Iowa Democrats to release partial results after presidential caucus chaos

[webfact]

Iowa Democrats to release partial results after presidential caucus chaos

By Joseph Ax and Ginger Gibson

 

A supporter of Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) listens as she speaks at her Iowa Caucus rally in Des Moines, Iowa, U.S., Feb 3, 2020. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

 

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Iowa's Democrats promised to begin to release long-delayed results on Tuesday afternoon from the party's chaotic first voting in its process of picking a candidate to face Republican Donald Trump in November's U.S. presidential election.

 

After a confusing night when technological snafus prevented the announcement of a winner from voting at over 1,600 caucus sites in Iowa, more than 50% of results will be released at 5 p.m. ET (2200 GMT), said Troy Price, the party's state chairman.

 

Officials blamed inconsistencies related to a new mobile app used for vote counting for the unusual delay in the state that traditionally kicks off a U.S. presidential election year.

 

The uncertainty enraged Iowa Democrats worried that it would only strengthen Trump's bid for re-election and prompted some Democratic candidates' campaigns to question whether the results would be legitimate.

 

"I just don't understand what that means to release half of the data. So, I think they ought to get it together and release all of the data," said U.S Senator Elizabeth Warren, campaigning in New Hampshire.

 

It was a clumsy start to 2020 voting, after a bad-tempered presidential campaign four years ago was also hit by allegations of hacking and disinformation that led to a two-year federal investigation into election interference by Russia.

 

Republicans asked how Democrats could run the country if they could not conduct a caucus while Trump mocked the Democrats on Twitter, calling the delay an "unmitigated disaster."

 

Campaign aides for former Vice President Joe Biden cited gross failures in the caucuses.

 

“What we're saying is there are some inconsistencies, that the process, the integrity, is at stake. And the Iowa Democratic Party needs to check that data, check it again, check it a third time, check it a fourth time, because it’s important to get it right,” Biden campaign senior adviser Symone Sanders told reporters.

 

"It looks like a disorganized mess," said Jessica Leonard, 41, who runs a food truck in Winterset, Iowa and normally votes Democratic.

 

FALSE START

After more than a year of campaigning and more than $800 million in spending, the results in Iowa had been expected to provide some answers for Democrats desperately trying to figure out how to beat the businessman-turned-president.

 

Campaigns were awaiting initial results on Monday evening as they began to hear about a "technical issue" that was causing a delay, according to a campaign aide. The Iowa Democratic Party had a 10 p.m. ET (0300 GMT) conference call to brief the campaigns on progress but, at that point, they still expected results to be released late on Monday.

 

Instead, Democratic candidates began leaving for New Hampshire to campaign ahead of its Feb. 11 primary with no clear answers.

 

Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, expressed frustration with the delay after having told a late-night rally that there were indications he had been "victorious."

 

Buttigieg and front-runner Sanders released their campaigns' own, incomplete counts of the Iowa vote which showed them having done well.

 

Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who entered the race late and has decided to skip the early-voting states to focus on later contests, seized on the muddled results, announcing he would buy more advertising and hire more staff.

 

"After more than a year of this primary, the field is as unsettled as ever. No one has made the sale or even come close to it," campaign spokeswoman Galia Slayen told Reuters.

 

Trump took a swipe at the Democrats, 11 of whom are contenders in the state-by-state battle to face him in November.

 

"Nothing works, just like they ran the Country," he wrote on Twitter.

 

APP CODING PROBLEM

Price, the Iowa Democratic chairman, said the app was recording data accurately but only tallying part of it. The coding problem was fixed and state officials are verifying the data from the app with required paper documentation, he said.

 

Some local officials reported having trouble using the mobile app to report results from schools, community centers and other locations. But when they turned to the traditional method - calling results in by telephone - they were put on hold and could not get through.

 

"We had people with their phones on speaker who were stuck on hold from 9 through at least 11," said Bret Nilles, the Democratic Party chairman in Linn County. He said he had no problems recording results through the app.

 

The Nevada Democratic Party said that for its Feb. 22 presidential caucuses it will not be using the same app or vendor employed in Iowa.

 

Iowa Democrats had been keen to be more transparent in this year's caucuses after complaints from Sanders about the 2016 caucuses when he and rival Hillary Clinton earned roughly the same number of delegates who go on to choose the party's presidential nominee. He asked the party for an audit.

 

This year, the state party had tried to release multiple data sets from Monday's caucuses instead of only the number of delegates each candidate earned.

 

Some Democrats have long complained that the largely white farm state has an outsized role in determining the party's presidential nominee.

Iowa Democratic officials said there was no indication the mobile app was hacked.

 

U.S. intelligence agencies say Moscow meddled in the 2016 election with a campaign of email hacking and online disinformation aimed at sowing discord in the United States, hurting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and helping Trump.

