"This year, who loses Iowa matters more than who wins.
Iowa can be relied upon to support the most liberal candidate in the race because the true believers will be in a school assembly hall (or a similar locale) tonight listening to speeches by their neighbors and moving around the room, which is how you vote."
"The problem with Iowa is that the most liberal candidate -- with the exception of the miraculously gifted Barack Obama -- is almost never the one most likely to beat the Republican. If he were, he probably wouldn't win Iowa."
That is certainly true of Bernie Sanders. If he wins Iowa, it means he is the choice of the ideologues. It does not mean he will win the nomination, much less the presidency."
"On the other hand, if Elizabeth Warren loses Iowa (meaning she doesn't finish second, maybe not even third), she's in trouble. Candidates from Massachusetts are supposed to win the New Hampshire primary. But it's tough to win New Hampshire if you lose badly in Iowa. We once calculated that even though then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was leading in the New Hampshire polls pre-Iowa, he had to at least finish third or he would lose that lead. He finished first. And Warren isn't running first in New Hampshire."
"If Sanders wins in Iowa, it should help Joe Biden, unless Biden loses badly, which should help Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg?
Yes, Bloomberg. Where else will the majority of Democrats who don't think Bernie can win go if Biden gets beaten by Bernie in Iowa and then New Hampshire?"
"Joe Biden is one of the best-liked politicians in the Democratic Party. But if he can't beat a 78-year-old socialist originally from New York, how can he beat President Donald Trump? You don't hear too many Democrats say they could never vote for Biden. The polls reflect that. What you do hear, a lot, is Democrats worrying about whether he can win."
"...Most years, primary voters don't vote strategically. They vote for the candidate they like best. That's why "losers" sometimes win late primaries. It's about the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, we used to say."
"2020 is not a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. It is a battle to beat Donald Trump. ABT -- Anybody But Trump, which is to say, Anybody Who Can Beat Trump. I've been working and watching Democratic primaries for a very long time, and I have never seen anything like it. We have always had ideologues; I used to be one. But I've never seen so many pragmatists."
"I can't remember a year when so many people who know so much about politics and care about it passionately don't have a candidate. It's not that we don't care but that we care too much. How do we win this election? In 2020, we are the Green Bay Packers, and winning is the only thing."
If only we knew how -- which is to say, who."
Yesterday, I didn't get my newspaper because of a "massive press failure." (I expect to get the Monday paper with the Tuesday paper, but we shall see.)
ReplyDeleteToday, I didn't get the Iowa primary results because a massive app failure. Or something.
And the foreign hackers haven't even begun to fight.
It was Vince Lombardi who said winning is the only thing. He is gone, and the Packers, like the rest of us, watched the Chiefs' remarkable comeback -- in Missouri, not Kansas, by the way.
Since we don't have the results yet, I'll agree that Bernie has to win, come very close or go home. Also, that if he has to go home, he won't. And it appears to be curtains for the current darling of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, Klobuchar.
Trump won both the Democratic and Republican primaries in Iowa. Another example of the ability of the Democratic party to defeat itself. And they hope to present themselves to the American people as anybody but Trump. People are going to pick Trump.
ReplyDeleteSo apparently we're still reading tea leaves. They're saying the "app" failed, or something. I've never trusted an "app" to do anything important. That marks me as an official old fogey, but I haven't been proven wrong. Maybe it's a needed lesson, right off the bat. (I hope anyone who was even thinking internet voting would be a good idea has sobered up).
ReplyDeletePeople need to take a deep breath. It's a glitch. But we'll still find out the winners and losers and all the scores. Of course Trump is tweeting. And crowing. And beating his chest. That would have been the case no matter what. And he will be out in all his obnoxiousness for the state of the union address, declaring victory for November already. Whatever. I'll be watching something on BritBox. And hopefully they are already fixing the *%$# app. And maybe rethinking over-reliance on unproven tech.
Will we trust the results when they come out? In a typical election we get the local results reported by local people which add up to the state results. This time we are going to get state level people reporting the results, including local results. Seems that has much potential for errors that are not self correcting. The separate local and state reporting gave the appearance at least of checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteDo the local people still have the results for their location? In the event that a recount would be needed, is hard data still available? If not, that is a major flaw. You're right about checks and balances being needed.
