This is an app I could have wrote in a week or two. It's not terribly complex.

High price is because it's a grift between buddies. Also maybe a few campaigns got preferential treatment with the "rounding" errors they are finding.

I want to know the testing process they did and the user who signed-off on it. I would want to know the test scenarios, scripts that were used. Someone had to sign-off on it and that is the person to allocate most blame to.

Maybe it wasn't a app bug vs load-balancing issue (which admittedly is hard to simulate for a production environment) or connectivity issue? or maybe even an end-user training (or lack of) issue

I wouldn't call $120,000 a high price for that kind of development, YMMV.

The article I read said the app was only available to download on TestFlight and TestFairy which are explicitly used for releasing beta software, and the fact that it couldn't even make it into the Apple/Google stores should have been an obvious non-starter...but if you're not technical and/or familiar with that stuff, it probably wouldn't set off alarm bells.

I use TestFlight every day at work and it's definitely not too complicated, as it practically operates like an app store, but it would've involved folks having to install/enable TestFlight or TestFairy, and THEN download the caucas app through that. You've got an extra step of complexity (and probably a handful of extra privacy & licensing agreements to agree to) before you're even considering the caucas app itself, which could be crucial for non-technical users.

DOLA: This article goes even further and says they were using the FREE version of TestFairy which limits the number of test users that can access the app to 200. FULL BODY EYEROLL

The app that broke the Iowa Caucuses was sent out through beta testing platforms - The Verge

Bernie still has a chance to win it. Unfortunately, won't change the story of Biden's poor showing.

Bernie is also leading in NH polls with Pete in second. If I had to pick between the 2 to win it all, I'd go for Pete.

Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg in virtual Iowa caucus tie

The rounding errors story is bullshit. In all but one tally I've seen, the rules were followed, and in the one where there was an error, it cost Pete a delegate.

One of the biggest drawbacks of the information age is that so much information is out there that everyone thinks they are experts in areas that they have no business thinking that in.



There's a gap between reading (or watching) and critical thinking and concluding. How else can legitimate facts come under question?

I'm imagining a man on horseback from the outer reaches of Iowa riding with the greatest urgency, pushing his horse to his physical limits, racing through corn and wheat fields to Des Moines with the election results in an old beaten up saddlebag that is guarded at all costs whenever a stop is made to use the bathroom, or perhaps to forage for some food in a field or a nearby forest as the rider must travel light to make the journey in time.

Perhaps Pheidippides is involved in delivering the info.

It appears that Tom Perez has asked the Iowa Democratic Party to recanvas the vote. Basically do a recount of all the paper ballots to assure folks that the numbers are able to be trusted.

Iowa just needs to be written off and forgotten. They blew it. New Hampshire will count the votes correctly and serve as the first contest to winnow the field. Nevada now has a chance to be the 1st caucus in the nation.

Yep, looks like this is the case. Big loss for Iowa and they may lose their "first" status for the next presidential election. Maybe that means we can stop subsiding ethanol to the levels we do if people don't have to kowtow to that state every four years.

So what is fascinating is the latest national Morning Consult poll shows Buttigieg with a rise to 12%, but Bloomberg is still ahead of him. And Warren is at 11%.

His odds on 538 went from 4% to 6% after Iowa. They now have Bernie as the favorite and Biden dropping quickly.

I assumed Biden would drop, but he fucked up in Iowa royally. If he looked this bad in Iowa it's probably best he isn't on a debate stage with Trump or addressing his supporters at any point in front of a camera.

Michael Steele had an interesting angle on Biden and Iowa, that he wasn't really bringing his A-game. That's going to be saved for South Carolina, where the voters may not care what went on in (very white) Iowa.

There's a reason why Biden has crapped out twice before.

I'm trying to decide if I want to go out on a ledge and predict a Bernie/Bloomberg final.

Has ignoring early states ever worked out in recent primary history?

Enjoying Bernie in the CNN townhall right now. He is much more appealing to me in a calm environment and when not agitated. IMO he needs to drop his angry man image (but I get it appeals to his base).