 

While Republicans pounced on the problems, their party has its own history of presidential election chaos in Iowa. On the night of the party's 2012 caucuses, Mitt Romney was declared to have won by only eight votes. But two weeks later, the party announced that Rick Santorum had actually won by 34 votes. Romney went on to be the nominee.

 

For a graphic on Inside the Iowa caucuses:

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION-IOWA/0100B5BX3CX/index.html 

 

For a graphic on Calendar of each state’s Democratic nominating contest and its allocated delegates:

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION-CALENDAR/0100B31F26V/index.html 

 

For a graphic on Who is running in 2020:

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/010091471JC/index.html 

 

(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt, Joseph Ax, Tim Reid, Simon Lewis, Jarrett Renshaw and Ginger Gibson in Iowa, Michael Martina in New Hampshire and Amanda Becker in Washington; Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Soyoung Kim and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Crazy Alex]

The crux of the story:

 

"The uncertainty enraged Iowa Democrats worried that it would only strengthen Trump's bid for re-election and prompted some Democratic candidates' campaigns to question whether the results would be legitimate."

 

Of course people are going to question the legitimacy of the results. The DNC robbed Bernie of the 2016 nomination. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned over that fiasco. And now we have Hillary operatives introducing some app into this year's primary, starting in Iowa.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-04/clinton-campaign-vets-behind-2020-iowa-caucus-app-snafu

 

It is extremely difficult to not suspect shenanigans, given this information on Hillary operatives being involved with this process.

 

So yes, of course observant Americans are going to question the legitimacy of the Democrat primary process. And it must be noted that this entire fiasco lies 100% at the feet of the Democrat party. Putin, Trump, Russia et al have nothing to do with it. Hopefully, the DNC will at least own it.

 

EDIT: Of course, a debate on this story and issue will not be complete without competence being part of it. A party that can't even get a simple caucus done in a small state without bungling it can somehow fix America and its perceived problems? I say absolutely not.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Crazy Alex
additional info

[bkk6060]

Not playing sides but the Democrats seem to be so screwed up they are basically handing the win to Trump.

 

Trump will win.

Stock market up 50%.

All about the money yes..

[Crazy Alex]

7 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

Not playing sides but the Democrats seem to be so screwed up they are basically handing the win to Trump.

 

Trump will win.

Stock market up 50%.

All about the money yes..

Incomes up. Market up. Plenty of jobs. Relative peace. Indeed, these are the issues voters vote on. I believe this is an area in which many Democrats make errors. Right, wrong or indifferent, the only people who are going to care about the Senate trial not having additional witnesses are people who were never going to vote for Trump in the first place.

 

But back to the caucus: this fiasco certainly doesn't enhance Democrats' prospects for this year's election. Showing such incompetence (at best, it's incompetence) right out the gate will have people's radar up watching for other missteps and shenanigans.

[Somtamnication]

The Dems just walked straight into Trump's gauntlet of vitriol, insults and lies. They don't stand a chance against this guy, now. 

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

The crux of the story:

 

"The uncertainty enraged Iowa Democrats worried that it would only strengthen Trump's bid for re-election and prompted some Democratic candidates' campaigns to question whether the results would be legitimate."

 

Of course people are going to question the legitimacy of the results. The DNC robbed Bernie of the 2016 nomination. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned over that fiasco. And now we have Hillary operatives introducing some app into this year's primary, starting in Iowa.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-04/clinton-campaign-vets-behind-2020-iowa-caucus-app-snafu

 

It is extremely difficult to not suspect shenanigans, given this information on Hillary operatives being involved with this process.

 

So yes, of course observant Americans are going to question the legitimacy of the Democrat primary process. And it must be noted that this entire fiasco lies 100% at the feet of the Democrat party. Putin, Trump, Russia et al have nothing to do with it. Hopefully, the DNC will at least own it.

 

EDIT: Of course, a debate on this story and issue will not be complete without competence being part of it. A party that can't even get a simple caucus done in a small state without bungling it can somehow fix America and its perceived problems? I say absolutely not.

More conspiracy nonsense.

 

EDIT: And let’s put aside the tech problem equates to ability to govern nonsense.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

Not playing sides but the Democrats seem to be so screwed up they are basically handing the win to Trump.

 

Trump will win.

Stock market up 50%.

All about the money yes..

He’s polling around 40% approval and his health is visibly declining.

 

He’s a lost cause.

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More conspiracy nonsense.

 

EDIT: And let’s put aside the tech problem equates to ability to govern nonsense.

 

The fact they still don't have a full count, haven't said when they will, didn't have a plan for this, shows they can not govern. Governing is a little tougher than hosting popularity contests in school gyms. 

 

As far as your next comment about Trump in the polls Gallup has him at 49% now. He will be giving the state of union speech tonight, will be acquitted tomorrow, and will most likely easily win his second term* I put the asterisk there just for you.

