Yeah, all Iowa is good for is the initial boost. If you take that away, a win in Iowa is worth about as much as one in Kansas or Mississippi. It's also the main chance for a liberal candidate to get traction. After Iowa, you get New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - not exactly a hotbed for leftist candidates.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd be screaming that this screwup was done deliberately (via cybersecurity breach or something) to bury Biden's disastrous finish and diminish the Sanders bounce.

I mean, I'm not, but I wouldn't be surprised if like 30 years from now, a story came out outlining something like that happened.

Results due out at 4 PM CST according to Iowa Dem Party chairman.

I was always aware of the Iowa Caucus, but, until this year, I was never really aware of just how it worked. Now that I am, I hate it. It's stupid. It seems like one of those things that people keep doing just because that's how it's always been done.

They should just have a primary like normal people and get over themselves.

I mean Sanders was in the lead in both New Hampshire and Nevada according to polling, so not sure they aren't that good for leftists....

And Iowa tends to be where moderates (or Midwesterners) win over leftists a lot.

I think all caucuses should die in a fire (I think Nevada's is a caucus as well). Telling people to hang out for a few hours and try to get supporters of other candidates to walk over to your side seems like torture.

Supposedly, Nevada uses the same App for their caucus. That should go over well.

Back In the pre social media days caucuses had their place. It was tons of back room dealing, and if you got one of your guys in as the precinct chairman, you won.

Partial results.

Which is a dumber idea than waiting until they are complete.

Next debate is Friday... that's going to be saucy

Deep state got it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I was telling my wife the same thing. This D party f up in Iowa will be regularly referred too by a Trump.

Way too much credit. H can't even remember the names of all his kids.

Not anymore.

Reuters on Twitter: "Nevada Democratic Party says Iowa's caucus reporting app and developer will not be used during the state's February 22nd caucuses, the party chair says… https://t.co/pV5NtRUaLo"

It's still gonna be a royal pain in the ass. I miss living in a primary state.

I wonder what things are like at the Shadow Inc., offices today.

Trump will just make shit up that's worse than this anyway. It really doesn't matter what the facts are as far as how Trump attacks everything around him.

Its a huge embarrassment and in an election where the dems need big turnout especially from younger people anything that erodes confidence in the process is a disaster, I'm extremely concerned about this. But I'm not worried in the slightest about giving Trump ammunition.

That's a fair point, but I think it's a pretty outdated one at this stage. Politicians are nowhere near as dependent on the media as they were say, 20 years ago when this would have been a much more important thing. IMO any candidate who is focused on that in 2020 is already shooting themselves in the foot.

Haha, well they're not working out of DC WeWork anymore because I suspect all of them were working remote anyway. But surely their Slack channel is hell.

Much smarter people than I think that the Iowa bump is hugely important. As in a 30%+ increase/decrease in a candidates chances to win the Primary. As I think iSiddiqui posted on the last page, fivethirtyeight has been looking at a ton of data; they seem to think Iowa is pretty much the only reason someone like Buttigieg even has a legitimate shot at the primary.

Right. Nate Silver even wrote a post about it last night:

Iowa Might Have Screwed Up The Whole Nomination Process | FiveThirtyEight

You'll note that Iowa's bounce is the second highest potential bounce after Super Tuesday.

Here is Nate Cohn (apparently it's only 62% of the precincts, which what?!):

Buttigieg 26.9
Sanders 25.1
Warren 18
Biden 15

edit: hold up, 538 said that's the first alignment vote... which isn't the final. This is so damned confusing.

edit2: apparently Sanders wins the first alignment and final alignment in terms of people, but Buttigieg has more delegate equivalents (that's going to go over well on Twitter)? It's still 62% of the vote though.

1st Alignment
Sanders 24
Buttigeg 21
Warren 19
Biden 15
Klob 13

Post-Alignment
Sanders 26
Buttigieg 25
Warren 21
Biden 13
Klob 12

State Delegate Equivalent
Buttigieg 27
Sanders 25
Warren 18
Biden 16
Klob 13

w/62% precincts in

Hopefully the 38% fixes it, but Bernie having more votes but less delegates is sure going to make the internet fun the next few days.

And Yang is #6 with 1.1, a dramatic drop off from #5.

Ummmm...why on EARTH would any rational person want the 38% to fix it???


:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

For a party that wants to get rid of the electoral college in favor of just the popular vote, the Democrats do like their caucuses crazily complicated

Ben, you must not know any Bernie supporters in real life.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Oh, I do. One dude in particular is a very recent* former member of my church. 20something. During the Prayers Of The People, probably twice a month he'd pray aloud against the military-industrial complex that controls our nation. :eek: Dude is a piece of work.


*-They moved recently--his wife is going to grad school.

This is one of the rare cases where fivethirtyeight gets into missing the forest for the trees IMO. Since 1976, the winner of Iowa in contested primaries has lost almost as often as they've won (10 of 18 times). When you also consider that most of them didn't take place in anything resembling the modern media age of social media and the internet, and the fact that there's a large bias towards the first state being predictive in the sense that usually the 'best' (as determined by the electorate) candidates are likely to do better everywhere, and that there have sometimes been prohibitive front-runners to up the numbers as well, anything close to 30% is just unjustified as far as I'm concerned. It still matters, it's still important - but anything above 10% I would consider an extreme stretch. Headlines like 'screwed up the whole nomination process' are unfortunate clickbait, and by the way also not well-supported by the article itself.

