This is via IPhone and I can’t format easily. But at 2:05 am a post
Warning my blood is up
They gave me the packet at 5. Precinct 224 a single delegate that we would lose. But the sanders had Iowans for precinct captains everywhere in Des Moines but my Pricinct. It was in a gym that was shared with 225 and 226 and I could help
10 delegates at stake
The start was slow. As in 08 the Clinton people filled up the bleachers (which they allocated for themselves ). And then someone said look outside the gym. And at 635 a line snaked outside the school and into parking lot
It was in that moment when we realized everything written about turnout was nonsense Out precincts plus two other at the scool would blow turnout away. And we precinct looked at the bleachers full of old people and the line full of people under 40
Our hand count at 650 was bad. But we saw the line and thought there was hope
But
But the party didn’t have enough new voter forms
It was a few minutes later that I got into it with the Iowa site chair. The party fucked up. At 730 no caucus had started and the party person suggested the people in line should have gone hone
Let me explain something. I have been a part of Florida legal protection for a decade. I play by Florida rules. And in front of about 30 people I lit into him. The party support was awful and young people. – likely sanders supporters were leaving. I have seen this shit before
But in Florida I had backup. A boiler room willing to go into federal
Court. I had none if that. So I bluffed. Sone of the Clinton people agreed
But make no mistake what I saw was the same shit as i saw in Florida
224 went first. A clear and expected loss
226 went second. 67 votes for sanders 54 for Clinton. A 2 to 1 delegate split. 225 went last; 117 for Clinton 103 for sanders. A 3 to 3 spliced
Total Raw vote195 Clinton 191 sanders. Delegates split 5 – 5.
It is 845. But 221 222 and 223 were still checking people i
One of those precincts of which we expected a 4 to 2 split hS not reported
Much more to say. But too tired
3 delegates split 2 to 1
351
Three hours left. No one really knows what will happen
Q poll this morning giving everyone hope
Notes
Omalley may win one county jasper
The worry is still about the kids
One county chair is changing location supposedly ro allow for hire turnout. No sanders person believes this
6:00 am
Two new polls side. One has it 20-19-19 the other has it 27 25 22
Clear sign of a late Rubio surge. That has been the buzz over the last 12 hours. Talk to some people who think trump support is real in rural areas. But trump has no real organization and Cruz and Rubio do
In every Iowa cycle a candidate has beet their number 5 days out
Rubio looks like the most likely to do that
It’s late, and I start at 4 tomorrow am. So I am putting this at the top.
Started by canvassing for Bernie. Bernie has a lot of volunteer power, and though they started late they have finished much.
There is an emerging consensus on the race. I have spoken with a lot of Bernie people and I have friends in the Clinton camp. Some points in no particular order:
1. There is evidence in rural counties O’Malley will be viable. In 4 delegate districts there is concern in Sanders camp that this result in a 2-1-1 split instead of a 2-2 split.
2. I think the Clinton people have an edge that stems from having run before, and as a result having known supporters. This helped Edwards in 2004. I think they know who is for them a little better than Sanders does.
3. Will the kids come home? I talked to a Sanders person who told me the caucus will be decided by the under 25 vote. Will they leave UofI and ISU and NI and go home and caucus? If not, 25% of Sanders vote is packed in about 12% of the delegate precincts.
Irony – in 08 the worry is the kids wouldn’t go back to school.
Spoke with Dan Balz from the Washington Post about New Hampshire. If Bernie does well he thinks Bernie can easily survive a narrow loss in IA. What constitutes doing “well”. He cited me the Justice Powell line about pornography – we will know it when we see it.
Ladies and gentleman – I give you our national press corps.
On the GOP side the talk is really about the three way race. There is a poll out tonight showing a three way tie. That is not what the DMR found – but I think something big is in the offing on the GOP side.
Meanwhile, Bernie is up 25 in NH and everyone says the same thing: If Bernie wins NH and NV he will have Clinton on the run. But no one knows what is happening in Nevada.
Tomorrow morning I go to morning joe.
My apologies – I believe the diary I had before was somehow deleted.
