Democratic Primaries

Autumn

(48,905 posts)

25. He won and they aren't all in. I could see you complaining George, had he proclaimed his win

Thu Feb 6, 2020, 06:07 PM

Feb 2020

before any votes were released. Mayor Petes started proclaiming his victory with 2% of the votes in. Fact are Fact. And Bernie has more votes.

Link to tweet

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie Sanders has declared victory in Iowa, without the final results [View all] Uncle Joe Feb 2020 OP

Here's an excerpt from an email I received a few minutes ago: George II Feb 2020 #1

I have no idea what your point is? Uncle Joe Feb 2020 #2

Really? Simple math - from your OP Sanders got 44,753, Buttigieg 42,235. That is not a 6,000 lead. George II Feb 2020 #6

The email you quoted said "initial". Meaning the first round of voting. HerbChestnut Feb 2020 #9

You do understand the meaning of the word "Initial" don't you? Uncle Joe Feb 2020 #10

Sanders was well within reason to claim he won the popular vote by 6,000 bluewater Feb 2020 #3

But he won by less than 3,000 votes, still claiming he "won" by 6,000 votes. George II Feb 2020 #7

He won the straight up primary-like vote by 6,000 votes. bluewater Feb 2020 #8

This caucus was what it was because that's the way Sanders insisted it be like this... George II Feb 2020 #59

C- bluewater Feb 2020 #62

Totally true, but with a spin unc70 Feb 2020 #5

It's cherry picked, George radical noodle Feb 2020 #13

It's not cherry picked Cal Carpenter Feb 2020 #57

That's exactly what I'm talking about radical noodle Feb 2020 #60

From the OP: Cal Carpenter Feb 2020 #61

if 3 people vote and two vote for you you WIN by a huge margin lol nt msongs Feb 2020 #4

Sanders admits they're both getting the same number of delegates. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #11

The unexpectedly low turnout is of concern to me. Laelth Feb 2020 #16

I believe the % of 18-29 aged voters dramatically increased Uncle Joe Feb 2020 #21

I saw that statistic too. Laelth Feb 2020 #22

We lost a fair amount Uncle Joe Feb 2020 #24

Interesting. Thanks. Laelth Feb 2020 #27

My question...... SergeStorms Feb 2020 #32

Caucuses and primaries are open to voters of all ages. George II Feb 2020 #55

Yes, me too. But caucuses suppress participation. SunSeeker Feb 2020 #52

Iowa is meaningless Pachamama Feb 2020 #12

It appears that Sanders and Buttigieg will each get 11 delegates from Iowa. Laelth Feb 2020 #14

I agree. SergeStorms Feb 2020 #37

WOn't stop Pete's momentum brooklynite Feb 2020 #15

No , it won't. bluewater Feb 2020 #17

44,753 to 42,235 sound like a victory to me. Bernie didn't declare himself a winner before Autumn Feb 2020 #18

It's not 6,000, which is what he's claiming in his fundraising email. George II Feb 2020 #19

So? A 2518 difference. Maybe they didn't have all the numbers since 97% are in. Autumn Feb 2020 #20

He did NOT win by 6,000. Facts are facts. "Which part did you not understand", Autumn? George II Feb 2020 #23

He won and they aren't all in. I could see you complaining George, had he proclaimed his win Autumn Feb 2020 #25

Well, Autumn, with less than 5,000 votes still not counted I seriously doubt.... George II Feb 2020 #31

Yeah, the wrong numbers is what has you upset. . .I'm sure of that George. That's all I got to say. Autumn Feb 2020 #34

No, Autumn, it's not simply the "wrong numbers", it's the fact that the "wrong numbers".... George II Feb 2020 #38

His Feb fundraising will be great, I hear he was discussed on a talk show today. Autumn Feb 2020 #41

Well, inasmuch as that "fundraising" is based in part on giving potential contributors.... George II Feb 2020 #42

Do you know for a fact that the numbers are wrong George? No you don't. Might check that Autumn Feb 2020 #43

Yes, Autumn. And claiming a margin of more than double the real number is simply disingenuous.... George II Feb 2020 #44

Facts are fact George, as you are fond of saying. All the votes are not in and I'm tired of reading Autumn Feb 2020 #46

Yes, Autumn, facts are facts, and campaigns should not be putting out false "facts".... George II Feb 2020 #48

.... George II Feb 2020 #63

Well, Autumn, NOW all the results are in and Sanders didn't win by 6,000 votes... George II Feb 2020 #58

Relax, George. That email said "initial" votes. HerbChestnut Feb 2020 #28

So you have no problem with him misrepresenting the "winning" margin? Funny.... George II Feb 2020 #33

Considering most states vote 'first past the post', it's fine. HerbChestnut Feb 2020 #36

He's using "old" numbers to pump up his win (which is really a tie or narrow loss) to collect money. George II Feb 2020 #39

Email doesn't refer to final winning numbers, Ghost Dog Feb 2020 #45

When the email was sent different numbers were available, but they didn't mention those, just... George II Feb 2020 #47

Who knows what final numbers might be valid, actually Ghost Dog Feb 2020 #49

That's in keeping with the subject line of the OP - "Bernie Sanders has declared victory in Iowa.... George II Feb 2020 #50

Is he? I'm hearing it widely said that he did Ghost Dog Feb 2020 #53

I haven't bashed Pete but timing is everything. Uncle Joe Feb 2020 #54

Andrew Yang, the math guy, just agreed with Bernie on twitter yaesu Feb 2020 #26

Thanks for sharing yaesu. Uncle Joe Feb 2020 #29

You're welcome. nt yaesu Feb 2020 #30

And this is supposed to be the "MATH" guy, right? W_HAMILTON Feb 2020 #40

Right now, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are riding the crest on the Ferris wheel. Will one emmaverybo Feb 2020 #35

Pete is up there and the surging surprise of IA. Why all the bernie bros empedocles Feb 2020 #51

+1... myohmy2 Feb 2020 #56

Quite the squeaker for what was prophesied to be a commanding and decisive victory. LanternWaste Feb 2020 #64