USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Ludicus]

Hmm...
california 2020 democratic party primary - tdms|research

The United States remains one of the few major democracies in the world that continue to allow computerized vote counting—not observable by the public—to determine the results of its elections.[ii] Countries such as Germany,[iii] Norway, Netherlands, France,[iv] Canada,[v] United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries protect the integrity and trust of their elections with publicly observable hand-counting of paper ballots

[Gaidin]

Hmm...
california 2020 democratic party primary - tdms|research

Tell me. Did his rather hysterical study account for Warren and Bloomberg?

Delegates are usually apportioned by a mix: delegates from the proportions of votes at the congressional district level and the proportions at the state level. Examination of the data indicated this fact not significant in estimating delegate apportionment using exit poll vote shares. As only two candidates received 100% of delegates in CA, their

computer vote proportions of 33.8% for Sanders to 26.5% for Biden were transformed to total 100%, keeping their vote proportion ratios they became 56% Sanders, 44% Biden. Sanders’ assigned 185 delegates was divided by his 56% share to determine number of delegates per percentage of vote share—3.30 delegates per percentage point. The same approach with Biden’s assigned 143 delegates resulted in 3.25 delegates per percentage point. As these numbers were virtually identical, varying by less than 0.05, the mix of delegate sources had no significant effect.


The exit poll shares (38% for Sanders and 23% for Biden) were transformed to total 100% keeping their exit poll ratios: 63% Sanders, 37% Biden). These transformed shares were then multiplied by the votes per share times 100 to arrive at 207 delegates for Sanders and 122 for Biden (totaling 329 delegates, and due to rounding almost exactly equaling the 328 total delegates assigned by the vote count). Similar calculations were performed for the Texas primary. This detailed procedure should be enough to duplicate by others and an Excel worksheet is available upon request.

His math is piss.

[mishkin]

Sigh... There is no control, the kind that alhoon is suggesting. The employee collectively simply owns 20% of the company. That means they get a share from the dividends. Thats all. Better they work, better the company does, better their payout becomes. When the CEOs decide to get even richer by taking money out of the company, the employees get a share as well. Why this triggers people is beyond me.

This triggers people not because there is something bad about it, but because "communism!!111!!!1".

Btw: If possible an updated poll Biden/Sanders would be great.

[Heathen Hammer]

How is Bernie 'as far left as it goes economically'?

Because of his de-facto marxist economic policies. Calling a turd "democratic" won't stop it from being a turd.

[Gaidin]

Hmm...
california 2020 democratic party primary - tdms|research

Now that it's not 2am...

Delegates are usually apportioned by a mix: delegates from the proportions of votes at the congressional district level and the proportions at the state level. Examination of the data indicated this fact not significant in estimating delegate apportionment using exit poll vote shares. As only two candidates received 100% of delegates in CA, their

computer vote proportions of 33.8% for Sanders to 26.5% for Biden were transformed to total 100%, keeping their vote proportion ratios they became 56% Sanders, 44% Biden. Sanders’ assigned 185 delegates was divided by his 56% share to determine number of delegates per percentage of vote share—3.30 delegates per percentage point. The same approach with Biden’s assigned 143 delegates resulted in 3.25 delegates per percentage point. As these numbers were virtually identical, varying by less than 0.05, the mix of delegate sources had no significant effect.


The exit poll shares (38% for Sanders and 23% for Biden) were transformed to total 100% keeping their exit poll ratios: 63% Sanders, 37% Biden). These transformed shares were then multiplied by the votes per share times 100 to arrive at 207 delegates for Sanders and 122 for Biden (totaling 329 delegates, and due to rounding almost exactly equaling the 328 total delegates assigned by the vote count). Similar calculations were performed for the Texas primary. This detailed procedure should be enough to duplicate by others and an Excel worksheet is available upon request.

California only has 90 At-Large Delegates. Out of their entire pool of 495 delegates if you break 15% statewide only only get a portion of 90. 272 Delegates are assigned at the District level. 79 are Unpledged for people like the Governor and Senators, while 54 are Pledged Party Leaders. He can't take this massive state exit poll and eliminate two candidates that actually did qualify at district level in places and hope his math works out. Nevermind how many places Biden qualified at the district level no matter how Purple California's map was. In order for his math to even start to make sense he needs 54 exit polls. One at-large and another 53 exit polls for each god damn congressional district. And they all need to account for every running candidate.

We've seen this in plenty of states as it is. Biden CRUSHES BERNIE IN MISSISSIPI!!!! No at large qualification. Bernie still gets delegates? Oh. my. God. Either there's fraud. Or them districts still mean something.

