quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
But the app malfunctioned as a result of a “coding issue,”

Yep. Coding issue. They forgot to delete the line of code that said:

If Candidate(BernieSanders).Position > Last
Then halt_and_catch_fire

I guess I haven’t been paying attention. I thought you were in LE, but it is mostly only us geeks that are familiar with the HCF instruction.

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
...[snip]...

ALPA PAC? Are most airline pilots leftists (The ones I know range from center-right to “Attila the Hun was a Commie pinko”) or is this just another really good argument against unions being allowed to be involved in politics?

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I thought you were in LE, but it is mostly only us geeks that are familiar with the HCF instruction.

Blame Hollywood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...atch_Fire_(TV_series)

Just looking at Iowa numbers by county. The rural county where I used to live had about 150 people vote in the Dem caucus, but as of now! 48 hrs later, is only showing 75% reported! 2 days to count and report 150 votes? Wow!

quote:

Originally posted by ranger312:
Just looking at Iowa numbers by county. The rural county where I used to live had about 150 people vote in the Dem caucus, but as of now! 48 hrs later, is only showing 75% reported! 2 days to count and report 150 votes? Wow!

Common Core Math Standards?

quote:

Originally posted by ranger312:
Just looking at Iowa numbers by county. The rural county where I used to live had about 150 people vote in the Dem caucus, but as of now! 48 hrs later, is only showing 75% reported! 2 days to count and report 150 votes? Wow!

I hope Trump throws this in his post impeachment sham address at noon today, as well as Soros involvement in funding the failed app. Add in Bloomberg’s money thrown into several state political races and it would be an EXCELLENT opportunity to jab a finger in the globalists collective eye.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I thought you were in LE, but it is mostly only us geeks that are familiar with the HCF instruction.

Blame Hollywood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...atch_Fire_(TV_series)

Ah, so the inside joke is no longer inside.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...-with-sanders-second

97% of more than 1,700 precincts reporting results.

Buttigieg 26.2 %
Sanders 26.1 %
Warren 18.2 %
Biden 15.8 %
Klobuchar 12.2 %

Doesn't bode well for Creepy Uncle Joe.

I see the problem! It's Trumps fault. I figured he had something to do with this dumpster fire. The reason the Dem Iowa votes aren't counted yet is because of Trump, or specifically, his supporters.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...-to-the-chaos-report

Depressed Democrat Turnout: The Iowa Story that Matters

While the most entertaining story of the Iowa caucuses was either the utter chaos and incompetence that unfolded or the sinister machinations of the Democrat party, depending on your take on the events, the more important story is getting far less attention. When given the first opportunity to turn out and vote for a candidate to oppose President Donald Trump, Democrats largely shrugged and said, “Meh.” Turnout was down almost 30% from 2008. This is by far the most important story out of this primary, which is why it will be largely blacked out by the media.

While Barack Obama was not on the ballot, Democrats clearly expected a greater show of voter force when they were given the chance to do something other than howl their Trump derangement rage at the moon.

Smart Democrats understand this reality all too well. Harry Enten is one of the smarter ones.

“If you go back to four years ago, what the Iowa Democratic Party has said is this is about the same exact turnout,” Enten observed. “That is not particularly good[.] … There’s supposed to be all this excitement around the Democratic Party wanting to beat Donald Trump. And this isn’t the only data point that shows that.”

“Not particularly good” in liberal speak translates to catastrophic.

The problem for Democrats is that only one of their candidates excites anything resembling passion, and he is the one candidate that the Democrat establishment power players are doing everything in their power to torpedo. At the same time, they are desperately pushing the least inspiring candidate in the entire field, although that impossible dream might be over post-Iowa. For Democrats, voting chicanery is practically a national spectator sport, but one would have thought they would have at least kept their fraud powder dry until they actually faced a Republican.

In one precinct, Bernie Sanders beat Pete Buttigieg 111 votes to 47 in the first round. They both landed two delegates in that precinct in the Democrats’ version of “everyone gets two trophies.” The Sanders camp has to be concerned that a repeat of 2016 is underway, when they almost certainly won the state, perhaps decisively, and yet were declared the narrow losers. The fix was in, and, while I am thankfully no expert on the psychology of anyone who would actually consider pulling the lever for the Marxist madman, I have to think most of his supporters know that the fix is in again. It just so happens that the “chaos” benefited the candidate of the establishment while hurting Sanders. Nothing to see here.

The media have been assuring America that we are at a national boiling point of pent up anti-Trump rage against the worst person to ever walk the Earth and that voters are dying to get to the voting booth in a collective cathartic purge. Iowa is the canary in the coal mine for the media and Democrats, showing that relying purely on opposition to Trump is about to blow up in their faces.

While the complete caucus disaster (or Machiavellian machination) is more fun to talk about, the poor turnout is the story that matters.

Will the behavior of Iowans be the start of a trend?

President Trump’s policies in combination with Democrat extremism has created a decisive political realignment that moved working-class voters out of the Democrat column and into his. Expect Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan to follow a similar path, with Democrats left to scratch their heads about the turnout that didn’t happen.

I expect that 2020 will also be the year that Minnesota votes Republican for the first time since 1972. Once these states start to flip, the terrain becomes increasingly unfriendly to Democrats. When long Democrat stronghold West Virginia flipped in 2000, Democrats won 45.6% of the vote. In 2016, their share of the vote was down to an anemic 26.5%.

