Although the Iowa Caucuses results are still not complete at this writing, the following conclusions are clear:
The big winners are Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, and they now become the leaders of the two factions in the Democratic Party.
Joe Biden in 4th place and Amy Klobuchar in 5th place are on notice if they cannot do better soon, with Super Tuesday clearly their last stand if they do not perform much better.
Elizabeth Warren may have been 3rd, but failed to win any of the 99 counties, so she seems to be at a difficult time with New Hampshire coming up, and Sanders expected to win.
So it looks like the likely battle, subject to change, is between the oldest candidate and the youngest candidate in the field, with Pete precisely half the age of Bernie.
One is a non devout person of Jewish heritage who calls himself a Socialist, and the other is a devout Episcopalian who attends church regularly, and is gay and has a husband.
Buttigieg won the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage award as a high school senior in 2000, having written an essay on the integrity and political courage of then Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and met Caroline Kennedy at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.
This is certainly an ironic situation, that the two front runners are linked in this manner. And the fact that one of my contributors to commentary on this blog, D, supports Sanders while I support Pete is also of interest.
So the battle is on, and we shall see what happens!
Pete Buttigieg is more electable than Bernie Sanders — and more progressive than you think.
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/21121636/pete-buttigieg-beat-trump-win-2020-election-primaries
The biggest impression coming out of Iowa for many Americans and the entire planet is that the Democrats can’t even run a simple state caucus, let alone a nation. What a goat-rope.
In Iowa, the party was counting on Barack Obama-levels of enthusiasm. They got Hillary Clinton-level turnout instead.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/04/iowa-caucus-low-turnout-110674
The Iowa Caucus Disaster Is Planned Chaos
It’s not certain that by the time this article is published there will be any more clarity than there is at present (Tuesday morning) regarding the outcome of the Iowa Democratic Caucus.
What we know right now is that it started with an app for reporting caucus results to the party headquarters. And that in the lead-up to yesterday’s caucus, there were growing reports among the higher-ups that the app had problems: there was trouble downloading it, trouble logging in once it was downloaded, and then problems with it working. But it only had problems if you were able to download it. And then, only if you were able to log into it.
And so, in a not-unwise decision, the Polk County, Iowa, Democratic Party Chairman decided late last week to sideline the new technology; precincts were instructed to undertake the decidedly more simple (and assumedly more reliable) procedure of calling in polling results, supported by screenshots. And what happened next – although facts are still being fleshed out – is a bundle of confusion.
The Rub
Some precincts reported their results without a hitch. Others found phone lines completely jammed. Still some amongst the local polling officials using the app were less experienced than others in using apps, probably owing to their age. Others called to report results and, owing to either the general atmosphere or chaos or technical malfunction, got nowhere.
More information came out as the much-awaited final totals were delayed: not all of the people running the polling centers had been trained on the app. An initial report from the Democratic Party headquarters indicated that “quality control†measures accounted for the delay, and then, just before 10:30pm, that “inconsistencies†had been discovered. Meanwhile, many of the polling centers were reporting that they had sent in their results hours earlier without a hitch.
A phone call between the campaigns and the state parties at just after 11pm added to the mayhem: by one account it quickly descended into acrimony and resulted in the state officials hanging up on the candidates. Not long thereafter the Biden camp reported hearing that, contrary to the statements of the state headquarters, “acute failures†in accurately accounting for votes were occurring systematically throughout Iowa. At about the same time, the Sanders camp reported that according to their internal, proprietary calculations they had garnered some 40% of Iowa precincts.
The app failed. The back-up phone reporting system failed. Attempts to call in results ran into busy signals lasting for hours. And when some of those did get through, they were inaudible. And with that first cascade of failures came a second round of delays and problems: should polling centers that couldn’t get through jammed up phone lines attempt to use the app again, or would they double report? Should results be emailed through possibly unencrypted channels?
And now, it’s a problem for resolution in accord with the best practices of the ‘20s. Not 2020, but 1820: paper ballots. And while paper ballots may, ironically, prove the most robust, fault-resistant method of voting, a look back at the events in Florida in 2000 points to the unique flaws associated with less technological approaches to polling.
As of 1pm Eastern Standard Time, seventeen hours later, there are still no results.
