Reason Roundup

Dems Want to Run the Country, but They Can't Even Run an Election in Iowa

Plus: What is the Shadow app? And are the Iowa caucuses dead?


No one knows which Democrat took top place in Iowa due to flawed new systems implemented by state party officials for the presidential caucuses yesterday. In addition to instituting complicated new caucus rules, Iowa Democrats also had precincts report final results using a new app that no one could figure out.

Making matters weirder, Pete Buttigieg went ahead and declared victory anyway.

Supporters of other Democratic candidates have been accusing the South Bend, Indiana mayor of trickery#MayorCheat is currently trending on Twitterafter it was reported that Buttigieg had made payments to Shadow, the company behind the broken app.

Shadow was launched by progressive organization ACRONYM, and has worked with multiple campaigns (including Joe Biden's). In announcing Shadow last year, founder and CEO Tara McGowan complained about how 2016 election tech got buzz but with "little attention or resources paid to how these tools would be integrated." She promised Shadow would be different.

"With Shadow, we're building a new model," McGowan tweeted in 2019, stressing the company's "deep focus on" helping Democrats "use the most effective new tools in smarter ways."

That hasn't gone so hot, judging by the ruckus out of Iowa. As of this morning, Buttigieg's statement suggesting he won still stood while Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D–Mass.) campaign was claiming she's in a three-way tie for winner Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). Many are predicting this is the end of the Iowa caucuses' importance as a bellwether for campaigns.

"It's dead. The campaigns gave them millions of dollars. It's dead," an unnamed Democratic campaign adviser told Hunter Walker, YahooNews' White House correspondent. 

Iowa Democrats had promised a better, more efficient tallying of voter results via Shadow. Instead, it's turned into a prime case of technocratic progressive promises that don't deliver.

Plenty of people reported concerns about the app before voting opened in Iowa on Monday.

According to NPR reporter Miles Parks, Iowa precinct leaders had their doubts. "One caucus organizer told me that of the 57 precincts he was overseeing, 'about 20' were having some sort of issue with the app before caucusing even began," Parks tweeted early this morning.

"The caucus workers will use the app on their personal smartphones, which [University of Iowa computer science professor Douglas] Jones said could be vulnerable," cautioned The Wall Street Journal on January 26.

Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price told the paper then: "We are confident in the security systems we have in place."

To be clear, security concerns don't seem to be the issue; officials aren't suggesting the app was tampered with, nor that any underlying voting data was compromised.

If it comes down to it, Iowa caucus officials can manually count and then verbally report voting results (which some are now doing). And state leaders can trace everything and double-check their math if need be. It just takes a lot longer, hence the delay on knowing who really won in Iowa.

Overall, issues seem to be mainly of the mundane user-error and bad-bureaucratic-planning variety.

Still, this hasn't stopped conspiracy theories about Buttigieg, Russians, and other alleged app-sabotaging culprits from popping up.

Amusingly, a lot of powerful Democrats have been scrambling to blame this on anyone but their own side. For instance, Andrew Yang chalked it up, in part, to a lack of technological prowess by the president.

Julián Castro called it a failure of some amorphous system to protect democracy:

The whole mess has created room for not only more intra-Democratic mudslinging but also accusations by Republicans that their opponents' electoral process is rigged.

For his part, President Donald Trump chalked it up to ineptitude:

On the other side of the political spectrum, left-leaning Democrats are sounding just like Republicans, pointing fingers at their party's establishment and arguing over whether bias or merely bad decisions are at play.

What all but the most partisan Democrats seem to agree is that the most moderate and charitable interpretation here is gross incompetence.

This morning, the Iowa Democratic Party said in a statement that "while the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data. We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system." It said the "plan is to release results as soon as possible today."


NEXT: China’s Coronavirus Censorship Hurts Public Health

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No one knows which Democrat took top place in Iowa due to flawed new systems implemented by state party officials for the presidential caucuses yesterday.

    So many checks aren't being written today.

    1. Thanks to European interference in our elections they are cheques.

      1. At least it wasn't the Czechs.

        1. They make a good pilsner and have some very hot women.

          1. this. their tennis team is supermodels w/racquets.

          2. Also pretty solid guns.

          3. I was in Prague and all of them are plain Janes. Got to Kyiv and what a difference. Ukraine has the hottest women. As the Beatles have said in the song "Back in the USSR" "...those Ukraine girls really knock me out."