I get to Iowa Friday. I work a precinct Monday
Make what you will out of the polls. About 30 – 40% of Iowa voters decide in the last week according to the exit polls. What happens in the last days will matter.
I have no idea what will happen. No one else does either.
I will keep this as just a thread of observations like I did at open left in 08. A friend and Clinton supporter tells me Sanders is winning the yard sign war by a huge margin in Cedar Rapids. Make of it what you will
I know the Clinton people were late with the signs in Iowa. They are late in New Hampshire was well
.
But as the Obama people said over and over again in Florida in 2012 – Yards signs do not vote.
Iowa is it. The one chance to stop the neoliberals – perhaps
for 8 years. The one chance progressive politics has to make a dent in the system. The stakes are enormous. Iowa and New Hampshire are the best opening liberals have – and maybe the only one. They are small enough so that you can have at least an even fight. The only place in the process where money does not play an outsized role.
It is one of the ironies of politics that talking about it is fascinating, and being active in it can be boring as hell. Being active means cold calling strangers, standing on their doorsteps, hanging literature on doors. For the last 10 years or so it has meant getting up early on a Florida morning in November to be at a precinct when it opens, and staying all day and try and stop voter suppression.
There is nothing glamorous about it.
Sanders is so not a perfect candidate. But 35 years after he became my mayor I am proud to stand with him.
Update [2016-1-27 0:1:26 by fladem]:
1/26
New Iowa Poll
Iowa State – 1/5 1/22
Clinton 47 Sanders 45
Cruz 26, Trump 19, Carson 13.4, Rubio 12.3, Paul 7, Bush 4
Only 3% respondents under 30. Those under 30 tend not to have landlines.
ISU polled in 2012 – their results were about average for the time frame.
Carson remains a significant factor in Iowa – he is taking vote that would otherwise go to Cruz. With Cruz getting pummeled by negative advertising and Carson being ignored, Carson final act may be to let Trump win. The date of this poll may have missed Trump’s surge in Iowa – if you want to call it that.
Campaign News Stories
Trump will skip debate
Word of a Democratic Debate – is Sanders skipping?. A sign of Clinton desperation?
Sanders to meet with Obama
Update [2016-1-27 8:57:38 by fladem]:
Quinnipiac, Sanders +4, 49-45
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia01272016_I62pmst.pdf
Update [2016-1-27 11:24:51 by fladem]:
Cruz estimates GOP turnout of between 126 and 135K, and Dem turnout a little less than 2X that. ’08 GOP turnout was 120K, and Dem 227K. If true look for a big Dem turnout – good news for Sanders.
Update [2016-1-28 8:55:0 by fladem]:
Polls:
Marist 48 Clinton, Sanders 45.
Harold Enten of 538 notes Clinton is up 25 in the poll among verified registered voters, down 18 among those who are not. 538 believes polls not using verified registered voters are overstating Sanders.
Good press for Sanders from meeting with Obama, NBC News Interview
Debate over debates ends with Sanders agreeing, but demanding more
NH polling now a blowout.
GOP IA: Cruz is sinking, some sign of Carson actually increasing.
Dispute over use of LCV logo in Sanders mailers – LCV stays out of the dispute (talked to head of LCV field org in an early primary state)
Update [2016-1-29 13:35:6 by fladem]:
Des Moines impression: I am struck (and in fairness NH is the same way) at how invisible for the most part the Caucus is. I sit eating lunch and none of the tables around me are talking about t. A serious case can be made that post WWII History cannot be understood without some understanding of IA and NH. And yet for all its influence on US and even World events, it is not an all consuming passion. U of Iowa football surely inspires more passion and talk.
I like Des Moines for the most part. Iowans are certainly friendlier than Vermonters (though to be fair who isn’t).
PPP Poll out this morning has it Clinton +8, a shift of 2 since the last poll. Everyone will be focused on the Des Moines Register Poll – which comes out at 5:45 CST.
I start phoning tonight, and canvassing tomorrow
I am writing at Bleeding Heartland today about polling in the last 72 hours. Hint: every national front runner has had their Iowa Margin decline in the last 72 hours.