My only major issue with Bernie is his supporters are awful. Almost all of their conspiracies regarding stealing the nomination come from the fact that most were voting for the first time last election and had no idea how politics or nthe nomination process works. If he wins he has my vote (as does literally any other dem including Bloomberg).

If he only has one A-game and everything else is Iowa he isn't winning.

Pete is up next, then Amy. Good night of TV.

Debates have their purpose but prefer the town hall format at this stage since you don't get quality time in the debates.

The big problem with Bernie and Warren is that this cycle seems terrible to run on their economic message. When 60%+ approve of the economy and think they'll be personally better off next year, I don't think a promise to remake the economy is a winning message.

I wasn't always paying full attention to Sanders or Pete but am disappointed that I haven't heard any specifics about foreign policy (China, North Korea, Iraq etc.), nothing about illegal immigration, rebuilding bipartianship etc.

I thought it was the debates' setting but Amy also rambles on when answering a town hall question.

Why is it up to the D candidate to "rebuild bipartisanship"? When McConnell took over, he said his only goal was to make Obama a 1 term president. He won't bring things up for votes that 80% of Americans support and they refuse to even consider anything a D comes up with. Is Trump trying to restore bipartisanship? Should we hold it against him?

It's not up to only the D candidate to rebuild bipartianship.

At this point, I'm fully willing to escalate partisanship. Bring it on. The rules are the rules and McConnell will reap what he has sown.

By definition.

I think that is the problem with the D party, they are always looking to build bipartisanship with a group that has absolutely no interest in it. So I would say the ideal candidate would not care about that one bit.

I'm just shocked people are going through the motions again of Bernie having a chance. At this point, it's clear he does well in situations where a vocal minority can railroad a primary (aka a Caucus). He is from the state right next to New Hampshire, is perfect for a caucus (Iowa/Nev) and is beloved by the super left in California. So, the beginning of the primary is like ducks in a row for him.

However, his plans have no chance and most smart democrats realize that. Given his negatives and the overall "Bernie fatigue" by independents, it seems pretty clear he would get whipped by Trump. Just like in 2016, I fully expect the democratic party to throw themselves in oncoming traffic to stop him from getting the nomination. Yet, legit places like 538 have him as the favorite?!

The real irony of Sanders is the perfect demographic for his platform (low education, organized, somewhat gullible) is 100% in the bag for Trump. He's going to have to rely on young people and scared seniors to get elected - and that's a recipe for disaster in a presidential election.

I'm very skeptical of Bernie's chances, but here is the data for Bernie fatigue? He's been consistently leading in most head to head polling.

Or maybe the candidate doesn't even matter? An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter - POLITICO

No

Moderates are afraid of Bernie and write off his chances. I don't think Bernie could have won 8 or even 4 years ago but most of his ideas are mainstream dem now and not seen as extreme as they were in 2016. Bernie will likely get the youth vote out at near Obama levels. He has a better chance of beating Trump in this election than Biden IMO.

Get a grip. Bernie absolutely has a chance. He polls just as well, if not better than anyone else against Trump, and if there's anyone who will get crossover votes, it's him. Look at the Joe Rogan endorsement for proof of that.

And I can't believe that you're suggesting the DNC do everything it can to block his nomination, and are seemingly OK with that. If that happens again, and it's obviously rigged against Bernie, whoever the Dem nominee is will get slaughtered in the general, and the DNC will be FUBAR'ed for years.

Biden excites no one, especially the young vote. It's Hillary rd. 2 but probably a much worse loss. And mayor Pete has literally 0% African American support. He has no chance. His own city doesn't like him and his questionable McKinsey ties don't help him. His only hope is an Obama endorsement, which is possible and I think should worry progressives a lot, especially if it becomes clear he is the viable choice for the moderate, or in your words "smart" wing of the party.