DeleteThe problem is more in appearances than in reality. When reports come in from localities with reporters on hand and people from the area on hand there is the appearance that they all knew what happened, then the data gets tabulated at the state level. When it just reported at the state level it leaves things open to mistakes, fraud, etc somewhere along the way.
DeleteI feel sorry for all the people who put so much time and effort into this (voters, campaigners, reporters) to essentially come up with a delayed and perhaps highly questioned result. The news cycle is moving back to Trump his state of the union and his acquittal.
I found this quote on the Election Central site: "One of the main differences between a caucus and a primary is that a caucus is organized by the political parties, whereas a primary is organized usually by the state board of elections as a regular election would be."
ReplyDeleteThat seems to sum it up in a nutshell. I've read that only 17 states still have caucuses. There a reason for that.
Maybe. The problem here, though, doesn't seem to be the caucus. It's the usual one, an overconfident engineer. I still think primary elections are poison to the two-party system. Which, for all its faults, is the system we still have.
DeleteSo they've released partial results. 62% of the precincts are in. Bernie is leading, followed by Buttigieg (!) followed by Warren, followed by Biden. That means 38% are still out, with no idea when they'll be forthcoming. Seriously, couldn't the ballots have been hand-counted by now?
ReplyDeleteLindsey Graham is spinning conspiracy theories. Trump will be in the manic phase of his Dunning-Kruger effect tonight. Is there a depressive phase? So far I haven't seen it. I guess it's up to the rest of us to be depressed.
Interesting:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/2/4/1916483/-We-should-change-caucus-But-conspiracy-theories-don-t-help?utm_campaign=trending
We should change caucus. But conspiracy theories don't help.
Currently, w/62% of precincts in, Pete is slightly in the lead:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/iowa-caucuses-live-results-coverage-2020/index.html
He evidently did very well along the Mississippi (I have family in Dubuque and they ALL were Pete fans!) and some of the western rural counties.
Wouldn't have thought of Pete voters as being the rural type! But I like Pete, we could do a lot worse.
DeleteHas anyone explained why they released 62%, as opposed to, say, 55% or 50.5% I mean: Does 62=100 on the app? Can't any Democrats in Iowa count? Does anyone really and truly care? (On the last one, I guess "No One's in love with Amy" cares. Pronounce the "one's" to rhyme with "Once." Oh, forget it. Iowa reminds me of scarecrows, and scarecrows remind me of Ray Bolger.) I know Chuck Todd and Mara Liasson are crushed. But who else?
ReplyDelete"Can't any Democrats in Iowa count?" My thoughts exactly. How long does it take to tally things up by hand? As I understand it they still retained paper copy. I think they shouldn't have released anything till they had the whole shebang counted. That missing 38% could completely change the results.
DeleteAs of our 10 pm local newscast, the count is still stuck on 62%. It doesn't inspire confidence.
DeleteOn the other hand, on the 5:30 pm network national newscast, I heard reporters describe the situation as "catastrophic" and, I think, "cataclysmic". Perhaps, for those facing story filing deadlines, that is what it is - or if not quite that dire, at least "inconvenient" and "difficult to sum up with a single pithy adjective".
If the 62% results are indicative of the 100% results, the Iowa results become a pretty significant story - certainly, significantly bad for Biden, and perhaps significantly good for Buttigieg, and also pretty good for Sanders. If.
Maybe it wasn't "cataclysmic"; maybe he called it "a debacle". That latter word already is so cheapened in common discourse that it may actually be on point.
DeleteWell, for once it was "breaking news." Or perhaps the news was eroding more than it was breaking.
DeleteYes, it was "breaking news". It broke just as Alex Trebek and crew were getting ready to play Final Jeopardy. Talk about debacles!
DeleteI confess I strenuously ignored the SoTU speech last night and stuck to hockey. I've reached my limit for digesting packs of lies.
On this morning's early morning radio newscast, the percentage counted has climbed all the way to 70%. (Candidate positions basically unchanged, but it seems to have tightened a bit.)
DeleteBased on the incremental rate of 8%/day, I'm trying to project whether New Hampshire will have its results out first.
Does anyone here honestly believe any of these Democrats or Bernie the Socialist can defeat the Prince of Lies after watching SOTU?