This guy needs to do his work harder. For one, if he's not going to do his at-large math from 90, he should at least start from 362 instead of 328). Second, a quick google will reveal how many delegates are assigned to each district and will reveal just *why* everything feels so off but really isn't. Third, another quick google, and you find California's still counting results, district by district.

https://www.cadem.org/our-party/body...Selection-.pdf

https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/r...ratic/district

[sumskilz]

If possible an updated poll Biden/Sanders would be great.

What matters is each candidate's total delegate count, which you can see here. Click on "Latest 2020 Polls" at the top of the page and you can see all the polls for upcoming state primaries.

[mishkin]

What matters is each candidate's total delegate count, which you can see here. Click on "Latest 2020 Polls" at the top of the page and you can see all the polls for upcoming state primaries.

Thanks, but I was talking about a survey among us replacing the one, quite outdated obviously, in the opening post.

Edit: Oops. They did it, cool.

[sumskilz]

Thanks, but I was talking about a survey among us replacing the one, quite outdated obviously, in the opening post.

Edit: Oops. They did it, cool.

Ironically I had been staring at the new poll just prior to typing my response. I was considering pressing "neither" but I couldn't bring myself to make that kind of a commitment.

[reavertm]

Obama was sane and awesome.
Sanders the commie on the other hand, told an American citizen that was a political prisoner in Cuba that he doesn't see anything wrong with Cuba in his face when he was in Cuba to negotiate his release. He was also praising Castro's Cuba since the 80s.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-praise-claim/

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernard Sanders on Sunday denied that he praised Cuba when visiting a U.S. government worker imprisoned by the communist regime in Havana.

“I did not make that statement,” he said on “Fox News Sunday,” contradicting a claim made by Alan Gross, who spent five years in a Cuban prison and was visited during his captivity by Mr. Sanders.


Mr. Gross recently said that Mr. Sanders told him during the visit that he didn’t know “what’s so wrong” about Cuba.

[alhoon]

Allow me to insist, and ask you,

Do you agree with Obama that the embargo "is an outdated burden on the Cuban people"?

So, do you agree with Obama that "before 1959, some Americans saw Cuba as something to exploit, ignored poverty, enabled corruption"?

Do you agree with Obama that "every country, every people, must chart its own course and shape its own model"?

Do you agree with Obama on "the flaws in the American system-economic inequality; the death penalty; racial discrimination;wars abroad"?

Do you agree with Obama when he says "We do have too much money in American politics"?

Do you agree with Obama that "no one should deny the service that thousands of Cuban doctors have delivered for the poor and suffering"?

Do you agree with Obama that "President Castro and I could both be there in Johannesburg to pay tribute to the legacy of the great Nelson Mandela"?

Do you agree Obama was right in saying "I urged the people of the Americas to leave behind the ideological battles of the past?"
-----

The "crazy commie" (according to allhon) is right, "It is an absolute moral imperative that our response meets the enormity of this crisis"
Bernie Addresses the Nation on the Health and Economic Crisis

I agree with the crazy commie in many things. Including his fervent for medicare for all.
I disagree with him in more important things.

What a hilarious argument considering how Obama and Biden made incredibly similar gushing comments about Cuba and Castro when we temporarily reopened relations with Cuba.

And yet, Obama told in Raul's Castro face about the political prisoners instead of saying in the face of a political prisoner that things are right.
That's another expression of how Obama is awesome.

They care about the rising cost of health insurance premiums/deductibles and medical bankruptcies when the entire nation is in the midst of a pandemic. Talk about hilariously dumb priorities, Alhoon.

I never said that the way Sanders panders to other commies should be a priority. However Sanders is a communist.
You say later in your post that he has zero chance to pass the crazy measures. That's a reasonable, good argument. We've seen since 2017 that the PotUS has very little power by himself. Trump has not been able to pass his Muslim ban, couldn't make the wall, etc etc even with the House and the Senate in Republican hands.

Yes, I don't expect Sanders' crazy plans would have a significant chance to pass as legislators include too many sane people. Also, to the crazy commie's benefit I will admit that he's willing to talk with people even when he disagrees. I.e. I don't expect Sanders to say one fine day: "Good, from tomorrow, companies give 2% of their stock to workers" and even if he does, the legislators would say "Lol? No."
What I expect is that some economically idiotic governor and state legislature would pass a portion of that in their state, like 1% per year for companies of X B$ or more, coupled with taxbreak incentives etc. And then, a few years later it would be apparent whether that given as an option but state finances taking a hit from the tax breaks is a good thing or not.
I expect it will be bad but since it would be 1-2 states and it would be an option for the company and not mandatory (plus coupled with tax breaks) it could work.
Same with Unions. Unions in various states will start becoming more and more powerful and then people would elect non-commies to try and rein in the disease they are. Sure, things will turn to worse (look at Chicago's corrupt unions) but not that much worse.


