Iowa: The biggest problem for Democrats Wasn’t the Vote Count

DES MOINES — Iowa’s caucus-reporting meltdown was painful. But another grenade from Monday night, just beyond the line of sight, may be just as consequential.

So Politico writes this article for MSN.COM as in Microsoft. Correct, the earth friendly "socialist progressive" corporation known for articles written by unknown fanatics in the daily beatings of the Donald and the entire Trump Administration during times of rain, sleet, snow or hail.

So comrades, this one’s for you!

Politico

Ha. Here was my original MSN.COM link but Mr. SOFTEE killed the story and link. Free country? They pull this sheep a lot

[url=http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/the-biggest-problem-for-democrats-wasnt-the-vote-count/ar-BBZE7Kb?li=BBZdWbk&OCID=AVRES007]Link[/url ]

Hot Points:

1. In other words: Democrats were counting on Barack Obama-levels of enthusiasm. They got Hillary Clinton numbers, instead

2. If that number holds, turnout will run only to about 170,000 people, well below the 240,000 who participated in the caucuses in 2008.

So what happened?

Well let’s walk it back to 2008. [1] A New World Order kind of guy was exiting as President. [2] Hope and Change was rising. [3] Many older Democratic progressive socialist voters simply died and left a void as its 12 years later. [4] Millennial's are too wise to the antics of the Democrats and they see through it. [5] Millennial's are too much in love with themselves to matter. [5] Unionized jobs have been destroyed. [6] Domestic born USA citizens DO want to work. [7] Open borders is NOT righteous for all. [8] NOT all illegal immigrants are warm and fuzzy. [9] There is still a place in society for common sense. [10] Hope went to hell and pocket chump change is just change for chumps. [11] The Pope is on the ropes. [12] The USA MSM is controlled by special interests. [13] Too many Billionaires are running for President. [14] The Federal Judiciary do not uphold the laws and Constitution of the USA. [15] Wrong is wrong [16] Hillary and Bill were smiling too much the day Epstein died.[17] Salem witch trials are fashionable again.[18] There are millions of deplorables among us whom do not like the 24 / 7 in your face LGBT sandwich.

Entrance polls showed first-time caucus-goers down this year, to about one-third of all caucus-goers. That fell lower not only than 2008, when nearly 60 percent of caucus-goers were first-time participants, but also 2016. It was a deflating acknowledgment for a party that is desperate to register and turn out first-time voters in the fall.

Well so can you grasp what they are writing above?

Trump may be a jerk but we all have worked for a jerk. Unlike the others whom you think they love you, they are turning that knife in your back while smiling at you. He simply wears it on his sleeves. That's the New York City in him. Being a jerk does not necessarily mean that said jerk is corrupt and a lawbreaker like several Democrat governors who support anything all illegal. Said jerk IS trying to do the right thing.
So?

God Bless Whatever is Left of America

a reply to: Waterglass

Being liked too much is not a good quality for a leader. It's actually a horrible quality, at least early on. A real leader is going to force people out of their comfort zone. I was always suspicious of Obama for that reason. He had something to say to make just about every group happy in the beginning. From my experience that never works out and it didn't.

Trump infuriates a lot of people but often for good reason. We use to have a small trade surplus with Mexico before NAFTA for example. Obama said early he was going to address it but never did. Made excuse after excuse for 8 years. He did that with just about every issue moderates wanted addressed. His one thing, the ACA did help some but it hurt more than it helped in the end and that is finally what broke him.

Can't make everyone happy. Let them get angry. Enough people are realizing we are on the right path. It ain't perfect but it's way better than where we were going.

Actually what went wrong is that they relied on an app no actually tested, and then they discovered why you don't beta test something at the actual event.

PC gamers have known about guying product that turns out to be in beta release state for a while. It seems darn near every AAA dev releases their games in this state and some of them are darn near unplayable at launch.

Of course, you'd think the people running the actual Iowa caucus would know better than to bite on what should have been an extremely simple app in an unusable beta release state, but there you are.

I'm just curious as I have not seen it but just heard rumors. Did the Republicans use the same App? I thought I heard on the radio that they did. It is interesting that we haven't heard any issues on the other side.

Why is that?

You would think things would need to be consistent for something like this? If they are different I guess the big question is why? I would think it would be in the best interests of both parties and the nation to have the same system being used at the minimum within each state and from state to state would be best.

a reply to: Charliebrowndog

No, I don't think they did. They may have used an app, but the article I read said this was one the DNC bought more or less on the cheap that was supplied by close contacts to the party and designed specifically for them.

a reply to: Charliebrowndog

Consistency matters in the general election. These are the primaries. Huge difference.