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch the SOTU. Because the Prince of Lies would just be strutting his stuff, such as it is. Tell me if you thought it was different, but wasn't it basically a campaign rally on steroids?
DeleteAs for the Iowa caucus, I believe that terms such as "debacle" or "cataclysmic" exaggerate the situation. Jim is right about the reporters being the main ones inconvenienced. Iowa doesn't have that many delegates. They're just first.
What I wish would happen is a re-thinking of the way we do primaries. In my opinion we should compress the season, maybe make it "March madness".
I think any of the Dem candidates *should* be able to beat Trump. Whether they will or not depends on how deeply the electorate drinks of the koolaid.
Viscerally could not watch Trump. I suppose he was at his Unreality TV best. I did see a playback on Democracy Now of his highlighting of Venezuelan President by American Appointment Guiado actually in the audience. And Pelosi and many Democrats stood up and applauded. It is so obvious how entrenched the Democrats are in the Same Old Stuff: American Empire and neoliberalism.
DeleteI wish Pelosi had not made the gesture of tearing up her copy of the SOTU address on camera. I totally understand the impulse. But she's just handing Trump on more Twitter point, if such were needed.
DeleteThe Guiado thing is an amazing bit of gaslighting. El Trumpo is hailing the guy who is trying to dislodge a guy like El Trumpo himself. We my need our own Guiado by Christmas if El Trumpo pulls a Nicolas Maduro, as he has sometimes threatened to do in the course of his Castro-style tirades. Nobody notices as the threat comes deep into the second hour, and there is already a full complement of howlers for the news cycle.
DeleteI don't know much about Guiado. But pretty much everyone thinks Maduro is bad news. Pelosi and other Democrats applause may have had more to do with that than endorsement of Guiado.
DeleteI read the WaPo reports in real time. Having the speech fact checked as it went and only looking at clips was easier to deal with. Except for the Rush Limbaugh part. Everybody with that prez medal should send it back.
DeleteDemocrats simply should have stayed home instead of trying to make grand gestures like stalking out, chanting HR3, and ripping up his speech. It was always going to be a pep rally and finger in the eye of the Dems. A half empty chamber would have sent a better message.
Trump must be more bloated than usual this morning from consuming the adulation and souls of half of Congress. Nothing short of spontaneous combustion gonna stop him now.
Jean @12:36 - right again. About all of it.
DeleteI did not watch. Watching trump on TV is even worse than reading about him.
My fears for the country and world are getting worse and worse.
Have any of you read The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder?
When a scholar of his caliber expresses the same fears that consume me - that trump will never leave office without a fight - which Snyder predicted in an interview in 2017, I can't sleep sometimes for the anxiety I feel about what kind of authoritarianism my grandchildren will experience. And how will my biracial grandchildren be treated under a trump regime without even minimal constraints?
I will never forgive the GOP for selling their souls ( and the country) to the devil.
I may never forgive the Dems either if their internal failures make this nightmare more likely.
Trump is an out-of-shape man with a bad diet and an incredible amount of stress, Anne. He often looks bloated and sounds short of breath. He keeps up a grueling rally schedule. He will be 74 when re-elected. I think his belief in his own immortality catch up with him, before he completes a second term. I can't envision anyone who could step in and be quite as awful.
DeleteYou better forgive the Dems or make peace with them. They're screwed up, but they're our only hope for now.
Jean, I think you are right that this can't last forever. Trump triggers anxiety for a lot of people. I find that he triggers anger and irritability for me, and a temptation to argue with people even though I know it won't do any good. I can't let him live in my head.
DeleteJean , the Dems ARE our only hope, short of a heart attack that convinces the healthiest man in politics that maybe he should step back.
DeleteTwo things mitigate against him leaving, even for serious health reasons. First, he loves, loves loves the limelight. As president of the USA, he basks more in the limelight than any other human being on earth.
Secondly, he faces criminal proceedings in New York once he's no longer in office. He may believe that his lawyers can get him off, but I doubt that New York will kowtow the same way the republicans in congress do. Not at all like the GOP lackeys. So at least a small risk once he's no longer in the WH. Of course his lawyers will file appeals until he's in the grave.
So I will not only hold my nose if I have to and vote for whomever the Dems put up, I will donate $$ and go to a neighboring state like Pennsylvania or north Caroline to drive people in the voter suppression neighborhoods to the polls.