You're putting way too much weight in "his plans." Many "unsmart" dems actually do realize everything he says won't be possible to get done in his term(s). But what President has? What matters to people is the momentum, and shift he represents towards a government that works for everyone. They see a movement, not a candidate. Clearly you don't understand this. Why do you think AOC is also so popular? She will carry Bernie's torch.

In Feb of 2016, both Clinton and Sanders won Head-to-Head with Trump by a 50-40 margin. Independents tend to focus only on the economy and Sanders doesn't do well there. If we were mired in a recession, I think he'd have a chance. But, he's been branded a socialist for 6 years (even said he is himself) and that is starting to stick with some. I would be shocked if Sanders won against Trump with the economy going this well - but I was also shocked that Trump won in 2016. So, who knows I guess. But, every election has shown that most voters who don't pay a ton of attention usually vote on the economy - and those aren't going to show up in Feb of 2020 polling.

I think it very well could come out to turnout. I would bet a record turnout by Republicans against Bernie given the "Socialist Boogeyman" the right has made him. If it's Biden, I can't see too many republicans being super motivated to vote Trump over Biden. But, I bet democrats would still turn out for Biden because of their hatred for Trump.

I'm not a Bernie fan, but the WORST thing the party can do is to actively block Sanders from the nomination. His folks (some of whom are now House members) seem believe Superdelegates stole the 2016 primary from him (even though he got less votes). Stoking that fire would be a big mistake.

I think the "Socialist" label is becoming a lot less scary for people than it was in 2016. He's also pivoted to "Democratic socialism" and is pointing to Nordic European countries as examples of what he wants to accomplish. Not the say, Venezuelan version of socialism, a developing economy whose is tied to one natural resource (oil). I think people are smart enough to differentiate. And the media is even starting to get wise and call it what it is, democratic socialism.

You're right about the economy. Here's the thing though: It is "strong" in metrics, i.e. stock market, but the "strength" has not been felt by the middle class. The rich is getting richer and wage growth has stagnated. Will that translate to anything meaningful as far as votes are concerned? To be determined. Dems will be wise to bring up $15 minimum wage in the general. Bernie's strength here will be labor union support.

No matter what, whoever the candidate is, there will need to be record turnout. Independent votes, and crossover voters do matter yes, but much less than I think you are giving it. Trump has a rock solid 45% or whatever. He hasn't gained any voters though since 2016, only lost some if anything. And that can be beat but the Dems can only win by bringing out the youth vote, and the POC vote in record numbers. Iowa wasn't a great indication of that happening yet (granted it's 90% white so the sample size is small) so lots of work to be done there. But a lot of people think Bernie is the candidate to do those things, especially paired with a VP like say, Stacey Abrams.

When Dems win Presidential elections, it's when the youth vote turns out. This is just a bonafide fact. See Obama. And this is Bernie's strength. So yes, he absolutely has a chance.

Yeah, after 2016, I can see this being an issue. They are kind of trapped with him now.

I think Bloomberg entering the race will cut into Biden and give Bernie a better chance at winning the nomination - but I just can't see him winning a general. Obama got a ton of middle-aged independents and McCain just didn't resonate with any demographic. Trump is a little like Bernie in that he has his haters, but also a bunch of zealot supporters. I don't think many people on the fence would choose Bernie given the massive economic changes he wants to make. There's just too much risk for most voters there.

There isn't a perfect candidate. Bloomberg and Biden will both turn off progressive voters. Warren is a woman, which comes with a whole host of issues in a general election. Buttigieg will turn off the religious moderates and a large number of progressives.

Trump did a good job of framing himself as more moderate than Romney and both Bushes to Dem voters and was able to pull in a large number of left leaning moderates that didn't like Hillary because of that. He's not going to be able to repeat that. He does have the economy going for him but remains historically unpopular.

If Trump wins I look forward to 4 years of moderates telling everyone Dems chose a bad candidate and that's why they either didn't vote or voted 3rd party. Meanwhile libertarians will reserve the right to to pick and choose who to blame based on which way the wind blows that day.

