AP will NOT call a Democratic Winner in Iowa
due to the fuckedupness of the process of the votes….
The Iowa Democratic Party seems to NOT want to do a recanvass as the DNC has requested….
This SHOULD negate Sanders OR Buttigieg from an actual win and Claiming such….
The problems should make the whole caucus irrelevant ….
And?
Delegates are actually picked much later on….
The Associated Press said Thursday that it is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses.
With 97% of precincts reporting from Monday’s caucuses, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by three state delegate equivalents out of 2,098 counted. That is a margin of 0.14 percentage points.
However, even as the Iowa Democratic Party’s effort to complete its tabulation of the caucus results continues, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Thursday asked the Iowa Democratic Party to conduct a recanvass. That is not a recount, but rather a check of the vote count to ensure the results were added correctly.
Perez sought the recanvass following days of uncertainty about the results reported by the Iowa Democratic Party, which includes technology problems with the mobile phone app used by the party to collect results from caucus sites, an overwhelming number of calls to the party’s backup phone system and a subsequent delay of several days of reporting the results.
The Iowa Democratic Party suggested it may not comply with Perez’s request, issuing a statement that said it would conduct a recanvass if one was requested by one of the candidates.
Further, the party has yet to report results from some satellite caucus sites, from which there are still an unknown number of state delegate equivalents to be won….
…
“With 100% of precincts reported, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are in a near tie in state delegates in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses,” the Des Moines Registerreports.
“The complete results show Buttigieg with 26.198% of delegate equivalents and Bernie Sanders with 26.128%.”
“The head of the national Democratic Party has already demanded the results be recanvassed. That demand, plus potential errors in the count, mean that the results may not be final and will likely be disputed.”
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538
Honestly Iowa should be the very last state to vote from now on.
It’s really incredible that here in 2020 we somehow feel that two very unrepresentative states like Iowa and New Hampshire must lead off the campaigns every four years.
Exactly. Wisconsin, Arizona, Missouri, Georgia, etc
Any number of medium sized states would be better representative of the US than these two mostly white, mostly rural, and quirky states.
It seems to me that states should take turns to determine which ones go first.
Truthfully, I’m not a big fan at looking at racial composition one way or the other to determine which states go first. In the long term, we need to look at all people as people and not based on their racial heritage – even though I realize that Scott’s and Jack’s intentions are good.
I would like to see Democrats win in purple states. Perhaps the states whose vote most closely matched the national results should go first, and the order switches every four years based on that. So in other words if the Democratic winner in the last election won 52% of the vote, then the state that came closest to 52% in the last election. should go first.
CG could then forcefully argue afterwards it actually means 51.5%.
Fifty-one & a half percent of a loaf is better than none.
Eyeballing my World Almanac (2019; of course before this year’s Census), I find it hard to find a state that is (1) politically purplish, (2) ethnically representative and (3) small in area &/or population.
¶ New Jersey, for example, is small in area, densely populated, and roughly similar to the U.S. ethnic balance (mean, that is, when we really want the median). However she is prohibitively expensive to campaign in statewide by herself, because the state is split between the very costly New York City and Philadelphia media markets (where most of audience you pay for is not even in the N.J. electorate).
And, although she was once a classic belwether or swing state tending slightly towards the GOP, New Jersey has been reliably Democratic in Pres, elections since 1990. [Wilson’12, Hughes, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover’28, FDR x 4, Dewey’48, Ike x 2, JFK, LBJ, Nixon x 2, Ford, Reagan x 2, Bush’88, W. Clinton x 2, Gore, Kerry, Obama x 2, H. Clinton.]
¶ and there aren’t that many swing states left in Presidential politics: the ones that switched from one Electoral column to the other from 1990 to 2015 are (I reckon) N.H., Iowa, N.M., Ohio, Ind., Nev., Colo., Va, N.C. & Fla. Add, since 2015, Trump’s takeover of Pa, Mich. & Wisc. [The next target of Trump and Kellyanne Conway in 2016 was, of all places, Minnesota, which last voted for a Republican pres. candidate in Nixon’s landslide of 1972.] New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada are already in the early Democratic nomination process; most of the others are too big for convenient face-to-face encounters.
Purple states include PA, MI and WI, NC, FL – all reasonably diverse
But none of those is a relatively small or compact state like New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada or even South Carolina.
Hard for a worthy but underfunded campaign like Amy Klobuchar’s or (until recently) Pete Buttigieg’s to work face to face without huge ad buys.
I don’t share your opinion that it needs to be a small state. Small states already get more than their fair share of benefits by having two senators. So people in PA will only get to see each candidate once instead of three times!
As someone who’s lived in both California and Rhode Island, Zreebs, I can tell you that the difference is vast.
There’s a difference between seeing Candidate X when he or she is making one stop in Oakland en route from Sacramento to Stockton, Los Angeles and San Diego, and catching him or her between different neighborhoods in Providence and Pawtucket.
Big correction to my last section above: I wrote of states switching parties between 1990 & 2015, when I should have written between 2002 & 2015.
The Iowa Democratic Party is extending the deadline for presidential campaigns to request a recanvass of caucus results amid concerns about inconsistencies and errors in the tally.
In a statement issued on Friday, the party said that it would delay a Friday deadline to request a recanvass, giving the campaigns until noon on Monday to do so.
The party also said that it is providing the campaigns with the chance to submit documentary evidence of any discrepancies in the results….
More…