pm Late counting Iowa drama!  I’m not sure what the “satellite caucuses” are, but there were four of them, one for each of Iowa’s Congressional Districts.  Three of them have reported, and they are all very strong for Sanders.  There’s still one to go.

With 97% in, Buttigieg now leads Sanders by just three state delegates or 0.15%.  Sanders leads by 3.5% on the “initial” popular vote, and by 1.5% on the “final” popular vote.

10:41am In the FiveThirtyEight post-Iowa model, Biden’s chance of winning a pledged delegate majority has plunged from 43% to 21%, with Sanders up to 37%.  The probability that nobody wins a pledged delegate majority (contested convention) is up to 27%.

10:20am Thursday More Iowa results!  With 86% in, Buttigieg leads Sanders by 26.7% to 25.4% on state delegates, the measure the US media is using to call a winner.  Warren has 18.3%, Biden 15.8% and Klobuchar 12.1%.

On two other measures, Sanders is still ahead.  He leads Buttigieg by 24.3% to 21.6% on “initial” popular votes.  He leads by 26.1% to 25.5% on “final” popular votes after realignment.

4:05pm 71% of precincts are now in for the Dem Iowa caucus.  The latest 9% haven’t made much difference to the figures.

2:50pm My Conversation article on these caucuses is up.  We need to see if there’s a significant impact on national polls from these results.  The next contest is New Hampshire on February 11; polls close by 12pm February 12 AEDT.

There was a big moment in Trump’s State of the Union address today.  At the end of the speech, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi literally tore it up.

10:30am New York Times analyst Nate Cohn says results reported so far are representative of the whole state.

10am Wednesday We FINALLY have more Iowa results.  With 62% of precincts reporting, Buttigieg leads Sanders by 27% to 25% on State Delegate Equivalents, the traditional measure that most of the media has focussed on.  Warren has 18%, Biden 16% and Klobuchar 13%.

On the two other measures, Sanders leads.  He leads on the “initial” popular votes by 24.5% to 21.4% for Buttigieg.  He leads on the “final” popular votes after realignment by 26% to 25%.

8:15pm More than EIGHT hours after the caucuses began, still only 2% has been reported!  I hope we have better results by tomorrow morning.

3:57pm In Ireland, a new poll has Sinn Fein in outright first on 25%, with Fianna Fail on 23%, Fine Gael 20% and the Greens 8%.

3:43pm Nate Silver

3:15pm Turnout at these caucuses in on pace for 2016.  In 2016, 172,000 participated in the Iowa Dem caucuses, well down from the record 240,000 in 2008.  In 2008, the Dems had a charismatic candidate in Barack Obama.

3:05pm With 1.9% in, Sanders is on top with 28% followed by Warren at 25%, Buttigieg 24%, Klobuchar 12% and Biden just 11%.

2:57pm On the Dem side, we’ve only got 32 of 1,765 precincts reporting their post-realignment votes.  Much slower than in 2016, when 85% had reported by this time.

2:55pm In 2016, 187,000 votes were cast in the Republican Iowa caucuses.   With 83% in, 29,000 votes have been cast in 2020.

2:35pm Still only 1.7% counted, with Buttigieg leading Sanders by 1.3% after realignment.  Biden down to 14%.  Hurry up!!

1:56pm In the Republican caucus, Trump has over 96% of the vote.  Republicans love Trump.

1:54pm By “after realignment”, I mean after the initial division.  Candidates polling below 15% in a particular precinct are declared unviable, and their supporters are asked to pick a viable candidate.  Candidates originally declared unviable can become viable if they pick up enough to make it over 15% in the second round.  It’s explained in this Conversation article.

1:50pm The AP has Buttigieg leading Sanders by 27% to 24% on final alignment numbers, followed by 19.5% for Biden, 15% Warren and 14% Klobuchar.  1.3% of precincts are in.

1:40pm The New York Times results page now gives Sanders 408 final votes (after realignment presumably), Buttigieg 380, Biden 310, Warren 277 and Klobuchar 176.

Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at the University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.

The final RealClearPolitics poll average for Iowa gave Bernie Sanders 24.2%, Joe Biden 20.2%, Pete Buttigieg 16.4%, Elizabeth Warren 15.6% and Amy Klobuchar 8.6%. As I noted in Friday’s Conversation article, polling for these caucuses has often been inaccurate. The caucuses begin at 12pm AEDT, and the process is described in that article. I will begin commenting on the results about 1:30pm after I return from bridge.