Trump was at a 38% favorable rating when he got elected. This week, gallup just reported his approval rating was at a personal high of 49%. I think he will get a lot of non-partisans in this election (even more than vs Clinton). America's confidence in the economy is as high as it has ever been since 2000 and the "national satisfaction" level is at a 15-year high, I can't ever remember a sitting president losing in that economical situation.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

What point are you even trying to make then? That Trump is going to win on the strength of the economy and Dems are doomed no matter who they put up, so why even bother?

Approval ratings fluctuate. His is still, by and large, on the whole, historically terrible. There is a lot of time for Trump to piss people off again (and again, and again...). And he’s one market downturn from his one big platform to stand on collapsing him.

His overall is still under 44% per 538 which makes him the least popular president at this point in an election year since Truman.

You also can't compare Trump's presidency to others. Trump is the first president to make no attempt to pull in moderates or bridge the partisan gap between parties. We have no idea how that's going to play out but based on his approval ratings it's unlikely the economy is going to help him as much as a more traditional sitting president.

Trump's campaign knows his approval ratings are a problem as they've gone on TV stating their plan is to try to make whoever wins the dem primary as unpopular as Trump and hope things break their way in the electoral.

I'm becoming more convinced that Pete is the best person to run against Trump out of the current crop of candidates. He gets young and old support, is from rural Indiana and outside Washington and is a military veteran. He provides the most contrast to Trump. I don't think people care about experience because they voted for Obama over McCain and Trump over Hillary. He needs more support from minorities. Maybe that will come with more primary victories and then picking Abrams as VP candidate.

Biden doesn't excite young people and Bernie seems too far left for old people. Warren was trying to be the candidate in the middle of those two but Pete seems to have taken that lane. Bloomberg may overtake him but he's another 75+ year old and I'm not sure he inspires anybody to go out and vote.

Like I said above, he's the incumbent with a good economy. He should be the favorite.

Also, don't put too much stock in one poll.

But Pete gets almost no support from African-Americans. That's a big problem.

Based on absolutely nothing but what I have pulled out of my butt, I imagine that high satisfaction actually results in lower-turnout from opposition voters, rather than increased votes for the incumbent, and that Trump's unique standing could cancel out that effect.

A huge problem. I hate to say it, as a very socially progressive liberal, but the rest of America isn’t ready to nominate a gay man to the Presidency. Did you all see the voter who changed her vote when she found out he was gay?

Iowa Voter Shocked To Learn Buttigieg Is Gay, Asks To Change Vote | NBC News - YouTube

Unfortunate reality, but true. And it’s not puzzling at all why the African American community, which Pete will desperately need in the general, doesn’t support him, as that demographic is particularly not very “pro gay” historically. I don’t see that budging at all, unless of course Obama endorses him/and or Michelle is his VP. His only hope really.

Finally, just because he is young, does not mean he will have young support. He doesn’t actually. In fact, they don’t like him, like, at all. Hell, the gay community doesn’t even particularly like him.

Why Pete Buttigieg Enrages the Young Left - POLITICO

I have read that to some young folks he just seems phony.

Well, yea. Not posting any policy positions on your website for the first 10 months of his campaign, supporting M4A then backtracking once he started raising money behind closed doors from big money donors, name dropping black activists in South Carolina and trying to pass them off as supporters, claiming victory prematurely in Iowa and speaking in ridiculous, vague platitudes constantly like this tweet yesterday, makes him seem like a robotic political candidate molded out of focus groups. Look at the comments to that tweet, they’re objectively pretty hilarious.

#CNNTownHall pic.twitter.com/lt4yVD7Krz

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) February 7, 2020

So the battle for the soul of the Democratic party is basically senior citizens screaming unattainable promises at clouds v. vague young feel-good enthusiasm.

(And I guess Biden awkwardly standing around hoping both approaches fail).

Pete is trying to be everything for everybody. It sounds great at first, until you hear him make an exact opposite promise to someone else.