Simple Processes Hiding Enormous Complexity
It didn’t take long for observers to note that a party which, in perception or fact, has taken a sharp turn left was thwarted by simple counting. Most of the far left candidates in the Democratic Primary (and all of them, to some extent or another, are parroting those points to remain relevant) are busy promoting ambitious schemes to solve America’s ills, real or imagined, and this case study in how things that seem simple are always vastly more complex seems fitting.
Of course, this is not only about counting. It’s not even about counting and adding.
The core issue is akin to spotting icebergs; indeed, many fields include that analogy in their basic canon. The world abounds with apparently simple processes that quickly spiral out of control owing to vast, hidden complexities. The task of aggregating information is, or seems, simple; that is the low, smooth profile of the iceberg peeking out from the water.
Even with extremely simple information – in this case, a handful of candidates and the number of votes they receive, plus two other data points (those latter points in response to questions about the 2016 caucus process) – the organizational, technological, and even social contexts within which the process of assessing and disseminating it take place comprise the disproportionately large, jagged, and most of all unseen influences which quickly come into play.
What seems like the straightforward tabulation and reporting of an almost entirely mechanical process suddenly gives rise to feedback loops, and a handful of simple (probably too simple) contingency plans compounds the errors and confusion. Ultimately a vicious skirmish among the Democratic Party and the polling centers (to save face), the candidates (to spin outcomes), and outside parties (mine, included) over the narrative gives rise to further delays, conspiracy theories, preparation for (or actual) litigation, and scrambling in other, upcoming contests.
Planned Chaos
There is a healthy dose of Hayek embedded here. In the first-ever Presidential election where two openly, indeed avowedly socialist candidates are polling strongly, watching the first Democratic caucus descend into utter chaos is as timely and succinct a dissertation illustrating what people “imagine they can design†as could be hoped for.
Or as Ludwig von Mises would have said, this is a classic case of “planned chaos.â€
Their campaign promises urge Americans to think big: not in terms of their locality, county, or state (and certainly not individually), but at the very least in terms of the nation. And where it comes to issues of the climate, they are told to embrace regional and global initiatives. Trillions of dollars, massive bureaucratic agencies, sweeping change: we are told to look to The New Deal, World War II, and the Space Race as proof of our ability to tackle massive problems. But the present world – its problems, conflict, and debt – is as much a product of those putative solutions as it is an outcome, and with a decidedly pernicious blind spot. We cannot see what might have been, however opportunistically political figures assure us that they have always skilfully navigated the optimal course.
Does anyone actually believe that “planning,†“organizing,†or “running†an economy would be any less complex in ways both seen and unseen than counting and reporting a few hundred or thousand votes would be? If so, how and why – based upon what? These are the questions I wish all candidates – and the sitting President, to boot – would be asked, and the ones I’m sure they won’t be.
https://www.aier.org/article/the-iowa-caucus-disaster-is-planned-chaos/
Ah. I see the troll is back. Twas rather peaceful without him.
I wouldn’t worry about turnout until we see how it goes in other states, specifically in states that have primaries.
Just wanted to say that Kirk Douglas has died. He was 103.
They’re going to have a recanvass in the Iowa caucuses. Also, it sounds like Bernie and Buttigieg are tied.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tom-perez-iowa-cacus-recanvass_n_5e3c4c18c5b6f1f57f0d2ecd
Democrats Have Successfully Implemented a 50-State Strategy
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/06/democrats-have-successfully-implemented-a-50-state-strategy/
Following the debacle in Iowa and the refusal of Senate Republicans to hold Trump accountable, the “Democrats in disarray†crowd is having a field day. As someone who tends to chafe at conventional wisdom, I thought I’d go against the grain and bring you some good news about Democrats. Almost no one is noticing that the party has successfully implemented a 50-state strategy when it comes to fundraising.
Howard Dean is the one who popularized the idea of a 50-state strategy back in 2005. What most people don’t know is that in promoting that idea, he was posing a direct challenge to the Democratic “establishment†of his day. Prior to his chairmanship of the DNC, the party was the focal point for fundraising and its leadership doled money out to candidates in a top-down strategy based on who they thought would be viable. Very little of that money was spent to support state parties or candidates in red states or districts that were deemed to be unviable.
Dean’s 50-state strategy would remove that power from DNC leadership, sending it back to state parties and candidates. That is precisely why his candidacy for chair of the party was so hotly contested.