Elsewhere, the far-left Sinn Féin has surged in the Irish polls ahead of this Saturday’s election. Sinn Féin is equal first with Fianna Fáil in one recent poll, and two points behind in another. There is a chance that the two dominant Irish parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, will fail to win a combined majority of the seats. Both these parties are conservative. Other parties likely to win seats are left-wing, so a left majority is a possibility.

Polls in Ireland close at 10pm local time (9am Sunday AEDT). Exit polls will be released then, but no votes are counted until the next morning (Sunday evening AEDT). As Ireland uses Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system, it is likely to take at least a few days to finalise all counting.

And in Britain, Boris Johnson appears to want a hard Brexit on December 31, when the transition period ends.

708 comments on “Iowa Democratic caucuses: live commentary”

  1. “@Andrew_Earlwood come back to me when you have an explanation for why centrism works so well for the left, as it did for Madam President Clinton, when it’s self evidently completely unnecessary for those on the right.”

    Your the guys obsessed with the failures of centrism, not me. Regardless of whether a candidate is coming from the centre, a traditional social democratic centre left, a soft democratic socialist left or a hard left position that candidate has to inspire folk – non politics obsessed folk ‘in the centre’ to come along with them. That’s my point.

    Regrettably, because of the ingrained belief structure of about 60-70% of Americans, Bernie will proves incapable of doing that. That’s not actually his fault.

    I’ll go one step further. These days in America the political positioning of a candidate doesn’t matter. Their politics doesn’t matter. Only their ‘relatability’ to voters in a thin slice of America in the swing states matters. I don’t think any ‘professional politician’ is actually relatable to the folk that need to come out and vote. Certainly not the current line up of candidates (except maybe, just maybe Mayor Pete).

    Democrats actually need their own reality TV star to take down Trump. Their actual policies are irrelevant.

  2. Dammit, forgot about “it’s the centrists fault”

    Has the hard left yet lost an election because their policies aren’t popular enough?

    BTW – I actually suspect Oprah would do a good job….

  3. Bellwether @ #406 Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 6:22 pm

    C@tmomma @ #383 Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 2:43 pm

    So, when it comes time to vote, if it’s Buttigieg VS Trump, are people here trying to tell me that African Americans would rather vote for Trump, or not turn up, which is an effective virtual vote for Trump!?!

    Yes.

    What a cynical person you are. Well, they’ll have even less reason to vote for Bernie Sanders. You just have to scrutinise his voting record to know that.

  4. C@tmomma @ #407 Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 6:27 pm

    Bellwether @ #406 Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 6:22 pm

    C@tmomma @ #383 Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 2:43 pm

    So, when it comes time to vote, if it’s Buttigieg VS Trump, are people here trying to tell me that African Americans would rather vote for Trump, or not turn up, which is an effective virtual vote for Trump!?!

    Yes.

    What a cynical person you are. Well, they’ll have even less reason to vote for Bernie Sanders. You just have to scrutinise his voting record to know that.

    Groucho Marx has the best line regarding Buttigieg…..”These are my principles and if you don’t like them I have others……”

  5. Bloomberg would be getting under Trump’s skin big time. Loved this retort from him to a Trump insult:

    Bloomberg told CBS News he hadn’t heard Trump’s latest insult on Twitter, but was ready with his own zinger when the reporter asked if he thinks “people are interested in seeing two billionaires fight out over Twitter?” “Two billionaires?” asked Bloomberg, whose $54 billion fortune is documented. “Who’s the second one?”

    Michael Bloomberg spent the Iowa caucus fiasco in California cooly mocking Trump

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/893599/michael-bloomberg-spent-iowa-caucus-fiasco-california-cooly-mocking-trump

    And this:

    Bloomberg spokeswoman Julie Wood responded to Trump in kind, describing the president as “a pathological liar who lies about everything: his fake hair, his obesity, and his spray-on tan.”

    These insults are not an accident but go to the heart of Bloomberg’s theory of how to defeat Trump. Bloomberg’s governing idea is that Trump is a fraud, a con man who pretends to great wealth. The way to vanquish a mountebank is by debunking, calling him on his bluff, and deriding his lies.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bloomberg-democratic-debates-trump/

    PS: Go Pete. He is a gifted orator, bright, charismatic and very likeable. Noted that he had a big jump in votes between rounds 1 and 2 which shows he is super-organised. Hypothetically speaking, if he is the nominee, who do you think would be a good running mate? Harris or Klobuchar?