However: My point was not whether Sanders could do those crazy things. My reply to you and PoV and others was more or less:
"He's a crazy, old communist that is to the left of the Communist Party of Greece. Do you really want such a guy as your PotUS, even with the checks and balances of the USA system?"

You said later that no I am exaggerating when I say he's to the left of the communist party of Greece. I am not. The Communist party of Greece has as a goal a different system but their immediate plans are not as far-reaching as Sanders' and they are at 5% of the vote. The rank-and-file members of the communist party that I speak to in the uni and among friends and relatives (I don't dislike a communist just because he or she is a communist - some of the best people I know are communists) more or less tell me what you said:
"Dude, we don't really want a revolution. We want to have a say in the company we work for as the decisions affect our livelihood, we want the rich to contribute more and stop tax evading, we want better schools and hospitals and we want the natural resources of the country to be enjoyed by the whole population about equally, not for the rich to get most of it. We also don't like income inequality and we believe that the son of the uneducated farmer should have the same opportunities in life as the son of the rich factory owner".

I don't agree with all of those, but I disagree with the policies suggested by the Communist Party of Greece less than I disagree with Sanders' crazy views.
Neither would pass, but Sanders would have more influence.
And when Sanders shatters the USA's stock market, my country's economy will also tank.

who aside from cranky, grey-haired, aging and dying Boomers and Cold War warriors cares one iota about Sandinistas? For that matter Bernie's stance on Latin America has largely been to not interfere directly in their affairs, unlike people to the right of Bernie who want to continue insane Banana Republic foreign interventionism that led to the Sandinistas in the first place.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. Sanders seems to be of the mind of "I agree with the Sandinistas and I believe we have things to learn from Castro despites a couple of crimes here and there. Now, let's focus on our country instead of poor countries far away..."
I didn't say that Sanders support for the Sandinistas or Castro or Chavez were important. I said they show him as the commie he is.

Look, if you guys Don't care if your PotUS is an old communist because you think (probably correctly) that the Senate and even the Democrat house would temper him to sanity, then that's your decision to make.
HOWEVER... he is an old commie. He strongly dislikes the billionaires (the most successful people in USA, some of them selfmade) and he strongly dislikes the banks (that support the current system that makes USA the top world economy with record growth). He strongly supports Unions and he has crazy plans that even if they don't pass in their current insane form, they would be destabilizing and very unproductive for businesses.
Sure, he believes in medicare and sure he wants to address the income inequality. I give him that. He is also a decent fellow and honest for a politician.

The 1% and even 2% wealth tax was supported by Elizabeth Warren , is fast becoming part of the Democratic Party platform and Democrats polled across the board want the same thing. Even Biden is open to taxes on the wealthy, so again, what a hilariously moot point. Also, were you alive in 2008 when the financial recession and meltdown occurred? We Americans live in a country that is near lawless when it comes to financial sector regulations (Dodd–Frank not going nearly far enough). The giant multinational corporate banks based in the US are absolutely too big for their own good and a danger to the rest of the economy, as proven time and time again, and it doesn't take a degree in economics to see that.

Warren is also too far left and I disagree with Sanders, Warren, the Democratic Party platform and you when it comes to that.
The banks can break up on their own if they think they are too big and unyieldy. Elfdude had given me sources several years ago about that, that banks are really too big to exist and they may even support legislation that breaks them up in a reasonable, calculated way.
That's not what Sanders, Warren and the Democrats would do. They would meddle and destroy, not tweak and fix.

In her post above, Morticia (Carmen Sylva) pretty much annihilated whatever silly point you were trying to make here, so bravo to her and Ludicus.

Nope, he didn't. My point stands over the points he tried to make, he didn't manage to refute them. You may disagree with me on that, but so far I see nothing (except the points I addressed from your post) that come close to challenging my points.
As I said, there's a difference from a company choosing to do it and a difference between a company forced to do it and doing it to a 20% degree by law.
"As far left as one can go..." <=== I said from important, serious candidates in the Western world. Yes, there are nutjobs on soapboxes in the West with 0.02% of the vote that suggest even more leftwing things. There are legit communist states with no private properly in 3rd world countries.



@PoV: I am not even reading your post, sorry. Perhaps there is something of value there, but I have lost my faith that such a post would have anything to say that would convince me or that it would be worth replying to at the time.

[alhoon]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-praise-claim/

He totally made that statement and forgot because aside of a castro enthusiast (he defends Castro to this day) he's also old.

[Cyclops]

So Florida and New York will be massive lumps that poor old Bernie has to win to stay alive. Between the party bosses and the "smart money" I think the super delegates all go to Biden so he's pretty much a lock. Its a shame, just another creeping rambling old colourful character in the White House.

Ironically I had been staring at the new poll just prior to typing my response. I was considering pressing "neither" but I couldn't bring myself to make that kind of a commitment.

I think its sweet you miss Hilary that much .

