Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:24 PM
Jarqui (9,191 posts)
Clinton Iowa Volunteers Train When To Push Backers To O’Malley — To Block Bernie
Source: BuzzFeed
Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president is instructing its Iowa caucus leaders to — in certain cases — throw support to former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, with the goal blocking her main opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, from securing additional delegates. The tactical move is rooted in the complex math of the Iowa caucuses Monday night, where the campaign is looking to defeat Sanders in a state whose caucus-goers have historically backed progressive challengers. ... The goal, in the caucuses’ complex terms, is to cost Clinton no delegates in the state’s 1,681 caucuses while ensuring stray O’Malley supporters don’t defect to Sanders. .. “It’s sad and telling that their campaign doesn’t think they can win without these kinds of tactics,” said Rania Batrice, Sanders’s Iowa spokesperson. “At the end of the day though, we believe in the caucus process and know it’s in the very capable hands of Iowans.” Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hillary-bernie-math#.hg45E8zrJE I was limited by the number of paragraphs. There is a history of this sort of thing at the Iowa caucuses that the article explains
|
33 replies, 4114 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Jarqui | Jan 2016 | OP |
Metric System | Jan 2016 | #1 | |
JonLeibowitz | Jan 2016 | #2 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2016 | #9 | |
pangaia | Jan 2016 | #11 | |
lsewpershad | Jan 2016 | #33 | |
FreakinDJ | Jan 2016 | #3 | |
JonLeibowitz | Jan 2016 | #4 | |
SoapBox | Jan 2016 | #5 | |
jwirr | Jan 2016 | #20 | |
GoneOffShore | Jan 2016 | #6 | |
Metric System | Jan 2016 | #7 | |
Jim Lane | Jan 2016 | #18 | |
Metric System | Jan 2016 | #19 | |
Jim Lane | Jan 2016 | #21 | |
StevieM | Jan 2016 | #8 | |
pangaia | Jan 2016 | #12 | |
snagglepuss | Jan 2016 | #26 | |
George II | Jan 2016 | #15 | |
kracer20 | Jan 2016 | #10 | |
hobbit709 | Jan 2016 | #13 | |
TeamPooka | Jan 2016 | #16 | |
DCBob | Jan 2016 | #14 | |
OhZone | Jan 2016 | #17 | |
Stuckinthebush | Jan 2016 | #28 | |
Pastiche423 | Jan 2016 | #22 | |
Snotcicles | Jan 2016 | #23 | |
Omaha Steve | Jan 2016 | #24 | |
californiabernin | Jan 2016 | #25 | |
4dsc | Jan 2016 | #27 | |
merkins | Jan 2016 | #29 | |
Sunlei | Jan 2016 | #30 | |
davsand | Jan 2016 | #31 | |
Gregorian | Jan 2016 | #32 |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:30 PM
Metric System (6,048 posts)
1. Yeah, that's how caucuses work and it means the Clinton campaign learned from 2008. I personally
think they suck.
|
Response to Metric System (Reply #1)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:31 PM
JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)
2. It's the price you pay for having a form of Instant runoff voting which primaries do not have.
Primaries and Caucuses as currently run both have their problems. And yes, this part of the caucus process definitely sucks.
|
Response to Metric System (Reply #1)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:57 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
9. Except that O'Malley voters are much closer to Bernie than they are to Hillary on
the issues and that O'Malley would, I suspect, have a better chance of a position in a Sanders administration than in a Clinton one.
|
Response to Metric System (Reply #1)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:22 PM
pangaia (24,324 posts)
11. Hillary Clinton, broader experience you can trust.
Response to Metric System (Reply #1)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 05:00 PM
lsewpershad (2,620 posts)
33. Indeed
hope it backfires.
|
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:34 PM
FreakinDJ (17,644 posts)
3. “It’s sad and telling that their campaign doesn’t think they can win without these kinds of tactics
Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #3)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:36 PM
JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)
4. I don't fault them for it. If Sanders were positioned similarly he would do so.
It's just part of the caucus game.
There are also situations where Sanders supporters will want to keep O'Malley viable to keep Clinton from picking up an extra delegate. |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:41 PM
SoapBox (18,791 posts)
5. Even if it's part of the "game" in Iowa...
Camp Weathervane wouldn't have to do it.
But they do...because they look at it as a "game" and dirty politics are just second nature to their tired/old school tactics. |
Response to SoapBox (Reply #5)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:50 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
20. Makes one actually sick. Because to her it is all a game. Win
or lose she is part of the 1%. It is not a game to most of us. What becomes of our future is vital. To lose it because someone is playing games is to know hopelessness.