And I will pray, even though I don't actually believe that God stage manages human affairs. Let's us mess up and sighs sadly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFor those of you with access to the digital NYT here is Nate Cohen's detailed analysis now that we have 71 % of the vote.
ReplyDeleteElection Needle: Iowa Caucus
It looks like Bernie will win the first votes, and will win the final votes (when people whose candidate did not meet 15% were given the option to go with a candidate who had received 15%). So why isn't Bernie projected to win the most delegate equivalents. I think it is because the areas which voted for Clinton over Trump get more delegate equivalents. In other words Bernie will likely win the popular vote but Buttigieg will win Iowa's equivalent of the Electoral College vote. Looks like each measure only effects bragging rights. Looks like actually delegates will come out even between the two with a few delegates for Warren (which could become Bernie votes after the first round of convention votes.
Well the moderates who place their hopes in Biden or Klobuchar will be very disappointed by Iowa. Those who like Buttigieg or Bloomberg will have their hopes raised. Bloomberg has doubled his media buys for super Tuesday.
Bernie is pretty much on track but also did not get a boost. That may be helpful in the long run since it may lessen the immediate attacks on him if he had become the front runner.
While Warren will have some delegates, this does not make her either a challenger for Bernie or someone who might unite the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic party.
Will this all be decided at the convention? No one has as yet broken out of the pack.
New Hampshire on Feb. 11 may give a clearer picture.
Delete"Will this all be decided at the convention? No one has as yet broken out of the pack."
DeleteI cannot believe Nate Cohen, of all people, wrote that. In real life, the Iowa caucus is the top of the first inning, and if the home team is still scoreless after the visitors bat, it is in no way an omen that the Mudville will be shut out. Look, a convention like the 1924 Democratic convention -- 103 ballots to get to the nomination of the quickly forgotten John W. Davis (who, duh, lost the election) -- is he secret desire of every political reporter on the bus. But 103 ballots will never happen again; the TV networks will not permit it. Dreams of floor fights and brokered conventions never die, but such actual events did, long ago. Making sure they stay dead was one of the goals of the original sin of making primaries dispositive.
The large paragraph above is the results section from the article.
DeleteThe individual paragraphs afterward are my comments. I don't think anyone broke out of the pack or even of the subpacks of progressives and moderates. Maybe the wide field of Democrats will converge on someone before the convention as the Republicans did last time? Will that be good for the Democratic party? or the nation?
OK, Jack, so it was you. On going all the way to the made-or-TV convention, I can only quote a great quarterback who was not in this year's Super Bowl:"Relax."
DeleteThe extra amount of data that needed to be collected and submitted in Iowa were due to reforms instituted by the DNC under pressure from Sanders. In 2016 the Sanders people found large discrepancies between what they experienced in the caucuses and what got finalized at the state level.
ReplyDeleteSanders also got the Democratic Committee to agree to encouraging primary ballots rather than caucuses. Some states such as Colorado have evidently made the change.
I think Sanders is right about encouraging primary ballots rather than caucuses. For one thing caucuses are very limiting. If you can't be there at the right time, and stay for the process, you are out of luck. Some of the primary ballots have numbered ranking. This seems like a good idea.
DeleteKatherine, I still have to disagree. It's one thing to get a feel for what the amorphous voters of various states think in the spring, but I don't think a serious political party should allow itself to be directed by the boys in the barber shop and the girls at the hair dresser. Let the parties choose their best paladins, and THEN let the boys and the girls decide between them.
DeleteTom, I wouldn't be opposed to some type of vetting process, if that's what you have in mind. For instance one that weeded out somebody like Trump on the front end as being unqualified.
DeleteKatherine - I'd been thinking for a couple of years, during the last election cycle, that you're right about Trump getting weeded out by GOP poobahs. But very sorry to say, it seems that, at this point, many Republicans aren't too disappointed with choosing Trump. Being right in a losing cause apparently has lost whatever charm it once had. Just win, baby. Or something like that.
DeleteSo, now that all's said and done on the impeachment front: How do we move forward? How do we make a difference?
ReplyDeleteI'm done trying to "understand" and "find common ground" with Republicans. (Sorry, Jim P.) They aren't interested in reciprocating, and they see friendly overtures as capitulation. I'm also sick of my own impotent rage.