Canvassng in west desoines
Sanders behind where 3 campaigns where I’m 08
Good volunteers
Less enthusiasm in houses than I expected
Doing ok
Update Sunday 9 cat
The dmr poll came out 45-42-3
I was struck by the high undecided. In the past the tendency has been for the national front runner to lose ground late. Selttzer found no sigh of that as she did in 12 and 08.
The word from both campaigns is Sanders doing better in the inner des Moines suburbs than Clinton. Clinton doing better in the west des Moines suburbs where Obama did well
It’s close.
But the consensus is as sanders vote is over concentrated in precincts. I found Sanders votes who can’t caucus because they have to work. It is easy to forget the caucus makes it hard for working people
Sanders also needs the kids who are at ui and isu to come home
No one is prepared for a result within 1 or 2 points. It is unclear what the impact will be
You go, fladem!
I’m impressed that you have enough faith to do this. I send a small donation every two weeks, but I have no faith. I think of it as buying Bernie lunch.
looking forward to updates (and pls clarify Clinton’s gaffe at fundraiser?)
○ Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton’s Email And Reports Of “Top Secret” Materials | MediaMatters – Aug. 2015 |
○ Will a winter snowstorm decide the direction of American politics?
If a government employee can’t distinguish the value of a message between SECRET, TOP-SECRET or SAP [Special Access Programs] 4 Your Eyes Only; he or she is unfit to lead. With HRC’s experience she should have been aware of the level of confidentiality, the official classification is superfluous.
In addition, HRC’s pick of advisors tells lots about her policy, views and bad judgement – Dennis Ross on Israel, Lanny Davis on Honduras and Sidney Blumenthal on Libya and Syria…
On June 20, 2011, Blumenthal advised her that “the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Qaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion,” while providing her with an article CNN published by an analyst making that point. [Source: FOIA request pdf doc]
○ The US Classification System
Yep, you can’t white-wash this latest find of TOP-SECRET emails on her personal server. Somenone will take her to task on this major gaffe as Secretary of State.
This change of narrative is on the same level of stupidity. HRC doesn’t niet an opponent, she steers her campaign ship on the rocks like the Costa Concordia off Isola del Giglio in Italy.
○ The Des Moines Register: The six questions Hillary Clinton answered in Iowa
How long is her nose? 12 inches or more?
Voice — not helpful. You can do much better by resisting the impulse to engage in adolescent cheap attacks.
I hate liars and I’ve hated her ever since she falsely claimed to have been under fire in Kosovo. And I’ve hated Mark Kirk ever since he claimed to be an Iraq war veteran when he just said behind a desk in Washington and not in a command position either.
I’ll probably vote for Jill Stein in Fall, but I’ll definitely vote for Duckworth to send Kirk to the showers.
Apparently her “victory” speech tonight is a real doozy.
Last DRM-Seltzer poll now out.
Most obvious change from earlier DMR polls is that they finally found Trump supporters. Or decided to report them in this poll.
Top line: Clinton 45%, Sanders 42%, and MOM 3%. MOE 4% (which is on the high side). What that means is a 95% confidence level that 95 sample polls out of a hundred would result in Clinton at 41% to 49%, Sanders 38% to 46% and MOM 0 to 7%. A low probability that the actual total population results would be outside the range of each of the candidates.
DMR’s last poll in 2008 was more accurate than the others. Obama 32%, Clinton 25%, Edwards 24%, Biden 4% and Richardson 6%. Obama by 7%. The tally from the caucuses was Obama 37.5%, Edwards 29.7, Clinton 29.4%, Biden 0.9%, and Richardson 2.1%. So, team Clinton is probably feeling good about this 2016 DMR poll.
Unlike the GOP Iowa caucus, the 3% for MOM means that he will be viable in few if any of the caucuses and if not viable in any individual caucus, his supporters will have to move to Clinton or Sanders. The combined reduction for Biden and Richardson in ’08 was 7%.
Digging below the top line:
A general note on this, in the workplace those satisfied are less motivated to work hard. So, there’s a disconnect between what believe and their behavior. In politics, however, they are more likely to have developed the habit of voting; whereas those that are less satisfied aren’t reliable voters.
Surprising given the general higher level of enthusiasm for Sanders over Clinton. Make of it what you will.