Go Bernie Go |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:46 PM
GoneOffShore (16,873 posts)
6. How Hilarian.
And how typical of the Clinton machine.
|
Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #6)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:51 PM
Metric System (6,048 posts)
7. It's typical of how caucuses work. The Obama campaign did the same in 2008.
Response to Metric System (Reply #7)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:21 PM
Jim Lane (11,175 posts)
18. Yes, and per the linked article, the Clinton campaign was outraged.
So, in 2008, the Clinton campaign didn't dismiss this as being "typical of how caucuses work."
|
Response to Jim Lane (Reply #18)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:46 PM
Metric System (6,048 posts)
19. That's politics. It was sour grapes.
Response to Metric System (Reply #19)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:30 PM
Jim Lane (11,175 posts)
21. Even if the explanation for the hypocrisy is "sour grapes" it's still hypocrisy. (nt)
Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #6)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 06:54 PM
StevieM (10,439 posts)
8. Sorry, but this is not Hillarian, it is typical for the Iowa Caucus. Obama was the master
of this stuff back in 2008.
|
Response to StevieM (Reply #8)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:23 PM
pangaia (24,324 posts)
12. Well, that makes it ok then.
Response to StevieM (Reply #8)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:24 AM
snagglepuss (12,704 posts)
26. Back then Hypocritical Hill denounced Obama for doing it.
Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #6)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:49 PM
George II (67,782 posts)
15. You don't think the Sanders person is going to do the same thing?
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:09 PM
kracer20 (199 posts)
10. Really...
I just love how there is no denial or questioning the source.
They know it is sleazy, and their only responses are "Obama did it" or "that is how the game is played" |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:30 PM
hobbit709 (41,694 posts)
13. straight out of the Republican playbook. If you can't win, change the rules, cheat.
Response to hobbit709 (Reply #13)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:51 PM
TeamPooka (22,412 posts)
16. Iowa has stupid rules and you don't need to change them to play the angles within them. nt
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 07:44 PM
DCBob (24,689 posts)
14. If true it suggests the Hillary team is not going to caught flat footed like in 2008.
I doubt they will even need to do this to win but it might help give them a more solid victory.
|
Response to DCBob (Reply #14)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 10:10 AM
Stuckinthebush (10,758 posts)
28. True. Brilliant move if needed
Politics is a game. You learn how to play by being beaten by various strategies in the past.
Smart way to play this ridiculous caucus game. |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:01 PM
Pastiche423 (15,406 posts)
22. She can not win on her merits
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:38 PM
Snotcicles (9,089 posts)
23. I wondered why O'Malley was still hanging around. nt
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:53 PM
Omaha Steve (92,574 posts)
24. And IF Bernie people sit with Hillary first her math will be...
OOPS!!! ![]() |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:04 AM
californiabernin (421 posts)
25. I'm not sure I believe in the "Caucus Process."
What's wrong with the simple idea of each person casting a vote???
|
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:35 AM
4dsc (5,787 posts)
27. Nothing new here
this has been going on since I caucused over 30 years ago. If your group doesn't get 15% then you have to go to a viable group.
|
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 03:06 PM
merkins (399 posts)
29. Is Karl Rove her campaign manager now?
![]() |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 03:33 PM
Sunlei (22,651 posts)
30. think by now those voters won't change their mind. Its republicans who should panic over trump lol
That's the real campaign circus and sideshow to laugh over
![]() |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 03:42 PM
davsand (13,376 posts)
31. The Clintons historically have not done well in Iowa.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I'm thinking I remember that Bill never showed all that well in Iowa. I know Hillary didn't do win in Iowa against Obama, either. (I'm not surprised at the showing against Obama, however. Iowa is just across the river from Illinois, and I know a LOT of folks that went to Iowa to work that primary for Obama. We might be a corrupt political cesspool here in Illinois, but we DO know how to put together a campaign.) It could be that Clinton will do well with this strategy, but it could also really piss off the locals. You underestimate rural voters at your own peril, and Iowa is a lot of rural folks. With any luck the weather will cooperate.
It will be interesting to see how Iowa plays out. Laura |
Response to Jarqui (Original post)
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 04:25 PM
Gregorian (23,867 posts)
32. I seriously doubt Bernie would ever do something like this.
A perfect statement for mocking if I ever did see one. But it's true.
|