No. But then there has never been anyone spending this kind of money to try it. Bloomberg keeps getting bumps. I think the best thing for his opponents/worst thing for him is that he will be in the debate before Super Tuesday. I think he is going to be pretty unimpressive on the debate stage.


I honestly think the biggest challenge right now isn't reaching across the isle. It is shoring up the party. The far-left wing and the moderate wing are at the point of complete split. I fear the party might be in real trouble whether Sanders wins or loses. The Sanders people sound more and more like the lefts version of the MAGA people everyday, which makes the moderates dislike him even more.

Yup (smh) four more years of Trump for sure.

I don't believe that. I think a lot of moderate republicans/independents are DYING for a choice that isn't Trump. They just need someone who will appear to not be rocking the boat on the economy and they will jump. Bloomberg or Biden would both fit the bill there. Sanders, however, is just too much of a change for them to handle. At the end of the day, you could roll out Mickey Mouse as the democrat candidate and the left will be out in droves to vote for him. You are going to get a good turnout from the left no matter what, the key is pulling away the middle who clearly does not like Trump but doesn't want to put someone else in who they think will destroy this good economy.

That's the thing with Trump. He pisses people off and makes a gaff every day. It's almost like the Boy who cried Wolf with him. He does so many stupid things that get constantly reported on that when he truly does something awful, people are just desensitized from it all. I've never really seen anything like it and I can't see anything that he does lowering his approval rating. The only chance for that is an economic downturn - and that just doesn't seem likely by November.

I think putting money on the American public being smart is a losing bet. When those ads come up every commercial break, on every Facebook or Google ad, screaming "Socialist" and turning Bernie into Casto, Miduro, Stalin, Mao, we can only hope the "smarts" show up. I believe that many of his positions can actually poll well, but when you add "socialist" to them, their support plummets.



We just might not in the end have a candidate that can take Trump running. Because what Billy said is true. The Democrats have never won the White House with having the youth turn out. What he didn't mention is the other factor. They have all been pretty moderate as well. You need the candidate to bridge the gap of the party to succeed. If you can get youth, but the older voters (which are the larger numbers by far) stay home or vote for the other guy, you can't win.

That's not necessarily true. One of the big reasons that Clinton lost in 2016 is because black voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania did not turn out to the levels they did for Obama. Now undoubtedly part of that is voter suppression (Milwaukee especially) and other part of it is that no one is getting as much black vote as Obama. But you can't just automatically count on left turnout.

In 2016 it was assumed Dems would get a large turnout to defeat Trump. The reality was the young voters that turned out for Obama in 2008 stayed home.

Biden and Bloomberg will not get the youth vote. They'll stay home. Most see very little difference between Biden or Bloomberg and the GOP.

Comparing 2008 to 2016, black voter turnout was down 5.5% and 18-29 voting was down 3%. Those are significant numbers and both were expected to be higher because the assumption was there would be motivation to beat Trump.

Pete is this year's Marco Rubio. He'll be finished when someone with 4% kamikazes on him like in Rubio 2016.

I don't think people really viewed Trump as having a legit chance to win and people hadn't seem Trump in action for 4 years as president. I think a lot of people stayed home because they weren't that excited about Hillary and the media had been telling them for months that Trump had no chance. I don't think those people will be making that same mistake in 2020 - even if a stiff runs for the dems.

So, you think that young people who have been conditioned to think Trump is worst thing imaginable as President are going to stay home if Biden is the nominee but go out in droves for Bernie? I don't think it matters. The ones that care enough to vote, will do so. The ones that don't, won't. Bernie may get a few more young votes, but most will be voting against Trump anyway. The young vote rarely turns out - even for Obama. He got a much higher black turnout than youth turnout to win - and I don't see that black turnout for an old, crabby looking white guy. I do, however, see a chance for dems to pick off non-social conservatives who have been holding their nose to vote for Trump because of the economy. If they have a decent alternative, many will switch. It sucks voting for a guy you really don't like.