Really the fight is a referendum on the status quo. Demococrats are not as disenchanted with their establishment.
Someone said it was a fight over Stockholm Syndrome. Older Democrats really are scared that we will lose. They really don’t believe change is possible. But a 35 year old Democrat saw Obama win. They are much more confident, and they believe issues like gay marriage are proof they are winning.
So they aren’t willing to settle.
But 70 year old Democrats saw Obama win as well, and unlike the 35 year old should have a greater understanding of how extraordinary that was.
Thx for you great effort!
I put your update in a post @BooMan’s fp story here: Caucus Results
This should be interesting: Buzzfeed – Clinton Iowa Volunteers Train When To Push Backers To O’Malley — To Block Bernie
But doubt that it will be effective because such jockeying requires the leading candidate to have enough spare votes that the extras can change the delegate number for one of the other candidates. It appears that there was a secret deal between Obama and Richardson. So, in those caucuses where Richardson was near viability (15%), and Obama could spare enough to make Richardson viable, that’s what was done. Where Richardson fell far short of being viable, his voters moved to Obama when it gave him another delegate. If it didn’t and Obama’s spares plus Richardson’s could add a delegate for Edwards, that’s where they went.
MOM at 3% in the polls is further away from being viable than Biden was in ’08. And Clinton doesn’t have a seven point lead coming in the door as Obama did. The math for this sort of manipulation gets difficult, but using a very hypothetical example, say there are six delegates available and 100 voters. Clinton get 50, Sanders 40, and MOM 10 (not viable). If all the MOM voters move to Clinton, she’d get 4 delegates. If they all move to Sanders, they each get three. If they split evenly between, both still get three. If 5 Clinton voters move to MOM, then Clinton gets 3, Sanders 2, and Mom 1.
○ Bernie, Hillary supporters to duke it out over tiny O’Malley camp
O’Malley had only 3 percent support in the final Des Moines Register-Bloomberg Politics poll,
but because of the Byzantine rules of the Democratic caucusing process, his supporters could
end up deciding the incredibly close race between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The idea is that there are some districts where omalley is close to threshold and throwing him votes will keep Bernie from winning
I did this with Richardson in 08thid is a play to omalley people generally though
Will it influence the second choice of MOM voters? Or is it more about gaining influence with the MOM operatives and the voters do as instructed?
As designed, caucuses were supposed to be like ranked choice voting, but if there’s a way to manipulate an outcome, some will figure it out.
Last minute appeal. Won’t matter if this is a 5 point race it won’t matter
If it is a 2 point race everything matter
My guess now us Clinton plus 7
How sad. And depressing.
yes, very sad. hope you’re wrong though
here’s a link.
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/
50/50 chance that Hillary gets an early knockout by beating Sanders by more than five percent?
That issue of precinct concentration for students is concerning for Sanders.
Carl Beijer How many smears on Sanders supporters can we debunk in one week?
It’s somewhat surprising to me that so few DEM voters have seen this and it was clear by September that this was going on.
On the plus side, this will end any claims by Democrats that a majority are in the “reality” based party and don’t respond as slavishly to propaganda as those on the other side.
Billmon:
Billmon:
A tactic reprised from the ’08 campaign when it worked until it flopped big time when the racism was just to thick in it to ignore.
The biggest challenge to Bernie’s ability to gain the nomination is his need to take a lot of African-American and other non-white supporters from Hillary. She’s dominant with those demographics at the moment. I don’t think it will happen if Bernie supporters try to tell those voters that Hillary or her campaign are racist. It’ll come off a little condescending.
that I still don’t understand or quite believe though iirc in 08 the AA vote shifted to Obama after Iowa/ NH when it was clear he could win. I doubt anyone forgets the dogwhistles of 08.
There’s obvious reasons why Hillary’s main opponent in the 2008 primary was able to win a great share of non-white voters, particularly after he won in Iowa, a state with very few non-white voters. Bernie’s campaign could use wins in the first two primary states to follow a similar path, but the other campaign circumstances are not the same as ’08, and ripping non-white voting blocs for their current choice in polls does not sound like a path to victory.