The general election is specified by the Constitution. The primaries are not. All a primary is, is a way for the respective parties to pick their candidate. Political parties are not US government entities... they are private groups of people who have banded together to participate in US government activities. The DNC and RNC are not part of the government.

As private entities, the parties can pick their candidates any way they choose. They can toss a coin if they want. They can go with whoever has the most money to contribute. They can pray to the Great Horned Flying Spaghetti Monster of Destruction for guidance. They can go with whoever is best at playing Tiddly-Winks. Whatever. Whoever they choose holds no government office (yet), so it doesn't matter. The only reason they have a vote or caucus or whatever is to try and emulate the US government in some way to get people to support them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

And then they tried to "hide" whoever (Shadow) made it!

If this was in a Tom Clancy novel readers would groan over such an obvious (evil) plot device. The whole thing is astounding at every level unless the DNC are trying to broadcast their sinister incompetence.

The biggest problem for dems in Iowa is, wait for it...White People!

91% of voters in Iowa are white. The reason 35% of Iowan voters were caucusing for the first time, as opposed to 44% in 2016 is because of "Systemic Racism".

Thats right, all you pink hair resisters, all you male feminists, all you white self loathers, you are all cucks and you have all been thrown under the bus.

"Democrats have long leaned on President Trump being a motivator for voters. Those number don’t bear that out. Should that concern Democrats?"

LINK

"Yes, but I think for a different reason than a lot of folks probably will think. Maybe I’ll be the only person to say this today. The Iowa caucus is essentially the perfect example of systemic racism. 91% of the voters in Iowa are white," Maxwell said.

"The reason why you see a drop in turnout, I’m just speculating here, it could be perhaps that white children are not in the cages. So when you’re talking about the tangible pain that black and brown people are feeling, they feel a sense of urgency because their kids are being put in cages, right? So if you have 91% white electorate, that sense of urgency may not be reflected in the turnout numbers," she continued.

Time for white dems to step up the self loathing! Either that or WAKE TF up and realize these people don't give a $h!t about you or this Country and #WalkAway
NSFW Warning.

a reply to: Waterglass

If those percentages are correct, then indeed that is a big problem for the Democrats. Looks like a lot of the 2008 new voters for hope and change are sitting it out this primary. After the 2016 DNC primary fiasco, I imagine many were shocked to learn that their choice of candidate really doesn't matter.

Will be curious to see if they support Dem candidate chosen in General Election, another, or even show up to vote at all?

a reply to: stosh64

Yea, you nailed it. As usual, it's all about race and the evil white people.

a reply to: Waterglass

What's the average number of voters? Obama's numbers might be higher than normal.

And even though it was Hillary level of voters 2016 saw a record number of den voters during the lotus election.

I don't see how this can be an infected of how many will be voting for lotus in 2020.
There are lots of dems that don't care who the non will be they will vote for that person anyway.
So why waste time voting in the primaries.

Turn out was low because Obama was a bust for most Americans.

For that same reason, Joe Biden came in a distant fourth.

a reply to: Charliebrowndog
No one was really running and barely anyone voted.
Less chance for glitches to happen that way.

The number i saw was like 30k.

a reply to: stosh64

Perhaps these horrible people need to take a step back and reflect. Perhaps so many people voted for Obama in the hopes of ushering in a new era where we could finally leave all this behind us as a gesture that we were ready to do so as a country ...

ANNNNNDDDD ...

Nope. It didn't happen. It wasn't enough, will never be enough, and you can only burn folks who stick their hands out so many times before they're done with you and your spitting on them and their good intentions.

a reply to: carewemust

There is a book out there as I saw it back in 2015 and read part of it. I have to find it again. I thought it was well written. It was about Southern values and written by a Southern woman who was born in the South but then moved to Chicago decades ago. She explained all wrong in the USA from a political perspective and how the wrong evolved from Southern values permeating throughout the entire USA and how Presidents are influenced by it. She wrote the South developed from whites migrating from Bermuda after they made the land barren from over farming. She went on to write that Bermuda back then which was basically a prison for upper class UK elites back in the days of Columbus. She went on to say that that criminal blood still exists in the South and that's why George Bush was like, well George Bush. She went on to write that Obama was mostly of Northern values but he either sold out or was forced to sell out to the Deep State. As such he didn't do much. The book was written before the 2016 election. I also think the author was a black female. It was extremely interesting.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I am going to trust Politico on their article, See my response to Care We Must above. I have to get my hands on that book. It goes into all wrong here in politics and from where it evolved.

a reply to: stosh64

Well what about this guy?

Willie Tyrone Crittendon.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Nice! A gave you a star.