  6. Pete Buttigieg has zero support from African Americans. They see right through this smarmy corporate hack. He cannot win the Democratic nomination.

    The interesting question is whether the centrists will produce a single standard-bearer. It looks like there are too many centrist vanity projects happening for any of them to defeat Bernie. This is good news.

  7. Charles
    Mocking and taunting a narcissist publicly is an excellent strategy (it doesn’t work in private). They often make a mistake when they respond which sinks them. I’ve used it on insufferable colleagues to good effect. Trial lawyers get taught it if the witness is a narcissist. Direct confrontation don’t work.

  8. fess
    It’s a very little used political tactic. Perhaps focus groups don’t like it but it’s a great way to provoke a stupid reaction. Its not just poking fun at; you actually have to belittle them.

  9. Dio:

    Schmidt says provoking him so he comes out swinging, not engaging with his counter attacks when he does, but to cut him down with humour and laugh at him is the only way to handle a narcissistic bully.

  10. First time back since the dismal election as i could predict the centrist debate. One comment, there is a big difference between centrism and the overt corporate collaboration of ‘third way’ labour politics. Until centrist admit this there is no meaningful debate. Returning to internet obscurity.

  11. “ Pete Buttigieg has zero support from African Americans. They see right through this smarmy corporate hack. ”

    This is bullshit. You’re just a BernieBro bleating like a ruptured choirboy …

    African Americans have had little to no exposure to Pete up until now. It’s could go either way as to whether that demographic will climb on board. Let’s see what a little momentum and name recognition can do.

    That said, in the end African Americans may not find him relatable. I reckon he will struggle. But crapping on about your usual ‘corporate hack’ crap just exposes how shallow you are some times Nicholas. Especially when it comes to anything that might upset the apple cart with your Bernie or Jezza or MMT fantasies.

  12. Hey ho Nick – if Bernie loses, want to suggest why? I’d like people to nail down the excuses now. Not that I have any power to force anyone to do so, of course.

  13. “ Hey ho Nick – if Bernie loses, want to suggest why? I’d like people to nail down the excuses now. Not that I have any power to force anyone to do so, of course.”

    Blobbing, Ive actually answered that for Nicholas at 5:07pm. …

    You’ve welcome!

  14. “The interesting question is whether the centrists will produce a single standard-bearer. It looks like there are too many centrist vanity projects happening for any of them to defeat Bernie. This is good news.”

    replace bernie with Trump and it seems to bear remarkable resemblance to the gop primaries in 2016. All those candidates the establishment were supposed to rally behind to defeat Trump like Jeb, Marco, etc…

  15. Andrew Earlwood is clearly struggling to break out of his affluent barrister’s bubble. He formed a worldview in the 1980s when neoliberalism centrism was all the rage, and he is clinging to that worldview for dear life. Poor chap.

  16. Nicholas @ #414 Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 8:22 pm

    Pete Buttigieg has zero support from African Americans. They see right through this smarmy corporate hack. He cannot win the Democratic nomination.

    The interesting question is whether the centrists will produce a single standard-bearer. It looks like there are too many centrist vanity projects happening for any of them to defeat Bernie. This is good news.

    For an intelligent person you display all the signs of a blinkered fool, Nicholas.

  17. “ Andrew Earlwood is clearly struggling to break out of his affluent barrister’s bubble. He formed a worldview in the 1980s when neoliberalism centrism was all the rage, and he is clinging to that worldview for dear life. Poor chap.‘

    When you lash out like that it’s a pretty sure sign that you fear that ‘the dream’ is slipping away.

    Frankly I don’t care if it is Bernie or Pete or even sleepy Joe that wins the nomination. So long as the nominee wins the one that matters.

    If Bernie’s socialism Kool aid was likely to ever ‘get it done’ in America then sign me up for the revolution comrade commissar.

    But alas. That is not going to happen. Not because the system or the DNC won’t rally behind Bernie. It will. Not because ‘centrist’ political operatives won’t bust their guts for Bernie. They will. But because the key demographics that matter will not get on board with on to his agenda.

    It’s not his fault. He may not even be wrong in his prescriptions. But in ‘merica it is simply not going to work politically.