Bullpucky — as in this campaign, in 2008 Clinton lined up the bulk of AA politicians and elites and media types pushing the meme that she was better for them than the Black guy with the funny name who couldn’t win the general election. (The only big name she didn’t get was Oprah, but Oprah had a larger following and trust factor among white women.)
Astute observers heard that in NH and the word began to get out. In SC, Bill Clinton continued on the tack and AA voters there did hear it and responded accordingly. AA voters did get ahead of AA elites who were reluctant to abandon the candidate that they had endorsed, but there were a number of high profile white elites that hadn’t heretofore endorsed a candidate that began making noises about how offensive they found that tactic of the Clinton campaign. Jimmy Carter for one. It didn’t stop there.
What do you call lower class white folks that line up in support of any GOP that spouts racism, hate, etc.? Smart? Informed?
In 2008 older white women like me were told again and again that we would never support and vote for a Black man over a white woman. Because — identity. Same thing this time around. And anyone that supports Sanders is a BernieBro as it we’re the faux libertarian, young white men that rallied to Ron Paul. That isn’t insulting at all.
Astute observers heard Bill Clinton’s racist dogwhistles in NH, where it was effective in gaining enough additional white votes that she pulled off a win, and began .
well, this is my point. AA voters are somehow going to forget 08 and back the Clintons? I don’t think so. where is the evidence the AA vote is going for Clinton? and it isn’t about the Sanders campaign whitesplaining, it’s about Clinton history, and Sanders record supporting civil rights from early on and supporting BLM very strongly now. I’m replying to your comment as a supplement to your reply to centerfield
AA voters are somehow going to forget 08 and back the Clintons?
Apparently they are. The polls are good evidence. Long before ordinary voters began to tune into the primary election, the “word” was spread far and wide and repeatedly that AAs wouldn’t vote for Sanders. All was forgiven by AAs for the ’08 behavior of Clinton and her surrogates because she and Obama kissed and made up.
The polls apparently. I was watching WGN news last night. They told a story about Chicagoans going to Iowa to campaign for Hillary. Everyone in the film clip was black. It seems really true that blacks hate Bernie because he’s an old white man. You know, the bogeyman.
I was listening to POTUS on SiriusXM at 6:00PM. Sounds like Bernie is dead, Hillary wins Iowa. Bernie wins New Hampshire (you know, the “white” state) and nothing else.
Clinton is still running a racist campaign. She just switched sides. A true Chameleon.
So that’s where Hillary shills got the idea to accuse the Sanders campaign of busing in people to work the caucuses. These guys are projecting their own stuff onto opponents as much or more than the Bush gang did.
Not that we should get too exercised about any campaign that resorts to this tactic. We knew that Obama did it as well. (Sure would like to know if handing over his entire campaign operation along with control of the DNC to the Clintons was part of the deal for them to get on the Obama train in before the 2008 convention.)
The biggest problem in front of Bernie at the moment is not the endorsements from non-white leaders and organizations; it is the answers that non-white voters (African-Americans, Hispanic/Latino-Americans and Asian-Americans) are giving to pollsters. It appears that President Obama’s choice of Hillary as his SoS and her years of service to the Administration may be more important to non-white voters than claims about what her campaign did in 2008.
Telling non-white voters that they should hate/distrust Hillary is unlikely to work. I may be wrong, but supermajorities of these voters view Hillary positively; it’s hard to imagine what negative attacks would move them at this late date, and it would be a major tonal change in the campaigns of Sanders and his supporters which could easily backfire.
I recently came across this:
Carl Beijer: Jamil Smith’s theories about Sanders have no basis in the polls
Now, this is one poll (Yougov/Economist, link in the linked blogpost) and I don´t know if it holds for other polls, but if so most of Clintons higher favourable ratings among PoC is an effect of higher name recognition at this stage.
It’s been a name ID difference all along. Just as it was in ’08 election. But the narrative that AAs won’t vote for Obama or Sanders makes Clinton more formidable and y’all should just give up now.