I am reminded of all of that when I read headlines like this one from Axios: “Republicans Vastly Outraise Dems Ahead of 2020.â€
[The RNC goes into the presidential election year with more than seven times as much cash on hand as the DNC—$63 million vs. $8.3 million, according to the parties’ FEC filings.]
Even Dave Weigel, who tends to support the anti-establishment approach of Bernie Sanders, echoed those sentiments when he tweeted that “The DNC’s been clobbered by the RNC in fundraising since Trump won.â€
Those statements ignore the fact that the money is going directly to Democratic candidates, who are “clobbering†their Republican opponents in fundraising. One person who noticed what’s happening is Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
[House Republican leaders privately conceded in a closed meeting Tuesday morning that they are in the midst of a full-blown fundraising crisis, which would imperil any chance they have at regaining their majority in 2020.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) put it bluntly: “They are kicking our ass,†he said, in a meeting at the Capitol Hill Club, the private GOP haunt around the corner from the Capitol, referring to Democrats.]
Here’s what has McCarthy worried.
[To a lesser extent, the same thing is happening in Senate races, where Democratic candidates outraised Republicans $55 million to $49 million last quarter. One thing to keep in mind about those numbers is that Republicans will be defending 23 seats in 2020, while the Democrats will be defending 12.]
Prior to the 2018 midterms, I wrote about the structural changes that led to all of this. My take was inspired by this tweet from Simon Rosenberg.
[Has to be noted @DCCC made a commitment to help Dems raise their own funds this cycle, recognizing that nobody is better at telling a story than the candidate themselves. Was a strategic choice, a break from previous practice. And has been a gamechanger. ]
Here is how a DCCC spokesman described that game-changer.
[“Our committee’s key, early investments have helped Democrats harness grassroots enthusiasm and capitalize on pivotal news cycles to raise the money necessary to be competitive across such a huge House battlefield,†said Digital Press Secretary Sebastian Silva.
The money sprouted after months of groundwork by campaigns and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The DCCC placed digital staffers in each of its regional political teams for the first time this election, according to a DCCC aide, helping campaigns grow online and be prepared to capitalize on viral moments and other opportunities.]
Of course, those efforts were magnified by the emergence of ActBlue as the powerhouse of online grassroots fundraising.
What we have is a Republican Party that has become increasingly dependent on large donations to outside groups and a Democratic Party fueled by grassroots donations directly to candidates. That is how a 50-state strategy is attempting to level the playing field in the era of Citizens United.
Prepare Yourself For a Bumpy Ride Over the Next Nine Months
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/07/prepare-yourself-for-a-bumpy-ride-over-the-next-nine-months/
One of the reasons that pundits become obsessed with polls during every election cycle is that they assume that their job is to predict the future. What has always been interesting to me, however, is how polls—which tell us where things stand today—are relied upon without any attempt to actually look ahead and ponder the events that will shape the future.
For Democrats, we are now in the midst of what Ella Nilsen called the “momentum primaryâ€â€”which includes the four early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Coming out of Iowa, Pete Buttigieg seems to be the candidate who gained momentum. As a result, pundits are pouring over polls from New Hampshire to see if his candidacy has any legs.
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that Buttigieg will do very well in New Hampshire. But a quick look down the road suggests that it might be a while before we find out if he’s an actual contender because in subsequent states, he’s polling in low-to-mid single digits. We’ve still got a long way to go in this primary.
When it comes to the general election, the assumption is that Trump got a boost from the fact that Senate Republicans refused to hold him accountable. But given that even they know he’s guilty, the story doesn’t end there. Representative Jerry Nadler has indicated that the House is likely to subpoena testimony from John Bolton, while documents continue to trickle out from Lev Parnas. Who knows what else we’re going to learn over the next few months?
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are apparently gearing up to put the Bidens on trial, and all of a sudden, the White House is becoming very cooperative in producing documents.
[For months, while the impeachment controversy raged, powerful committee chairmen in the Republican-controlled Senate have been quietly but openly pursuing an inquiry into Hunter Biden’s business affairs and Ukrainian officials’ alleged interventions in the 2016 election, the same matters that President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully tried to coerce Ukraine’s government to investigate…
The senators’ requests to the Treasury have borne fruit, according to the ranking Democratic senator on the Finance Committee, Ron Wyden of Oregon, who contrasted the cooperation given to the Republican senators with the pervasive White House-directed stonewall that House Democrats encountered when they subpoenaed documents and witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.