Naw, he'll remember the general details. He'll just get the state wrong.

Packing boxes, sending out Resumes.

Iowa made Obama's candidacy. Iowa being the first real vote, gives a much better picture of who can compete and who can't. It has a better influence than polls, because it is a real vote. It will also affect fund-raising. Do better than expected, more money comes in, but do worse, your campaign is in real trouble. That is where the bump comes from. Especially the money part, because the number one reason candidates drop out is money.

Good lord I wonder after that surprising 4th place finish if Biden is dead in the water and especially with Bloomberg aka Thurston Howell III likely taking some of his moderate voters away. Are we seriously going to run a card caring full bait socialist against Cheeto? Now I am wondering high Trump runs after Dad wins 2020.

So, do the "Anyone but Bernie" folks in the Dem establishment jump onto Buttigieg, or do they wait until after NH to see the lay of the land?

I know nothing (and I am horrible at predicting this stuff), but I could see a concerted effort to consolidate the anti-Bernie vote behind one candidate before Super Tuesday.

I don't think I've used the phrase "military-industrial complex" since Bush was in office.

*South Carolina

Buttigieg has been polling terrible with Latines (heavy in Nevada) and African-Americans (heavy in SC). There is a chance that he just peaks with Iowa and/or New Hampshire. It would be silly to dump money into a candidate that may crash and burn before the month is up.

But you have to imagine that Buttigieg is raking in the money right now and is more viable than he would have been if he finished 3rd in Iowa (which would have likely functionally ended his campaign)

Talking to them can be banging your head against the wall, ESPECIALLY when they are convinced there was a conspiracy against them. I still have Bernie fans randomly bring up 2016 (even, or maybe because, knowing I was a massive Hillary supporter).


Buttigieg is now more relevant because he one of the top 2 in Iowa. However his bump may be far less due to the nutty reporting. If Iowa went off without a hitch, Buttigieg is probably going to be in the Top 3 in New Hampshire and Biden is on his way out. Now, with everything muddled, its far less of a bump for Buttigieg and less against Biden (who's playing the everything was so messed up you can't rely on the numbers).

:+1:

I think the Iowa Caucus setup is perfect for a candidate like Bernie. To win in the Caucus, you need:
1. Supporters who prefer their candidate enough to take a day off work (check)
2. Supporters who love to sit in a room for 4-5 hours and argue (check)
3. Supporters willing to bully people into submission to get a chance at one more vote (double check)

I'm not surprised a candidate like Biden didn't do well in this setup. The irony of this is that Bernie is not only going to miss out on the bump because of this fiasco, but he's also going to trial in delegates after it. It's also not like we didn't have advance notice of this in Iowa. Remember in 2012 for the Republican primary, they announced Romney as the winner - then two weeks later said Santorum actually won. Then, five months later, they changed course again and said Ron Paul won. What a mess this whole process is!

You should have seen what an absolute jerkweed he was on Facebook this past spring when our pastor's wife posted a "proud mama" post announcing that their son had won a full Naval ROTC schollie to UNC. I'll see if I can dig it up at some point, but my recollection is something along the lines of "I pray that he will see from the inside the evil of our military-industrial complex and be an agent of change, but I fear that he will be corrupted by them and buy into their lies."

I found it much more quickly than I thought I could..


First post...

A church member called him out with "wow...I’m dumbfounded. How about just congratulations or...just don’t post anything at all. Not everything should be a pulpit for you."
His response to that?

The naming is bizarre. The whole thing is bizarre. It's like they want to attract conspiracy theories.

Shadow Inc itself was launched by ACRONYM. Although ACRONYM is now denying this even though past images of their web page says otherwise. For a company that is suppose to be social media gurus, they should know it's near impossible to delete stuff from the internet.

Several presidential campaigns gave these guys money for their peer-to-peer app. Isn't there about million of those out there already?

The Iowa Democratic party allegedly paid $60,000 for the famous failed app. Give me a weekend and I could've whipped up website that could've tallied the votes for you.

Mayor Pete is just so impressive when you look back at some of the forgotten candidates and their qualifications and political accomplishments. I don't understand how he's gotten to this point. I do know he has a presence that he just surprises people with when he meets them, I've heard that story from many who have.

I don't think Pete can win given his almost total lack of support from people of color, but his strategy has been solid. He's hoping early wins propel him to growing support. That probably won't work, but whether other path could he have taken that would have been more successful?

Pete has a chance because he's the establishment choice now that Biden looks to be too old for the job. What the Democratic Party is doing to Bernie in Iowa is why Pete is viable.

He'll have a tough time in a general because of what he did in Michigan. And the lack of support from minorities will crush him too. But that's Democrats for you, allergic to winning.

Reading that Iowa spent $60,000 on that app.....that'll get you close to half of the salary for one competent developer in this day and age.

I read two payments for 60 each. Which either way, screams "we outsourced this to the cheapest offshore dev team we could find".

And they got what they paid for.

In this case it was outsourced by Dem campaign grifters that didn't have a clue about software development.