What does the faith tell us we can we do to make the country safer, saner, kinder, more inclusive while ignoring the mean and the dumb? Other than voting against Trump, I mean. Because I think we will have four more years of Trump, and there must be some ways of softening the blows he's going to inflict.
Jean - there is a lot to be said for gridlock. If you don't like Trump's legislative agenda, then keep at least one house of Congress in the hands of Democrats.
DeleteA lot of sanity, kindness and inclusivity doesn't really depend on Trump. Granted that he does not reinforce these virtues, we can promote them, even in our own tiny little corners of the country.
Trump is causing great agitation among a great number of Americans, not just us. A bare majority wound up favoring impeachment, I believe, but a bare majority is more than a minority. If you try to ignore what he says and just concentrate on what he does, it's even worse than reading his Tweets.
DeleteHe is, in a word, a downer.
But we have to remember, there are a lot of people who love him and are energized by him. Whenever he comes to town, scores line the two miles or so between the airport and Mar-a-Lago, where his motorcade will go. (So much for the helipad he dragooned Palm Beach into letting him have for "security," and so much for Marine One, which has to be flown here separately in a C-5a to go unused.) During his last visit we encountered about 20 of the faithful on one of the overpasses to I-95, waiting to wave their signs when his motorcade passed on his way back from his northern golf course. (He owes money on two golf courses in the area, one close to Mar-a-Lago and one a disruptive motorcade farther away.) I assume most overpasses had pockets of adoration. Some of these people do nothing but wait for alerts on their cell phone so they can head out to pay homage. And they are present, rain or shine, in enthusiastic adoration. They must enjoy it.
Poppy Bush used to come down to visit his mother, and you'd hardly know he was here. Throngs in red, white and blue tee shirts, shorts and hats were not alerted, and security was augmented by just a small detail of state troopers and deputies.
Even though I was not at all surprised at the result of the impeachment verdict, I thought they would probably at least censure him. But nah, that's not going to happen. In the local news including a piece by Sasse yesterday, they're like, "I suppose he was a little bit naughty, but the poor thing doesn't really know any better." He did say they ought to send Giuliani packing. So that's something , I guess. The sad part is that I think the part about Trump not knowing any better is partially true, in the sense of his not having an inner moral compass or having much empathy. But what does that say about choosing him for your party's standard bearer?
DeleteIf he doesn't know any better (and I agree that "better" is not a concept with him), he is unfit for the office. Period. So Sasse should have voted for removal.
DeleteWell with 97% of the results are in, the probabilities (54% now favor Sanders to also win the delegate count. Why this turnabout from 62% and 71% when the probabilities strongly favor Buttigieg? The satellite vote strongly favors Sanders. There are actually satellite caucuses in nursing homes in Iowa, around the US and around the world of Iowans who voted.
ReplyDeleteEven though Bernie will likely will win the first count, the final count, and maybe the state delegate equivalent count, Buttigieg is still likely to get more delegates because they are figured on the basis of congressional districts as well as precincts.
Buttigieg is out raising money around the country, Sanders is raising money over the internet. Here is an e-mail I got yesterday.
$900,000.
That’s how much Joe Biden’s super PAC just announced they were set to spend in New Hampshire this week.
$739,000.
That’s how much an outside spending group is spending to support Pete Buttigieg in New Hampshire this week.
$20.
It may not seem like a lot compared to that spending, but seconds ago someone made a donation of that amount. And by the time you finish this sentence, someone else will, as well. And collectively, when tens of thousands of people add that $20, we are more powerful than any super PAC.
So we’ve set a NEW goal of matching the $1.6 million in outside spending trying to beat us this week by tomorrow at midnight... and we’re going to do it $20 at a time. So what do you say, Jack?
In a world in which people are mostly powerless the many of us who support Bernie can go toe to toe with the powerful with our $20 contributions when they are needed. Much better than doing nothing.
Jack, you're right that the little people still can make a difference if there's enough of them.
DeleteNew York Times is not reporting many errors in the results.
ReplyDeletehere
"The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.
In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts."
Again the Democratic Party is the big loser.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere in Florida, whenever the low quality of the public schools is under discussion, we say, "Thank God for Mississippi." Now it appears we can stop taking all the blame for election screw-ups. Thank God for Iowa.
