Supplemental: State delegate equivalents of the world, unite!

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016

You have nothing to lose but your fractional status:
In a chart in this morning's Washington Post, we see that Candidate Clinton beat Candidate Sanders by four SDEs last night—four state delegate equivalents.

How many people have any idea was a "state delegate equivalent" is? In an apparent attempt to help, the Post haplessly added this:

"The Iowa Democratic Party reports only State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs), not vote counts. SDEs predict the share of Iowa’s national delegates that will be pledged to each candidate."

National delegates to what? Beyond that, why can't they just report what share of Iowa’s national delegates "will be pledged to each candidate?"

The Post didn't quite explain.

Meanwhile, early risers were treated to this by CNN's Brianna Keilar. Speaking on videotape, Keilar was telling the world about fractional SDEs:
KEILAR (2/2/16): Look at what the Iowa Democratic Party chair is saying, really highlighting just how close this is, the results tonight the closest in Iowa Democratic caucus history. And here are the numbers, amazing—699.57 state delegate equivalents for Clinton, 695.49 for Sanders. Outstanding at this point is one precinct. That is Des Moines 42. We're waiting to figure out and we'll see what happens there this morning. But at the same time, it is worth 2.28 state delegate equivalents...
We'll say those numbers are amazing! If SDEs were confusing to start with, what about fractional SDEs? Historically, only King Solomon would have dreamed of splitting Iowa's delegate equivalents into their hundredth parts. Only King Solomon and the utterly daffy, and utterly hopeless, Democratic Party of Iowa.

Last night's events were an orgy of sheer inanity—in part on the part of the nation's pundits, who spent roughly eight hours "discussing" five minutes worth of election returns; in part on the part of the Iowa caucus system which, especially on the Democratic side, is the ultimate, bureaucratically crazy, Rube Goldberg-inspired machine.

An electoral Goldberg equivalent!

This morning, a range of pundits are taking turns telling us the people who "actually won" last night. These are the dumbest people alive, and they're happy to let us know it.

Meanwhile, we're so old that we can remember when people were pretending to be concerned about a problem in Flint. In the face of the current group inanity, we're going to postpone our next discussion of same until tomorrow.

Tomorrow, we'll offer a list of basic questions which remain unanswered concerning Flint. Truthfully, though, no one is going to talk about Flint until things get boring again.

Forgive us, but the "mass poisoning" of "the whole town" is perhaps in part a way to chase the mid-winter blues away. Last night, someone was chatting inanely with "my friend Brian" while, it seemed to us, poking at Chris perhaps just a bit. Did we sniff office politics?

The chatter extended on into the night. Mass poison may seem light-years away at glorious moments like these.

18 comments:

  1. The FBI is investigating the Flint water contamination.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-flint-fbi-idUSKCN0VB1DB

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many experts are calling 2016 the Year of Bob Somerby Melting Like His Predictions for Our Culture.

    Nowhere can this be better seen than in this phrase:

    "Historically, only King Solomon would have dreamed of splitting Iowa's delegate equivalents into their hundredth parts. Only King Solomon and the utterly daffy, and utterly hopeless, Democratic Party of Iowa."

    This from a man who presents test scores with two decimal points in an effort to make gains look larger or himself smarter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abishag the Shunammite,February 2, 2016 at 3:24 PM

      Historically Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Clinton has 700 SDEs.

      Delete
  3. Adding those two fractional number about comes to about 1,400 state delegates to the Dem's Nominating Convention. Is that correct? Has anyone really Demsplained that number?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adding those two fractional number about comes to about 1,400 state delegates to the Dem's Nominating Convention. Is that correct? Has anyone really Demsplained that number?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need it explained to you twice?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous AnonymousFebruary 2, 2016 at 7:49 PM

      Apparently.

      Delete
  5. Hillary wins, but for the Post, of course, nothing is ever good news for her. In this case, the "Photo finish reveals shortcomings of candidate who once seemed invincible." I'm surprised, given that Anne Gearan was the reporter, that the story didn't pronounce what "deep trouble" this leaves Hillary's campaign in. Guess they'll save that for New Hampshire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Losing a 50 point lead reveals strength.

      Delete
  6. IMHO this result suggests that Hillary is a weak candidate. It's a bad sign that she beat an antiquated Jewish Socialist by just 4080 milliSDEs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMHO - there's a ticket to Trollhaven with your name on it.

      Delete
    2. Well then I guess you will easily beat her David, In your very deep, dark fantasies anyway.

      Delete
  7. Our esteemed and very confused blogger asks: "National delegates to what?"

    Could that possibly be national delegates to the national convention? Or is Bob is only pretending to be too dumb to figure that out himself, then projects that to his opinion of regular folks like me -- too dumb to figure that out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. You "asked" if they could possibly "be" to the national convention. I guess it was not clear TO YOU TOO! It never hurts [wait, it might since you are making a big deal] to ask when in doubt. I actually like "good questions". The world would be a better place when false assumptions are eliminated and the simple question, "What did you mean by that?" gets a good discussion started if the writer or speaker is not clear. And it floors me you used the word "dumb". *fainting couch/clutching pearls

      Delete
    2. What did you mean by that Gamaroc?

      Delete
  8. Another hit piece on Hillary in the Wed NY Times. Bruni thinks she is a liar even when she smiles and thanks her Iowa supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And today, we have the Great Bob Woodward musing that Hillary's style and delivery is "too loud."

    "“There is something unrelaxed about the way she communicates,” the Great Man observes. Joe Scarborough, of course, agreed: replying, “[H]as nobody told her that the microphone works?”

    And so it beats on ...

    ReplyDelete