 

Everyday that passes the dems are looking like the coyote blowing themselves up. 

 

This is Gallup not Rasmussen 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-04/trump-reaches-49-approval-in-gallup-poll-his-highest-ever

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Rasmussen - Bless.

 

It's Gallup reported by Bloomberg of all sources...

[Puchaiyank]

What is being overlooked and lost in the chaos is the remarkable appeal and rise of Pete Buttigieg...

 

Congradulations to you sir for running a competitive campaign...

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll and other posts reported and removed.  

 

[Skallywag]

16 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

What is being overlooked and lost in the chaos is the remarkable appeal and rise of Pete Buttigieg...

 

Congratulations to you sir for running a competitive campaign...

Been following Pete since last May.  He is intelligent, a good debater (articulate), forward thinking, and a veteran.  Really believe america needs "new" blood, a younger generation to deal with challenges of the 21st century.  Though I also believe in Tulsi's message and agenda.  For some reason people don't like her (trust her?) and she argued with others too much at the debates.  Would be a good VP also, but very unlikely.  

 

 

 

 

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Been following Pete since last May.  He is intelligent, a good debater (articulate), forward thinking, and a veteran.  Really believe america needs "new" blood, a younger generation to deal with challenges of the 21st century.  Though I also believe in Tulsi's message and agenda.  For some reason people don't like her (trust her?) and she argued with others too much at the debates.  Would be a good VP also, but very unlikely.  

 

 

 

 

 

If Buttigieg can make a good showing in South Carolina he has a chance. Being gay works against him in the black community and his record as Mayor in South Bend is not favorable for that demographic. 

 

I am guessing Bernie takes down New Hampshire assuming they manage to be able to count the vote. If they don't come up with the other 30% of the Iowa caucus the results are likely to be contested. If any party loves contesting election results it is the dems after all.

[Tippaporn]

Time to revert back to paper and pencil.  No chance of electronic intrusions or any other electronic meddling or tampering.  What's so difficult about it?  Brexit votes were on paper and they had no problem counting the votes.

[Skallywag]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

it can somehow fix America and its perceived problems

This is why you are a Trump supporter.  Believing everything is "great" with few problems in America. 

True for the wealthiest 2-3% who of course are also Republicans. 

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

to question the legitimacy of the Democrat primary process

Don't forget there was Republican and Democrat caucuses held in Iowa yesterday.  Trump won the republican caucus, maybe that wasn't legitimate  - 555 

[Skallywag]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If Buttigieg can make a good showing in South Carolina he has a chance. Being gay works against him in the black community and his record as Mayor in South Bend is not favorable for that demographic. 

 

I am guessing Bernie takes down New Hampshire assuming they manage to be able to count the vote. If they don't come up with the other 30% of the Iowa caucus the results are likely to be contested. If any party loves contesting election results it is the dems after all.

True.  Am fine with Bernie, Elizabeth, or even old Joe.  Just hope they pick someone like Pete for their VP 

[Cryingdick]

8 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

This is why you are a Trump supporter.  Believing everything is "great" with few problems in America. 

True for the wealthiest 2-3% who of course are also Republicans. 

Don't forget there was Republican and Democrat caucuses held in Iowa yesterday.  Trump won the republican caucus, maybe that wasn't legitimate  - 555 

 

To say that only the wealthiest 2-3% have a good life in the USA is a grotesque misrepresentation of what the reality is. You think only billionaires have a good life here? If that were the case there would be revolts in the streets. 

 

I mean come on, its not like we live in France.

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Skallywag]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

To say that only the wealthiest 2-3% have a good life in the USA is a grotesque misrepresentation of what the reality is. You think only billionaires have a good life here? If that were the case there would be revolts in the streets. 

 

I was referring more to those better off since Trump took office.  America has been struggling since the turn of the century in my view.  Too many cannot afford health care, higher education, have not increased their saving in the bank.  I know people working for state and local governments who have not had a raise in salary for 10 years or more.  Sure they still have a "good" life in many ways, but think there are many who would be in serious trouble if lost their jobs for a few weeks.  Remember the government shut down 2018-2019 where all the news was about how the 800,000 federal employees cant feed their families or pay their mortgages...and that only lasted 35 days

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Skallywag said:

I was referring more to those better off since Trump took office.  America has been struggling since the turn of the century in my view.  Too many cannot afford health care, higher education, have not increased their saving in the bank.  I know people working for state and local governments who have not had a raise in salary for 10 years or more.  Sure they still have a "good" life in many ways, but think there are many who would be in serious trouble if lost their jobs for a few weeks.  Remember the government shut down 2018-2019 where all the news was about how the 800,000 federal employees cant feed their families or pay their mortgages...and that only lasted 35 days

 

Yeah I remember hearing that people like air traffic controllers were having a hard time on their six figure salaries after a couple of weeks. Then you look at the situation. They have 3 kids, two purebred dogs, a four car garage with 4 cars financed, a motorhome for the two weeks they use it in the summer, a compliment of jet skis to go with it, attached to a 4,500 square foot McMansion on the outskirts of Arlington Virginia.