DeleteBTW, did you see our ex-governor smirking and voting against removal? Same one who invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times when the feds tried to ask him why his hospitals billed Medicare $1.2 billion (with a b) for services that were never rendered to patients they never had.
Anybody who didn't listen to the Capo de Capo's hour-plus celebration of the incredible, unbelievable warriors who went through Hell with him, name-checking all the gerbils -- including Louie Gohmert -- who the hell wouldn't love the guy? -- and talking about the scum and sleazebags his warriors (Gen. Bonespur is back) will have no true insight into how low this country has descended.
ReplyDeleteHe promised it won't happen again. I take that to mean horrible people like Pelosi and cryin' Chuck -- can you believe it? who he hell elected him? We'll take care of that -- should look forward to orange jump suits.
NPR had to apologize for letting "the b.s. word" slip through, but the who the hells and what the hells an why the hells and damns were pretty constant. Anyway, when it is up, watch it and weep.
He's like a guy with Tourette's. He sort of held it together through the SOTU speech. But he can only bottle it up so long. The torrent of abuse and braggadocio is going to come busting out sooner or later. Apparently now is later.
DeleteIt actually is worse than this. Some of his most offensive rantings occurred at the annual prayer breakfast. I found it hard to believe, even of him. But the source is AP, and appears on several news sites. Conservative Catholics and Evangelicals, are you paying attention? This is the guy you have been giving a pass to. He can't even pretend to act Christian.
DeleteYeah. Early on, a little before he told the crowd to give it up for his hand-picked senator from Missouri -- that's what I do; I pick senators -- he said he had been so good at the prayer breakfast that it might top the noon event as a story. But then he also said that the noon lovefest of Gen. Bonespur with his warriors would top the prayer breakfast -- he promised. So it was all unbelievably incredible, isn't that right, Kevin?
DeleteWhy watch this stuff? It's completely predictable. Let the Republicans hang on every word.
DeleteNo, Jean, today was actually worse than usual. Usually it is two hours of Trump bloviating. This was an hour-plus of Trump in the Brando role showing how a real Godfadda talks. I've seen Trump. I've never seen Trump as Brando.
DeleteMitt Romney hasn't been my favorite, but I gotta respect the guy for standing alone.
DeleteAnd now the chairman of the DNC has ordered the Iowa Democratic Party to recanvass, i.e. count 'em again, and count 'em right this time.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nationalreview.com/news/enough-is-enough-dnc-chair-calls-on-iowa-dems-to-immediately-begin-a-recanvass-due-to-botched-vote-count/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=19373195
If Bernie doesn't come out of this with a win - either the popular vote, or the delegates, or both - how do he and his campaign not start to get conspiracy-theory thoughts?
You must be reading Trump's Twitter feed. He's also pushing the notion that the DNC is trying to cheat Bernie "again" and trying to gin up divisions in the party.
DeleteI see no evidence that Bernie and his crew have any "conspiracy theories" that weren't justified by known facts about party operations in 2016.
Jim,
DeleteA few days before the Iowa vote there was a CNN poll that was never published because they found 'glitches.' Maybe you remember the old saying about Microsoft that their products were never done until Lotus (their competitor) didn't work.
Maybe it is that the poll or vote are tabulated until Bernie doesn't show up in first place. Unfortunately I think the real problem is that they can't come up with a viable competitor to overcome Bernie. They tried Biden, and Warren, and Klobuchar
Now they are putting all their money on Buttigieg. I suspect it will be Bloomberg if he does well anywhere on super Tuesday.
I just ordered my official (union made) Bernie yard signs for the March 17th Ohio primary; plan to put them up on February 19th when early voting begins.
So what we're saying is that the DNC doesn't choose the candidates, except when they do?
DeleteGeorge Conway III in WaPo today is worth a read.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/05/george-conway-trump-i-believe/
If you had financial problems, then it is time for you to smile. You only need to contact Mr. Benjamin with the amount you wish to borrow and the payment period that suits you and you will have your loan within three working days. I just benefited for the sixth time a loan of 700 thousand dollars for a period of 180 months with the possibility of paying before the expiration date. Mr Benjamin has be helping me with loan.Make contact with him and you will see that he is a very honest man with a good heart.His email is lfdsloans@lemeridianfds.com and his WhatApp phone number is + 1-989-394-3740
ReplyDelete