People who call for moderates to run have forgotten what happened to the last moderates the Democrats nominated. Hillary lost to a game show host and Kerry lost to one of the worst Presidents in modern history.

Is this when I point out that Barack Obama ran as a moderate in 2008? Heck, he ran to the right of Hillary Clinton on health care - being against the individual mandate.

Kerry was an awful candidate and Hillary would have won if many democrats/moderates didn't stay home because they thought the election was in the bag for her. Obama ran as a moderate and got a ton of crossover support. W also ran as a "compassionate conservative" and also got moderates. It's rare a pure partisan candidate wins the presidency. Clinton, W, Obama and even Trump all ran as more moderate candidates.

There just isn't a lot of evidence of hard left/right wingers winning presidential elections. You turn off too many people and create a situation of fear/turnout for your opposition.

Kerry outperformed the fundamentals and almost won. Bush2 wasn't really loathed until into his second term. His approval rating was @50% during the election, and mostly a net positive.

I don't think Obama ran as a moderate who wouldn't rock the boat. He was pretty open about all the "change" he wanted. Sure he backed out of all that after being elected, but he ran to the left of Hillary in that primary.

Just turned on the debate. Biden looks even older than I thought.

I don't know what the polls will say about who won the debate, but MSNBC had a bunch of undecided New Hampshire voters in an audience to talk after the debate. If what they are saying holds, Amy Klobuchar had a great night.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

She committed to kicking Trump's ass all night. That seems like a good strategy given the Democratic opposition to all things Trump.

My impressions:

I was impressed with her. Sanders was nice and consistent, nothing noteworthy probably but he makes his points very cleanly and consistently, Warren just doesn't seem to do well in any of these, I've got nothing bad to say but really nothing good either. Biden talking like he's the only one who has ever introduced positive legislation in congress over and over and over just wears so thin on me at least. Mayor Pete flailed pretty bad in a couple spots - most notably when asked about legalizing all drugs even heroin, and on marijuana arrests in south bend being so disproportionate against blacks. I honestly don't know what to make of Steyer at all.

Klobuchar definitely impressed the most, but I don't think it's going to save her campaign. I feel like Warren is slowly fading away, which is a big deal for Bernie. I kind of feel like Biden didn't help himself recover any here which is a win for Mayor Pete.


Additionally, I feel like every single candidate completely failed when the conversation turned to race. Yang basically evoked MLK to pitch UBI and it felt horribly gross. All the other candidates just don't feel like they're speaking about anything in a way that is going to inspire anyone imo. I'll just quote a much more eloquent friend of mine here:

"When we talk about 'the african american' community, the debate drifts toward who will hand out the largest sums to most people, education, food stamps, etc. How dare we imagine that black people, latino peole, asian people as any other people do not wish to build a company, a career - to succeed and thrive and be competitive. They are not simply there to be looked after, or for us to save. It is up to us instead to empower."

Not a single one of these candidates seem like they get it, at least in their presentation at tonight's debate.its

Honestly, this is straight up, what we should be hearing. No holds barred. I'm gonna kick his ass, and he better be ready. That attitude and message could move mountains.

So predictions for NH? Mine:

1. Sanders
2. Mayor Pete
3. Klobuchar
4. Biden
5. Warren

Flip Warren and Biden. Which begs the question, how much will really bad showings in the first two states hurt Biden? He already has money trouble.

Biden just has to keep things together until SC and then Super Tuesday. I really don't think the "socialist" message will work well against Trump so still hoping for Biden. I do wonder if Biden wins the nomination will Sanders and Warren supporters rally behind him in force.

Biden's lack of debate skills is problematic though. I also think Hunter is a liability now that Trump & supporters are relatively free to pursue that.

Yeah I agree with all your points. It boils down to the Dems are screwed no matter what direction they go it seems. Maybe Bloomberg will be the savior of the D party.

Good note on Bloomberg. I would say he is #2 right now for me. I do want to see him in debates and understand his stances more before making a decision.