    Ultimately my fears are bigger than your dream. I fear that the enlightenment itself is under threat. Multilateralism. The post war settlement. All the big challenges facing humanity are at risk of being tossed in the dumpster fire. That’s what’s at stake. Whatever it takes to prevent that should be done. Even putting a Reality TV Star at the top of the ticket. Or a communist (not that that would work) or even that most magical of unicorns – a ‘sensible and moderate republican’.

  18. Long time lurker (kinda feel like I know you all which must feel creepy to all of you), coming online to make the prediction that Stacey Abrams will be Mayor Pete’s running mate.

  19. whatgoesaround

    I don’t know Stacey Abrams but I hope Stacey is a heterosexual, tall, black, female, Southern Baptist from South Carolina with a shitload of money.

  20. Diogenes, Stacey Abrams is not tall and I haven’t checked out her sexuality but she is black, she was cheated out of becoming the first democratic governor of Georgia and she is actively and currently fighting for voting rights. She aims to be the first black female president by 2o4o…she is pragmatic.
    She would be great for Buttigieg (or others) and vice versa.
    Heh, it’s a long shot prediction – that why I had to stop lurking.

  21. But alas. That is not going to happen. Not because the system or the DNC won’t rally behind Bernie. It will. Not because ‘centrist’ political operatives won’t bust their guts for Bernie. They will. But because the key demographics that matter will not get on board with on to his agenda.

    These key demographics and how they object to his agenda would be fascinating to understand. Got any detail on these demographics, how they are identified as key and the strength of their positions on parts of Bernie’s agenda they object to?

  22. Stacey Abrams gets mentioned a lot as a potential VP.

    She is smart, she is fierce and she is from the single most important Democrat demographic. She’d be a natural running mate for most of them, I think she’d be smart enough not to touch most of them with a barge pole.

  23. I think there is a chance Bloomberg runs as a third candidate and peels off the centrists democrats, and they then say a more progessive candidate didn’t win, because they didn’t appeal the to the imaginary hoards of people who’ll vote democrat provided they promise to be essentially republicans.

    That same imaginary horde that Labor tries to appeal to and that accounts for it spending most of the last 26 years in opposition by promising to be LNP lite.

  24. The targeted humiliation of Trump by Bloomberg and other third parties is already paying dividends. Trump looked low energy and was raspy voiced in the SOTU. Reports that privately Trump is having epic meltdowns about the Bloomberg ads. Thing is, there’s so much material to work with. Interesting to note that so far in Iowa, votes for moderates v more left wing is about 55-43. Obviously over 65’s voting more for moderates too. Just reality though. We’ll see how it all pans out over the next few months.

  25. “ These key demographics and how they object to his agenda would be fascinating to understand. Got any detail on these demographics, how they are identified as key and the strength of their positions on parts of Bernie’s agenda they object to?”

    I posted a breakdown analysis from Slate on this last week on the main thread. Relying upon my admittedly poor memory of the the precise details there were 2 key points:

    1. Over 70% of Americans are at least OK with capitalism, whereas about the same number are repelled by any form of socialism.

    2. While nearly 80% of Americans would favour universal access to a public healthcare system, 60% are repelled by the prospect of the system whereby the option of keeping or taking out your own private cover is taken away.

    The positions that Bernie takes on healthcare score particularly bd with not just republicans by registered independents. While at the moment attitudes of independents towards Bernie personally are very benign it must be remembered that for the past 4 years the republicans have largely kept their powder dry in going after Bernie: they clearly want him to be the democrat candidate. There are obvious reasons for that.

  26. A lot people here seem to be confident in their predictions regarding election outcomes for various candidates (candidate X will never be the nominee, candidate Y will never win against Trump, candidate Z has to be the nominee if Trump is to be beaten). I wasn’t paying much attention to commentary here relating to the US election in 2016, so can’t recall who, if any of you, predicted the outcome accurately from the get-go, but I doubt it was most of you claiming such prophetic ability now.

    Why should anyone believe your predictions and self-proclaimed ability to read the American electorate have any credibility?

  27. Nicholas @ #426 Wednesday, February 5th, 2020 – 10:26 pm

    Andrew Earlwood is clearly struggling to break out of his affluent barrister’s bubble. He formed a worldview in the 1980s when neoliberalism centrism was all the rage, and he is clinging to that worldview for dear life. Poor chap.