 

Yet somehow they don't have $400 in a bank account. This is not the government's failure. 

[Skallywag]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Yeah I remember hearing that people like air traffic controllers were having a hard time on their six figure salaries after a couple of weeks. Then you look at the situation. They have 3 kids, two purebred dogs, a four car garage with 4 cars financed, a motorhome for the two weeks they use it in the summer, a compliment of jet skis to go with it, attached to a 4,500 square foot McMansion on the outskirts of Arlington Virginia.

 

Yet somehow they don't have $400 in a bank account. This is not the government's failure. 

Yes, the american dream involves high credit card debt and living far beyond your means.  555

[Cryingdick]

6 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Yes, the american dream involves high credit card debt and living far beyond your means.  555

 

The irony is the people I describe above constantly lecture people who live in a trailer, drive a used car and change their own oil, have a pretty good chunk of land paid off or likely inherited, can afford most hobbies they have and have a 4 wheeler and a few guns or whatever an alumicraft boat, a six figure job at the mine well or plant, and are getting awfully sick and tired of hearing about how terrible things are.

[rabas]

29 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Yes, the american dream involves high credit card debt and living far beyond your means.  555

With all due respect, that has nothing to do with the American dream.

 

Maybe the American marketing association's dream. But the American dream is not about becoming fat and lazy.

Edited February 5, 2020 by rabas

[howbri]

Voting for these incompetent fools to run the country? INSANITY.

[BestB]

With a bit of luck they might find a way to blame the Russians or Iranians or Chinese and spend the next 2-4 years investigating, of course will also include Trump in investigation to make it more genuine ????

[TKDfella]

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Incomes up. Market up. Plenty of jobs. Relative peace. Indeed, these are the issues voters vote on. I believe this is an area in which many Democrats make errors. Right, wrong or indifferent, the only people who are going to care about the Senate trial not having additional witnesses are people who were never going to vote for Trump in the first place.

 

But back to the caucus: this fiasco certainly doesn't enhance Democrats' prospects for this year's election. Showing such incompetence (at best, it's incompetence) right out the gate will have people's radar up watching for other missteps and shenanigans.

Well, certainly I got confused. I looked at a Dems backed news channel and they were saying that Bernie Sanders was not a Dem. Party first choice, then praising him as a front runner. After the 'witnesses' problem etc. at the impeachment and then this (and Brexit farce too) I have made a decision...a belated resolution if you like...this year don't even think politics. Stay with the Dark Matter and Dark Energy mysteries of the universe...they are much simpler, Ha!????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Time to revert back to paper and pencil.  No chance of electronic intrusions or any other electronic meddling or tampering.  What's so difficult about it?  Brexit votes were on paper and they had no problem counting the votes.

At last something we agree on.

[Tug]

Epic snafu lol but it will get better sorry trump supporters the sky isent falling lol I don’t think Iowa needs to be first in 2024 lol

[Saint Nick]

If the Democrats choose Major Pete, it will be one more evidence, that the USA has lost their mind!

Completely!

[IAMHERE]

I am not comfortable in Iowa being a bell whether state anylonger. Corruption in the midwest seems possible after all.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

The crux of the story:

 

"The uncertainty enraged Iowa Democrats worried that it would only strengthen Trump's bid for re-election and prompted some Democratic candidates' campaigns to question whether the results would be legitimate."

 

Of course people are going to question the legitimacy of the results. The DNC robbed Bernie of the 2016 nomination. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned over that fiasco. And now we have Hillary operatives introducing some app into this year's primary, starting in Iowa.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-04/clinton-campaign-vets-behind-2020-iowa-caucus-app-snafu

 

It is extremely difficult to not suspect shenanigans, given this information on Hillary operatives being involved with this process.

 

So yes, of course observant Americans are going to question the legitimacy of the Democrat primary process. And it must be noted that this entire fiasco lies 100% at the feet of the Democrat party. Putin, Trump, Russia et al have nothing to do with it. Hopefully, the DNC will at least own it.

 

EDIT: Of course, a debate on this story and issue will not be complete without competence being part of it. A party that can't even get a simple caucus done in a small state without bungling it can somehow fix America and its perceived problems? I say absolutely not.

 

No, no, no. The Democrats, and all left liberal political parties are worthy, honest, selfless servants of humanity. Their only interest is to serve and create wonderful fair communities where the state takes care of everything for you, including how to think.

 

A certain often confused and amused poster would have everyone believe that.