Clinton HQs folks know that it’s bs, but it they repeat it loudly and long enough it can come true by election day. The people or bots running with it this time are the some as those in ’08 plus the ’08 Obama supporters not with HRC. Some of those folks prize winning for their candidate above all else and aren’t too fussy about what’s done to win. Others are merely loyal bots and probably not bright enough to figure out that they repeat falsehoods for HRC.
Why this PR claims works is that AAs and Latino are identifiable demo groups that don’t pay much or any attention to elections until they begin to happen. Thus, Clinton’s name ID numbers with AA and Latinos in SC and NV could remain steady for much longer and better than her aggregate national numbers. This time around, the Clinton talking about after IA and NH is that those are white voter states and AA and Latinos won’t pay any attention to that.
They may not. They may be quite satisfied with what Clinton/Obama have delivered and see no need to consider anyone else. But that’s not the same as saying from day one that AAs won’t vote for Sanders (or Obama).
“Why this PR claims works is that AAs and Latino are identifiable demo groups that don’t pay much or any attention to elections until they begin to happen. Thus, Clinton’s name ID numbers with AA and Latinos in SC and NV could remain steady for much longer and better than her aggregate national numbers.”
This made me howl with laughter. I hope you see what you did here.
That said, of course Sanders would win supermajorities of African-American and Hispanic voters in November against whatever repellent Republican candidate gains their nomination. The challenge for Bernie is that if he doesn’t start doing much better with African-Americans and Hispanics within the next month he won’t make it to the general election.
well no, see Marie’s response. AA voters held off until Iowa NH showed Obama was viable. the racism of the Clinton campaign was horrendous. (Obama attended a madrasa? that was Bob Kerrey’s talking point in the racist dogwhistle fray)
To be technically correct the Clinton campaign didn’t pull out the racist dogwhistles until NH.
Her campaign was extremely confident that she had the overwhelming support of AAS, a demo that the Clintons have been milking like forever. Her loss in Iowa did put a chink in the carefully nurtured meme that a Black man can’t win the general election. However, that loss didn’t lead to any defections of AA elites and while AA voters noticed, they remained with Clinton. A second loss to Obama in a predominately white state did risk changing the dynamics of the AA vote. (Or maybe not because at that time within the AA community Obama was viewed as black enough.) To prevent that, Clinton pulled out the tried and true old whistle. It worked in NH and nobody outside the state was supposed to notice.
It probably shocked Bill that way down in SC AA voters not only heard it but began moving to Obama. So, then her campaign had to fight with Edwards for the white SC vote and doubling down on the dog whistles seemed like a good tactic because it could be used in other states after Edwards dropped out.
Should note that white voters that responded favorably to the racist attacks on Obama should be ashamed. However, I reserve more loathing for those that manipulate others for their own special purposes.
the only ppl I ever heard say that Obama wasn’t Black enough were White ppl.
Not true.
the only one I see in that article is Stanley Crouch – there’s Steve Croft of course and the Guardian rambling on and on about it and implication because of the stuff about Bill Clinton being the first Black president. the article is a big fog. notice that Stanley Crouch didn’t say Obama “isn’t Black enough” said only he had a different experience than most US AAs [who descended from slaves and whose ancestors lived through Jim Crow]. that, of course, is a fact.
That was just the first article I pulled up with a search. Should be easy enough to find that it wasn’t an isolated example. (And I’d rather waste my research time on things of more current importance to me.)
well I’m not interested in the racist white fog that ppl put out to slow Obama’s momentum. When I first wrote I hadn’t “heard” I meant literally, since I know some fairly prominent ppl, to just leave it at that. everyone I spoke with thought it was just that, racist white fog
and whatever. the shenanigans fladem describes I would expect to mobilize the AA vote on Bernie’s behalf. voter suppression does not sit well with the AA electorate, to put it mildly
Uppity. Exactly the attitude of the Clinton people to sanders
Looking carefully, the Clinton people have been projecting all their distasteful behaviors and character shortcomings on Sanders and his supporters for months. One of her spokespersons got on TV and charged that Sanders was running the dirtiest campaign ever.
Because the truth is dirtier than pretty lies.
Isn’t that exactly the Rove tactic that was described here a little while ago? Preemptively attacking your opponent where they are strong and yu are weak?