    Hear, hear. The guy seems to be an opinionated motor mouth. He waffles on a lot about Oprah for President for god’s sake. I bet he predicted Hillary would win in a landslide in 2016.


  28. Mr Newbie says:
    Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 12:52 am
    ….
    Why should anyone believe your predictions and self-proclaimed ability to read the American electorate have any credibility?

    They don’t get a vote and I wonder how many have been their and seen just how different the place is.

  29. Mr Newbie @ #438 Thursday, February 6th, 2020 – 12:52 am

    A lot people here seem to be confident in their predictions regarding election outcomes for various candidates (candidate X will never be the nominee, candidate Y will never win against Trump, candidate Z has to be the nominee if Trump is to be beaten). I wasn’t paying much attention to commentary here relating to the US election in 2016, so can’t recall who, if any of you, predicted the outcome accurately from the get-go, but I doubt it was most of you claiming such prophetic ability now.

    Why should anyone believe your predictions and self-proclaimed ability to read the American electorate have any credibility?

    My guess is that Nath may have predicted Trump’s victory. He nailed our election back in May 2019 although I think most of his predictions were firmly tongue-in-cheek. Most of the rest, well, I seem to recollect many had a crush on Biden a few weeks ago, the latest flavour-of-the-month seems to be Mayor Pete but who knows how long that will last. And the depth of their new-found expertise is legendary.

  30. Blog watch is in hibernation while I do the climate denial course ( I only have so many hours of free time).

    These guys have got more than poor blogs filled with rubbish to answer for, they have tried ( do try) to ruin the careers of scientists doing their jobs, they are an utter disgrace.

  31. Bellwether @ #441 Thursday, February 6th, 2020 – 6:35 am

    Mr Newbie @ #438 Thursday, February 6th, 2020 – 12:52 am

    A lot people here seem to be confident in their predictions regarding election outcomes for various candidates (candidate X will never be the nominee, candidate Y will never win against Trump, candidate Z has to be the nominee if Trump is to be beaten). I wasn’t paying much attention to commentary here relating to the US election in 2016, so can’t recall who, if any of you, predicted the outcome accurately from the get-go, but I doubt it was most of you claiming such prophetic ability now.

    Why should anyone believe your predictions and self-proclaimed ability to read the American electorate have any credibility?

    My guess is that Nath may have predicted Trump’s victory. He nailed our election back in May 2019 although I think most of his predictions were firmly tongue-in-cheek. Most of the rest, well, I seem to recollect many had a crush on Biden a few weeks ago, the latest flavour-of-the-month seems to be Mayor Pete but who knows how long that will last. And the depth of their new-found expertise is legendary.

    Nasty little man.

  32. C@tmomma @ #444 Thursday, February 6th, 2020 – 7:22 am

    Bellwether @ #441 Thursday, February 6th, 2020 – 6:35 am

    Mr Newbie @ #438 Thursday, February 6th, 2020 – 12:52 am

    A lot people here seem to be confident in their predictions regarding election outcomes for various candidates (candidate X will never be the nominee, candidate Y will never win against Trump, candidate Z has to be the nominee if Trump is to be beaten). I wasn’t paying much attention to commentary here relating to the US election in 2016, so can’t recall who, if any of you, predicted the outcome accurately from the get-go, but I doubt it was most of you claiming such prophetic ability now.

    Why should anyone believe your predictions and self-proclaimed ability to read the American electorate have any credibility?

    My guess is that Nath may have predicted Trump’s victory. He nailed our election back in May 2019 although I think most of his predictions were firmly tongue-in-cheek. Most of the rest, well, I seem to recollect many had a crush on Biden a few weeks ago, the latest flavour-of-the-month seems to be Mayor Pete but who knows how long that will last. And the depth of their new-found expertise is legendary.

    Nasty little man.

    Thanks so much C@t. Your disapproval means a great deal to me! 🙂

  33. Trump’s State of the Union suggests he’s worried about Bernie Sanders

    Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gave speeches on Tuesday night responding to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, with Whitmer providing a moderate’s vision for the Democratic Party, and Sanders making the case for reviving America through left-wing policies.

    While Whitmer was the one giving the official Democratic Party response to Trump’s remarks, it was actually Sanders’s speech that seemed to be most directly in conversation with the president’s address. This was something Trump himself seemed to anticipate, with his remarks full of strident warnings of a socialist takeover of America.