I agree, and I think that Pete and Klobuchar will be very close (but who technically comes in second will matter for the narrative).

What's so weird to me is that the vast majority of Dems want to just get this done so we can get behind a candidate to beat Trump. But the way the process is playing out seems designed to create one of the most contested primaries in modern times. Sigh.

The other interesting thing is that this most contested primary has been relatively non-combative. This week has seen the most punched thrown, but they have really been pretty weak compared to what you would normally see in a free-for-all contest. No one wants to come out as being too negative. It also especially seems no one wants to really anger Bernie's base.

I have a theory that the campaigns are really just staying back and letting the internet do the negative campaigning. Most especially Bernie's campaign. He can soft-touch any criticism knowing that his online fandom is going to paint all of his opponents as racist Nazi's.

The Amy Klobuchar surge has me pretty excited. Still, her history as a DA is going to be a problem among AA voters.

He should drop out right now in my opinion.

#BLOOMBERGISRACIST Trends As Second Resurfaced Clip Shows Dem Candidate Saying 'WE DISPROPORTIONATELY STOP WHITES TOO MUCH AND MINORITIES TOO LITTLE'

Stop and frisk right? The funny part is people will act like this is new and groundbreaking. From what I remember nothing he said he ever really was wrong it just wasn't what people wanted to hear. Minorities disproportionately account for more murders. Racist numbers! Males account for more murders. Sexist numbers!

Crime in NYC is lower now than it was during Bloomberg's tenure.

I don't care one way or the other about stop and frisk. I actually thought it was more about the fear or terrorism than blacks but I don't live there so I'm sure it was both. My only thought was to save the racist nonsense for people like Donald Trump who actually dog-whistles racist nonsense all the time. Bloomberg is doing nothing but discussing actual numbers. It's just sad to see the Democratic party cannibalize itself and then end up nominating Bernie Sanders who will get demolished in a general election. I get besmirched all the time for laughing about the "lessor of two evils" paradigm. But the Democrats actually can win with this strategy and instead are going to nominate a more polarizing figure than even Donald Trump and somehow Trump will be the lessor of two evils to most of the electorate.

I'm not following you here. The sentence, "We disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little", is him saying that he wants more minorities stopped and frisked or is he saying he wants less white people stopped and frisked? Either way, it sounds racist. Or are you saying he was really saying that it should be a 1 for 1 thing?

If I remember correctly, the entire policy of stop and frisk has been controversial. Perhaps if this country had not had over 250 years of treating minorities like garbage, this would just be nothing more than something that wasn't communicated very well.

Bloomberg's campaign is not a hill I care about dying on but yes it's a horrible quote that isn't as bad as it sounds in context. I completely disagree he should drop out immediately but also would like to see Trump not get reelected so I admit to being biased towards candidates that actually have a chance of winning.

While I don't quite agree with you as well, I definitely understand where you are coming from, thank you for clarifying and as much as I hope he is not a racist, but, I have committed to 'anyone but trump'.

*Edit - This word salad is what I get for trying to type this while talking to someone.

I'd say not the policy itself - which is constitutionally permitted - but the impacts of it in a city like NYC. Officers can briefly detain people on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and they can frisk them on reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous. The media always reports on it as if officers are just randomly stopping and frisking people walking down the street.

The problem is that the reasonable suspicion standard is very low, and if utilized freely, it will disproportionately impact minorities in cities like NYC even if the police offers were robots who didn't see race. That's because some of the permissible factors for generating reasonable suspicion include things like evidence of gang membership, whether the neighborhood is dangerous, and whether the individual is known to have a criminal record or to carry weapons - things that are going to unfortunately impact minorities more than white people, even without any police targeting (though officers will often be deployed disproportionately to neighborhoods that have higher crime rates), because we live in a society with racial injustice generally. Kind of like if officers always stop cars where there's visible evidence of some registration/license violation, they're going to disproportionately pull over poor people, and in the U.S., unfortunately, in urban areas, that means they're also going to disproportionately pull over minorities even if we assume race-blind officers. The officers didn't invent that racially unjust reality, they're just thrown into it. So disproportionate racial arrest stats don't prove race-intent based arrests, it proves that minorities generate more reasonable suspicion and probable cause due to their disparate economic status, even if they say, use drugs at the same frequently as, or less than, white people.

