February 7th, 2020


Вот и посмотрим в ноябре

What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?
Bitecofer, a 42-year-old professor at Christopher Newport University in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia, was little known in the extremely online, extremely male-dominated world of political forecasting until November 2018. That’s when she nailed almost to the number the nature and size of the Democrats’ win in the House, even as other forecasters went wobbly in the race’s final days. Not only that, but she put out her forecast back in July, and then stuck by it while polling shifted throughout the summer and fall.
And today her model tells her the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate. If she’s right, we are now in a post-economy, post-incumbency, post record-while-in-office era of politics. Her analysis, as Bitecofer puts it with characteristic immodesty, amounts to nothing less than “flipping giant paradigms of electoral theory upside down.”

Политологиня предсказывает, что в ноябре на выборах победят демократы, вне зависимости от того, кого они номинируют, увеличат свое присутствие в нижней палате и даже есть шансы, что возьмут Сенат. У неё есть какая-то супертеория на этот счети эта теория сработала в 2018 с высокой точностью. Посмотрим.


But a CNN analysis shows that multiple counties have reported a different number of state delegate equivalents than they were supposed to have reported, even though all precincts in the county have been tallied. A similar problem appears in several precincts which awarded more state delegate equivalents than they were allotted by the Iowa Democratic Party.
Precinct-level data reveals multiple precincts where violations of the caucus rules may have occurred. In several precincts, the total vote reported in the final round of the popular vote exceeded the total vote in the first round, even though no one new should have been allowed into the room between the two rounds. And in some cases, a viable candidate lost support from the first round to the final round, even though supporters of viable candidates in the first round were supposed to be locked in to their first choice.
At satellite caucuses, the number of state delegate equivalents awarded per congressional district was calculated based on the turnout across all satellite caucuses within that district. The reported total state delegate equivalents appear to differ from the expected values based on the reported first round vote and the formulas announced by the Iowa Democratic Party.

Говнократы сделают все что угодно, лишь бы Сандерса не номинировали. Они пойдут даже на откровенный подлог, благо это не официальные выборы, а типа внутрипартийная номинация - федералы не вмешаются. И это при том, что партия - правящая, часть правящего диумвирата и без номинации от этой партии не будет никакого избрания никуда. Они шульмовали на прошлых выборах в пользу Киллари (и НИКТО не понес ответственности), сейчас шульмуют в пользу кого угодно, лишь бы не Сандерс.