    Those warnings — and the ways in which the speeches seemed to clash — served as a potential preview of a 2020 general campaign season in which left-wing populism emerges as the chief challenge to Trump’s right-wing populism.

    It is far from clear who the Democratic presidential nominee will be. But the fact the addresses came just one night after the Iowa caucuses kicked off, with indications that Sanders — and the progressive politics he represents — could be a dominant force in the Democratic primary, certainly brings that potential dynamic into focus.

    And this makes Whitmer’s and Sanders’s speeches neat encapsulations of the choices Democratic voters face in the primary.

    Whitmer, who won the governor’s mansion in 2018, delivered her remarks with an affable Midwestern folksiness. She focused on explaining how the Democrats have a party brimming with practical policy solutions to problems like health care premiums and decaying infrastructure that can be implemented incrementally.

    She also called for unity across the two parties — and for Republicans to set aside partisanship for Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

    Sanders, by contrast, had nothing conciliatory to offer.

    Instead, he spoke with fiery passion about class war between the 1 percent and everybody else. He demanded Medicare-for-all, complete cancellation of student debt, and widespread mobilization in the face of accelerating climate change. He did not appeal to Republicans’ better angels or for bipartisan consensus, and he repeatedly called Trump a liar.

    In a pivotal election year like this one, Whitmer’s and Sanders’s speeches didn’t just illustrate divergent visions within the Democratic Party about what America should look like. They also served as distinct roadmaps for how the party establishment and the insurgent left wing of the party are inclined to oust Trump from office.

    And voters will soon have to decide which of these visions they want their party to embrace: the “political revolution” promised by Sanders, or the progressive but more incremental vision outlined by Whitmer that is embraced by candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden or former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

    Trump’s State of the Union speech, which focused most emphatically on the outward strength of the economy, seemed to indicate that he believes the Sanders approach could very well win out, even if the candidate himself does not.

    That’s in part because the positions that Sanders advocates for have spread beyond him in mainstream politics, something illustrated by Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s response to Trump’s State of the Union on Tuesday night, which she delivered on behalf of the progressive Working Families Party. In that speech, the first-term Congress member spoke forcefully about how Trump has enacted “short-sighted policies that work for the wealthy and powerful few but leave the worker and the immigrant behind.”

    Strikingly, Trump made sure to bash socialism several times in his speech. He linked it to Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis, and he warned that the sort of government-backed health care Sanders advocates for would be catastrophic and only a boon for unauthorized immigrants. He also went out of his way to mention his update to NAFTA as supported by organized labor — a section of the electorate Sanders has courted — and described his own policies as “pro-worker.” And he didn’t mention impeachment.

    None of this means that Sanders will win the nomination, or even that Trump thinks he’s harder to beat than a moderate. But it does suggest that the right feels a serious need to fight against the ideas that Sanders has made a matter of sustained public debate.

    Cont…

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/5/21123472/trump-speech-state-union-response-sanders-whitmer

  34. “Hey ho Nick – if Bernie loses, want to suggest why? I’d like people to nail down the excuses now. Not that I have any power to force anyone to do so, of course.”

    ***

    Well ALL the candidates have at least one excuse they can use – Iowa. It’s a terrible look for the whole party and just about the worst possible way to kick off the race for the nomination. Frankly the Iowa Dems deserve all the ridicule that has been coming their way.

    Biden actually benefited from the delay though, so it’s not a valid excuse for him.

  35. Apparently, the Iowa results have just been corrected.

    Nate Silver
    @NateSilver538
    This looks like the corrected Iowa state delegate equivalent numbers:

    Buttigieg 26.7
    Sanders 25.4
    Warren 18.3
    Biden 15.9
    Klobuchar 12.1

    No votes for Patrick as they erroneously reported before

  36. “Regrettably, because of the ingrained belief structure of about 60-70% of Americans, Bernie will proves incapable of doing that. That’s not actually his fault.”

    ***

    This is where your argument falls down. It doesn’t even matter if 70% of Americans hate Bernie. Hell, they can even think he’s Stalin reincarnated if they’re that stupid. It doesn’t matter. A candidate doesn’t even need 30% of eligible voters to win the presidency. Trump won with far less (it was around 27% from memory). Sanders doesn’t need to convince the right to vote for him, just as Trump certainly didn’t need to convince the left to vote for him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *