Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


JT45242's Journal
JT45242's Journal
February 24, 2020

Math lesson about Nevada results lesss than 2% turnout total

Since the complete results aren't in, I'll round up a little.

Sanders = 6,600
Biden = 3,000
Buttigieg = 2,000
Warren = 1,400

So a total of about 13,000 votes were cast in this caucus out of a total of 698,044 registered Democrats in Nevada (https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=8344). So, voter turnout (assuming no republican cross over) was 1.9%.

So, Bernie who clearly energized the voters of Nevada got 0.945% of eligible Democrats to vote for him in the caucus. Yeah that sounds promising.

Let's pump the brakes here...

This again shows that caucuses drive down turnout from a traditional primary where people can vote when it is convenient around their work and life schedules.

Another tiny state (1.8 million registered voters total) going early having an overly large influence on fundraising and perception.

February 12, 2020

For all the talk of front-runner - let's think of where they are -- 1.6% of the delegates have been

There are 3979 delegates to win -- so far 64 have been awarded. That is 1.6% of the race.

For all this talk of front-runners and 'dead in the water' campaigns for Biden and Warren -- let's take a breather and think.

% earned of needed to win
23 Buttigieg 1.2%
21 Sanders 1.1%
8 Warren 0.4%
7 Klobuchar 0.4%
6 Biden 0.3%

The same networks that wouldn't dare to call a state race with 1.6% of the vote in are willing to declare this a two person race. Again, let's draw the analogy to calling a state race. These are the two little niche towns with basically all-white populations that don't look like the rest of the state. (I say that as someone who currently lives in Iowa).

Last night, Joshua Johnson (I think) who used to be on NPR said he wouldn't even call Iowa and NH two data points -- they are too similar to be different. This is the same 93% plus white vote measured twice. Let's see how things go when there are more people of color. Florida will have more women of color vote in their primary than all teh votes of New Hampshire.

Let's not forget that in NH many people vote who aren't really Democrats -- that may be pride (NH are said to be proud to be above party affiliations) or that may be Republicans trying to mess with the process -- no one knows for sure how many fall into each category.

The bottom line is support who you want now, get behind them in the general and vote out every complicit Republican at the natioonal level, or the purges at the DOJ and DOD will simply escalate.

My only caveat to this is whether all this press over a non-representative sample of 1.6% of the delegates will drive money in ways that eliminate good candidates with good ideas. Since money drives politics on both sides, let's hope that the 5 left plus Bloomberg can try to articulate a winning platform with voters. We aren't going to convince Trump voters -- don't kid yourselves -- we just need the largest group of voters in the last Presidential election (DID NOT VOTE AT ALL) to show up to get rid of that moron in the White House. That is the big issue -- how do GET OUT THE VOTE -- it certainly isn't about fretting over the tiny virtually all white populations of Iowa and NH.

January 24, 2020

My letter to Iowa's Senators

Below is the text to my senators (Ernst and Grassley). This is my 3rd on the impeachment to Ernst.I would recommend to everyone who has a Senator who voted to impeach (rep at the time) or remove (senator) should include the part about witness tampering is considered a more serious felony based on sentencing guidelines than giving false statements under oath. Maybe, if we can put enough pressure on the ones up for re-election they will be forced to allow witnesses.


There have been numerous reports that the Trump camp has threatened you and other Republican Senators that if you “Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” This is a blatant attempt at jury tampering by the President and his minions. This is clearly an abuse of power and a federal felony punishable by up to ten years. This is clearly a high crime that undermines the very nature of the justice system. It is considered to be even more egregious than making false statements under oath, which only has a maximum penalty of 5 years. So any Senator who voted to remove President Clinton for making false statements in a Civil Court deposition ought to vote for the removal of a President who has committed an even more serious “high crime” based on federal sentencing guidelines.

Furthermore, in some states, jury tampering overturns a not guilty and either results in a judge trial with no jury or in others results in an automatic conviction of the top count of the indictment.

Once again, you swore an oath of impartiality for this trial and an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of this country when you became a Senator. I implore you that you take that oath seriously and live up to it. Based on what you have seen and heard in the trial plus the attempt at jury tampering, any vote other than guilty or for more witness testimony would amount to a whitewash of the charges. I use the term “whitewash” specifically because this is the same kind of sham trial that Klansman and other racist murderous would get when facing charges for killing innocent people or color or their allies. Here the victim is our system of laws, our codes of ethics, and even our Constitution itself.

You MUST call for real witness testimony. Even if it would be 3 hours of Trump in a deposition that only Senators could watch in a secure room. If he doesn’t perjure himself or implicate himself in one or more crimes, then you might be able to vote no to removal. If Bolton, Mulvaney, and others can show how their actions were legal and in the interest of the United States and complied with all US laws (record keeping, honoring subpoenas, disbursement of funds, etc.) then you could vote no on the facts and not a white washed party loyalty.

I hope that you will do what is right and demand witnesses and then issue a verdict based on facts and not ‘whitewash’ a verdict based on criminal threats from the President and his cabal of supporters.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Nov 1, 2018, 01:54 PM
Number of posts: 2,259
Latest Discussions»JT45242's Journal