Yea – the Sanders campaign has been VERY revealing about much – and Billmon is right.
More to say about that.
Regardless of who wins and loses tonight, the DEM Iowa caucus (don’t care what the GOP does with their silly show) either has to go or be significantly reformed. Too many eligible voters are disenfranchised, it’s extremely expensive for the campaigns, and strategically moving supporters to another camp to fix the delegate count is sleazy.
Democrats 54% reporting:
Clinton 51.3%
Sanders 48.3%
○ Follow live updates as early results rolling in from across the state show tight races in the first-in-the nation vote | The Guardian |
○ Iowa caucus results: track the votes live, county by county
Bernie has to be very proud of his groundworkers tonite. They threw it down to the DNC.
So far looks like the big losers tonight are the pollsters.
Wonder if the GOP managed to count the votes correctly this time.
First hand caucus report of sleazy tactic used by Clinton support.
Apparently some vote count rigging at a Polk Co. caucus caught on tape — per C-Span.
○ How Sanders caught fire in Iowa and turned the Clinton coronation into a real race | WaPo |
○ Sanders campaign cites ‘alarming’ signs Clinton plans to pack the caucuses
Wow!! don’t know what to say.
had read 1 post at the orange place about location being moved for “more space”
DMR report on messes at caucuses. Maybe these were the exceptions, but sounds as if the Iowa DEM party didn’t have its act together, and strange silence from Clinton caucus attendees.
Absent any further hard evidence — will have to chalk up the reported anomalies to human error. Still …
love your “didn’t have its act together” euphemism
Not a euphemism. Merely limited my take to the evidence/data currently available. That’s the difference between me and CT folks. The run with suspicions and preliminary and sketchy data and have a low tolerance for the possibly never knowing the truth of an incident. What they fail to appreciate is that getting ahead of the data increases the probability of never getting to the truth. OTOH, plenty here and at dKos that can’t discriminate between CT folks and those like me (the non-discriminators are no less blind than CT folks.) “We” collect and piece together as much data as possible before making any accusations/etc. and more often than not don’t make any accusations/etc. because the data is insufficient. If public questioning holds the potential to shake loose more information, that’s where to go, but one also has to know when nothing more will be forthcoming and to drop it.
If I type what I know, I will get so mad I risk Heart Failure.
They changed caucus locations late.
They scheduled too few people to check in attendees, resulting in long lines.
Take a guess who is the most likely to leave a long line for a Caucus?
Yep – I saw young people leave where I was.
The precinct chairs frequently didn’t know how to do the math.
And on. and on.
Take your time — but please record what you know. Not necessarily to share at this time, but to document for future reference. If anything you record is objectively (or potentially or possibly) explosive, run off copies of what you wrote, send them to yourself, and tuck them away. (Avoids that long after the fact ‘he said she said’ zone of ‘who knows?’)
A more general sort of question, the 2008 DEM caucus attendance was 25% more than reports of the 2016. Was it as much of a disorganize mess? Don’t recall hearing such complaints from participants — which may mean nothing because can’t say that I was tuned into reports of that sort.
Seems odd to me that as Iowa has been holding caucuses for decades (and it’s a money maker for the state) that the DEM party doesn’t have the resources and skills to manage such a relatively simple process. If they do, then it would seem to me that a conscious decision was made as to how to allocate the resources this time. Sort of like the two to six hour wait times in the 2000 election at AA Democratic precincts.
At the very least this is simply an indication of the utter incompetence that is gradually shutting down the entire society. At the worst it’s an indication of how well the PermaGov uses the now expected incompetence to mask its real actions and intentions.
As they quietly slip off into the PermaGov woods and live to cheat another day.
ASG
fladem, what’s the story with asking for a recount or whatever the equivalent is? have read a couple things about that. also, the coin toss story on which there seems to be many tales circulating?
There is no recourse, really.
There is no raw vote – I didn’t see the raw vote reported back to the state – only the delegate totals.
Posted a diary … more questions than answers:
○ Organized Mayhem by Democrats in Iowa Caucus
Me too.
The Iowa Caucus…and the Whole Primary Rigamarole…Is A Fraud.
AG