Frankly though with Trump's poor showing and the stock market crash even she'd be a chance to win in November.

[alhoon]

No, she wouldn't but that's because of the years and years of propaganda against her.
There will ~500K deaths from Coronavirus in the USA. It would be 300K or so if Trump hasn't ignored common sense.

Those that didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 are responsible for the deaths of 200K Americans that would be alive in 2022 if the Republicans have not been bombarding Hillary for 20 years. Also, those 200K Americans would be alive if Comey hasn't re-emerged the email scandal days before the election trying to make his career. One of the good things Trump has done was to fire Comey and destroy his political future.

[PointOfViewGun]

@PoV: I am not even reading your post, sorry. Perhaps there is something of value there, but I have lost my faith that such a post would have anything to say that would convince me or that it would be worth replying to at the time.

That's one of the most pathetic ways of deflecting from your arguments being exposed as nothing but a smear campaign. What a disgusting conduct of debate.

[alhoon]

That's one of the most pathetic ways of deflecting from your arguments being exposed as nothing but a smear campaign. What a disgusting conduct of debate.

Lol, no.
My arguments are not a smear campaign, your "arguments" have probably been made and answered 10 times already (I leave a 10% chance that you have added something new in there but I won't hold my breath) and you simply refuse to see that I am right despite ALL those citations and proof I have given you in the past months. I won't waste more time repeating the same arguments that you always fail to address while not realizing you're failing to address.

For all that's holy, you tried to say that Sanders is not a communist and recently that things he said himself and were quoted in the Bloomberg article were not as he said them!!!!
I see little point with discussing further with someone that denies the obvious after several times of saying the same thing, whether it's a poster here or the PotUS.

If you want my answers on the same points that you have brought up 10 times already and I have answered 10 times already showing the errors in your arguments, go and read the answers I gave you. Same questions = same answers.

[PointOfViewGun]

Lol, no.
My arguments are not a smear campaign, your "arguments" have probably been made and answered 10 times already (I leave a 10% chance that you have added something new in there but I won't hold my breath) and you simply refuse to see that I am right despite ALL those citations and proof I have given you in the past months. I won't waste more time repeating the same arguments that you always fail to address while not realizing you're failing to address.

For all that's holy, you tried to say that Sanders is not a communist and recently that things he said himself and were quoted in the Bloomberg article were not as he said them!!!!
I see little point with discussing further with someone that denies the obvious after several times of saying the same thing, whether it's a poster here or the PotUS.

If you want my answers on the same points that you have brought up 10 times already and I have answered 10 times already showing the errors in your arguments, go and read the answers I gave you. Same questions = same answers.

The fact that you're giving me this wordy ranting about how your arguments are exposed as outright false instead of actually going back and admitting the number of factually incorrect claims you've made tells us quite a lot. Whether Sanders is a communist or not isn't even part of our current discussion, yet, you somehow reference it instead of the employee co-determination scheme Sanders is advocating. You continue to misled people and I'll continue to shoot them down with facts.

[Heathen Hammer]

Trump being one of the few leaders not ignoring common sense probably saved lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans by establishing prompt travel bans. That will definitely give him weight in general election, especially if Sanders (who praised Chinese government that caused the pandemic) gets the nomination.

[PointOfViewGun]

Trump being one of the few leaders not ignoring common sense probably saved lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans by establishing prompt travel bans. That will definitely give him weight in general election, especially if Sanders (who praised Chinese government that caused the pandemic) gets the nomination.

This post is a prime example of how reality can be twisted to cook up a "gotcha" post to praise Trump. Trump's response was anything but prompt as he started with downplaying the whole corona virus crisis. Then he enacted travel bans but left out UK that had more cases than many of the countries he banned travel from. Sanders didn't praise China in relation to corona virus. He simply stated that China did more to combat poverty. There is no real indication that it was the Chinese government that caused the pandemic as well. You really need to try harder.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is other way around, given how TDS crowd bashed Trump for "creating panic" by enacting measures to promptly, but now changed the narrative just to cook up "gotcha" talking points to criticize Trump.
Trump didn't downplay coronavirus. Unlike other world leaders, Trump's actions were guided by commons sense, not by psychotic obsession with preserving "muh interentaional trade" at expense of their own people, like it was with so many world leaders (ironically same ones that people with TDS tend to bring up as good example as opposed to Trump like Macron or trudeau). And of course Chinese government is to blame for coronavirus outbreak. They denied it even existed for more then a month.

[Ludicus]

I agree with the crazy commie in many things. Including his fervent for medicare for all.

That's good to hear.But he is neither crazy nor communist.You see, I'm anti-communist.Sorry, you don't even know what communism is.I could tell you so many things...
Hint- here we stopped the communists.Let's suppose this thread is... "Name that Historical Event"