Most agencies' officers don't perform Terry stops and frisks every possible time they can. If they did, minorities are going to be stopped more. NYC used to have fairly lax police when it came to little things, they were focusing on serious things. Then the idea came around, mostly under Giuliani, to focus on the little things and to do everything the constitution permitted them to do, because hey, when you arrest a subway toll jumper, or when you stop a known gang member in a dangerous neighborhood who has a visible bulge in his pocket that might be contraband, you might also get lucky and arrest someone who is dangerous, or who has warrants, or who is a drug dealer. The people fairly struck back against this approach (especially after the city got safer), and reasonably asked the police to not to stop and frisk everybody that the constitution says they can stop and frisk. That's their prerogative, and police agencies should carry out the will of the legislature and the people, not just do whatever they're allowed to do. That's easier said then done when societal expectations of officer behavior evolve faster than the law does, but, it is something that agencies should strive to do anyway.

I don't know the context of what Bloomberg was talking about. Best case, he was saying that the officers shouldn't be consciously attempting to stop more white people to help out the much-scrutinized stats about that kind of thing.

(This has also been on my mind generally based on the increasing attacks on Buttigieg based on this kind of thing in South Bend).

I think the bigger issue with Bloomberg is that he's a Republican running in the Democratic primary. I don't know why anyone would vote for another oligarch but so be it.

If the best Republican running in 2020 happens to be doing so in the Democratic primary, I can see some significant number of people getting behind that.

Some of the better regarded Democratic presidents have been oligarchs like JFK and FDR.

That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way. My exposure to the policy via any kind of media has been that it had been utilized as a workaround to the Constitution. I still don't agree with it and probably never will though. My suspicions are already raised with how Bloomberg has come in at this point in the game, reading the article about what he said definitely doesn't help his appeal to me. Plus, I don't think he will make the changes that need to be made to keep another trump from happening in the future. However, if it is him that will get trump out, I'll vote for him, just like I would Biden.

Absolutely. Whoever the Dems nominate gets my vote.

Early numbers from the exit polls are showing a large drop in younger demographic from four years ago. That would be bad for Bernie, and of course the Bernie Bros will crying about conspiracy theories immediately.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Republicans are going to vote for Trump. Are you really going to energize a party by convincing them they need to vote for a Republican to beat Trump?


If given the choice, why not just vote Trump? At least we get some laughs out of it.




They did sort of rig the Iowa primary already.

We’ll see, but this needs some serious context.

1. Those exit polls were from a period between 8-11am. Young voters typically vote later in the day.

2. NH is the 2nd oldest state by median age in America.

3. NH has passed well documented voter suppression legislation to suppress the young vote where college students have to have a NH drivers license AND their car registered in the state to vote. This is not a “Bernie Bro” conspiracy, and was talked about since way back. (Source: https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/11/08...ire-voting-law)

Whatever you think of the candidates, they would never let Bernie win.

CNN reporting Yang is out

He was the biggest surprise in this primary and made it far further than anyone would have expected. He has a place in politics somewhere. Hopefully his political interest goes beyond just running for president.

EDIT: In memory of Yang's campaign I'll post the line of the debates thus far (IMO).

Well there goes my favorite. Onto ... Klobachur?

Is Warren about to endorse Amy?

ETA: I guess not

But what is Warren's path from here? She's not getting any delegates tonight.

I had no idea Michael Bennet was still running until he announced he was dropping out.

Warren has no path at this point. I think she might see if she gets any movement in Nevada. If not, she might drop before the actual caucus.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Biden will stay around until at least Super Tuesday, but his chances have to be gone with a potential 5th place finish in New Hampshire.