“Applying a blatant double standard, Trump administration agencies like the Treasury Department are rapidly complying with Senate Republican requests—no subpoenas necessary—and producing ‘evidence’ of questionable origin,†Wyden spokesperson Ashley Schapitl said in a statement.]
Oliver Willis made the prescient prediction on this one.
[no matter who the dem nominee is, trump is going to pretend they broke the law or are some kind of threat to national security. he’ll use the govt agencies at his control to do this. gop will go along with it. so will the media.
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) February 6, 2020]
There is, however, one other branch of government that is sure to take center stage in the 2020 election: the Supreme Court. As I wrote previously, they will rule on three cases a few months before the election that will consume both the media and the voting public.
1Whether the Trump administration can end DACA
2A case that could end Roe v. Wade as we know it
3Whether Donald Trump must release his tax returns and finances
On the first item, ICE Director Matt Albence recently made it clear that if the Court rules in Trump’s favor, they are already prepared to begin deporting DACA recipients immediately.
[Trump’s ICE Director, Matt Albence, just confirmed they intend to deport #DACA recipients if the Supreme Court rules on Trump’s side: When “DACA is done away with by the Supreme Court, we can actually effectuate those removal orders.â€
— United We Dream (@UNITEDWEDREAM) January 24, 2020]
What we don’t know right now is how the Supreme Court will rule in these cases. But especially on the one affecting Roe v. Wade, all signs point to its demise. If that happens, it will overwhelm any other issue on the table at that time. On the other hand, if the Court rules that Trump must release his taxes, pouring over those documents will consume the media and their reporting. If what we expect turns out to be true, Trump could be toast.
My point in all of this is to challenge our obsession with the immediate moment and to suggest that we also keep the longer view in mind. The next nine months are going to be a helluva bumpy ride and it will help to be at least somewhat prepared.
What stands out after Iowa is Bernie Sanders’ limited crossover appeal
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-stands-out-after-iowa-bernie-sanders-limited-crossover-appeal-n1132336
Yes, Bernie Sanders could very well end up being the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination — if he wins New Hampshire and Nevada.
And especially if Pete Buttigieg/Joe Biden/Michael Bloomberg split up the vote in the party’s moderate lane beginning on Super Tuesday.
But now that the dust — or more accurately, all the mess — has settled after Iowa, it becomes clear that Sanders only had an “ok†night in the Hawkeye State.
He might have met expectations, but he certainly didn’t exceed them. Turnout was lower than expected. And the entrance poll showed him with limited crossover appeal outside of his young, very liberal base.
Sanders got just 8 percent support from Iowa caucus-goers 45 and older. And among seniors 65-plus, it was just 4 percent.
While he overperformed among “very liberal†Iowa Dems (43 percent), he underperformed among “somewhat liberals†(19 percent) and moderates (12 percent).
He got just 12 percent support from white women college graduates — arguably the heart of the Dem resistance against Trump.
And maybe most concerning of all for Sanders, he won more than half of the Iowa caucus-goers who said they supported him in 2016. But he barely registered (7 percent) among the 54 percent of all Iowa caucus-goers who said they backed Hillary Clinton four years ago.
So his base — right now — is about half of the Democrats who supported him in 2016.
But few else.
(He did overperform with the sliver of non-white Democrats in Iowa, but it’s unclear if that translates outside of the Hawkeye State.)
So if he’s really going to be the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination, he’s got to win convincingly in New Hampshire.
Remember, this is a state he carried with 61 percent of the vote in 2016.
If Bernie wins the Democratic nomination, he needs to expand beyond very liberal young people in order to win the general election. I’m in doubt about him doing that.
Currently watching the debate. Everybody seems to be hitting their stride.
This debate has featured more — and I mean this quite strictly in a theatrical sense — dynamic range than all the other debates combined.
Buttigieg, Sanders, and Biden have had the most speaking times so far. Yang and Steyer the least.
This whole segment on racism is just really driving home the fact that there’s only one person of color on stage, and no black or Hispanic candidates.
Biggest losers of the debate: the technicians. Screen went off at one time. Microphones acting up.