Those voters are not likely to tack back to the Democrats because Democrats, believing in their demographic ascendancy, have no intention of moderating their message. This is why so many of the enthusiastic supporters gathering at the president's rallies, at least on paper, are Democrats. There is nobody quite as committed as a new convert who sees the light.

The president will handily win what was once a fairly reliable Democrat state in Iowa. Democrats won Iowa in six out of the last eight presidential elections. But with that realignment, the state will almost certainly stay in Republican hands for the second straight cycle, and it won't be particularly close.

The good news for the Democrats is that they will likely have this turnout challenge only in states they don't need to worry about winning. Californians will step through the human feces to get to the polls to vote for the party that turned their state into a cesspool of misery. New York? Fuggedaboutit.

The landscape going into New Hampshire will be very different based on the results out of Iowa. If Joe Biden did indeed finish in fourth place, he may already be a dead man walking, which will lead to the establishment torn between pinning their hopes and schemes on either the small-town mayor or the billionaire anti-gun zealot.

New Hampshire is a slightly different animal. While the 2016 election in New Hampshire was razer-close, with the president losing by all of 0.4%, its voting base is far more favorable to the Democrats, who enjoy dominance across that entire region. If you look at everything through the lens of race, Iowa and New Hampshire look similar. But real diversity is more defined by ideological differences, and New Hampshire is no ideological twin of Iowa.

If Democrat voters don't show a bit more enthusiasm there, they are in deep trouble, perhaps even in that state.

Even as Democrats are running into a voter enthusiasm challenge, President Trump is not. He just hit his high water mark in a Gallup poll with a 49-percent job approval rating. In this hyper-partisan environment in which nearly every national media story is a ruthless attack on him, that is staggeringly high, especially considering that his approval among Republicans is 94%. During the last election cycle, many of the president's voters voted against "Jeffrey Epstein Didn't Kill Himself." This time, Trump's voters will crawl through nuclear fallout to get to the polls.

According to Gallup, 41 percent of Americans "are satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S." That's the highest satisfaction level in 15 years, which is not exactly fertile ground to run an opposition campaign.

So enjoy the chaos of Iowa and what will likely be an even more entertaining New Hampshire. But know that the biggest story, the one that is being underplayed, is the apparent lack of Democrat enthusiasm, which is truly the best statement today that the state of the union is strong.



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...s.html#ixzz6DBVndUwc

These idiots couldn't rig a children's puppet show.

quote:

the more important story is getting far less attention. When given the first opportunity to turn out and vote for a candidate to oppose President Donald Trump, Democrats largely shrugged and said, “Meh.” Turnout was down almost 30% from 2008. This is by far the most important story out of this primary, which is why it will be largely blacked out by the media.

If you go way back to the original Trump thread, this is why I was telling everybody Trump was going to be the candidate after the primaries, and likely to be President. He was bringing in strong numbers during the primary process.

Hilarious.

DNC chairman calls for recanvass of Iowa caucuses

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ass-of-iowa-caucuses

^^^ Yeah, and the state party will only get behind a recanvassing "if one of the candidates requests it" according to the story in the link.

So it'll cost Creepy Joe what, a 50-cent stamp to be able to pose as viable a bit longer. Plus, if he's lucky, all the Dems that didn't turn out originally will turn out for the re-canvass. Creepy Joe could actually pick up a few more votes this time or (if he only does marginally better) claim that the original canvas was so screwed up that it never accurately reflected how many Biden supporters there are in Iowa.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...-dangerous-territory

AOC is for Sanders

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned her party about messing with the nominating process, arguing that it put candidates in "dangerous territory in terms of defeating" President Trump.



“I don’t think it’s a good idea for people to try to use superdelegate or other kind[s] of subversive policies to deny anybody the nomination because it’s incredibly divisive to do so, and very demoralizing, which is a direct threat in November,” she told TIME magazine ahead of the Iowa caucuses.



She added: "The moment you start playing games trying to deny whoever is the nominee, we really start to get into dangerous territory in terms of defeating Trump.”

Her comments on Monday came as her chosen candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., started gaining traction just before the Iowa caucuses -- the first for a long election cycle in which Sanders typically polled second or third behind former Vice President Joe Biden.

Some have speculated that Sanders' massive base of supporters could create an issue during the nominating process. He previously lost to former Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who faced resistance from his delegates during the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

Ocasio-Cortez's warning underscored the party's apparent desperation in replacing Trump. Seen as a progressive icon, Ocasio-Cortez hasn't been afraid to flout party leadership and endorse primary challengers to Democratic incumbents.

In January, Fox News reported that Ocasio-Cortez refused to pay her dues to the campaign arm for Congressional Democrats -- a form of protest for the committee "blacklisting groups that help progressive candidates."

here are the DEM talking points. This will be their mantra

Sanders:

“No matter what our political views may be, the American people know we cannot continue to have a president who is a pathological liar,” he continued. “Who is corrupt, who does not understand our constitution, who is trying to divide our people up by the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation or where they were born."

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

Sanders:

“No matter what our political views may be, the American people know we cannot continue to have a president who is a pathological liar,” he continued. “Who is corrupt, who does not understand our constitution, who is trying to divide our people up by the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation or where they were born."

It's just nutso. That paragraph is a textbook definition of what the Left represents.