            1. German ancestry made those women HOT HOT HOT!

            2. Most beautiful women in the world are in Hungary & Iran!

          4. They are simply fantastic people!

        2. It was clearly due to Russian interference. There is no doubt.

          1. No, silly Boy, it was the Ukrainians!

    2. I thought Progressives prefer to be paid in social credits?

    3. "Shadow was launched by progressive organization ACRONYM, and has worked with multiple campaigns (including Joe Biden's)."


      1. What does ACRONYM stand for?

        1. Just remove the first and last letters.

          1. *golf clap*

  2. #MayorCheat is currently trending on Twitter

    Remember when all you had to do was buy superdelegates? Technology ruins everything.

    1. The thing ENB didnt mention wss that during the delay Pete was finding every minority he could to place behind him on camera. It was pretty fucking hilarious as 1 by 1 minorities jumped onto the dais slowly. Think he ended up w 6. This is the guy polling at 0% of the black vote.

      1. The ginormous elephant in the leftie room that nobody wants to talk about is that black Americans REALLY don’t like homos.

        This also explains most of the reason why Cory Booker got no support. He may be closeted, but...,. they know.

        1. Democrats wont talk about it but many Black Americans are very religious and value strong gender traits. Men are men and Black Women are STRONG BLACK WOMEN.

          Having a gay man or women be President, might not be appealing.

          1. Turns out that all that comparing the plight of gay men to slavery had a cost. Who knew?

        2. Corey Booker may be closeted.

          Donald Trump definitely bangs his daughter.

          Who cares?

          1. Who wouldn't bang his daughter?

            1. Corey Booker, Mayor Pete...

          2. "Corey Booker may be closeted.
            Donald Trump definitely bangs his daughter.
            Who cares?"

            It is very weird that you are making this comment directly to a guy who just got through saying black Americans care. Maybe that was too nuanced. Let me try again.
            Q: Who cares?
            A: Black Americans care.

          3. What a Christian thing to say, Reverend.

            Jesus would be so proud of you.

            1. The Reverend was thinking of the Old Testament tale of Lot and his daughters. Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt when she looked back to see Sodom and Gamorah being nuked. Since Lot could have no more offspring with a salt creature, his daughters stepped up to get it done.
              As the Reverend knows, the story sees this as a good thing rather than exactly the sort of stuff that supposedly led those wicked cities to get nuked from orbit.

              1. They got him drunk and had non-consensual sex with him!
                You know what they call that on college campuses?
                And in media?
                And on the job?


                If it's a woman?

          4. Makes no difference at all, wall street globalists run the show, have been for over a century. US politics are like US professional wrestling, choreographed, orchestrated theatrics for the gullible masses. With his reality (phony) show experience, Trump the chump certainly is a good best fit for this cherade.

        3. Its one of the reasons that Illinois, despite being a fairly progressive state, was one of the last to pass a marriage equality law (prior to Obergefell) Its because the Chicago Democratic Black Caucus blocked it for so long

          1. Yeah same with MD, a lot of back door talks with the black preachers to either get them on board or at the least not to be openly opposed in order to pass gay marriage legislation. And if I remember correctly, it still just barely passed.

          2. Its one of the reasons that California, despite being an out and out People's Republic, never passed a marriage equality law.

            The issue was taken up by the courts after the People resoundingly rejected gay marriage when they went to vote for Obama.

            And then they showed them nig.….proud African Americans the error of their ways.

            1. Recall that Obama was on the records as being opposed to SSM, so long as his constituency was limited to Chicago and later IL as a whole. His "evolution" on the subject didn't happen until his voter base became national, and polls shifted on the subject as well. Principles and moral convictions, y'know.

            2. the People resoundingly rejected gay marriage when they went to vote for Obama

              I'm not sure 52-48 really counts as "resoundingly rejected," and it would be hard to argue that the 6.5% of the state's population that is black was the decisive factor.

              1. Voter Breakdown for Prop 8 in CA
                African-American (10%) Yes - 70% No - 30%


                Black Women (6%) 75% 25%
                Black Men (4%) 62.5% 37.5%

        4. And the elephant's twin is that they hate Jews. Sanders? Bloomberg? Not a chance.

          1. I wonder what they make of phoney Native Americans. I doubt that goes over too well with them, either.

        5. So THAT'S why he's Spartacus! It all makes sense now.

          1. Spartacus was Greek?

            1. Spartacus was Greek?

              Thracian, to be more specific.

              1. Well, Spartabust certainly got Thraced in the polls . . .

            2. That makes it worse - they invented it.

      2. Maybe he was inspired by Al Gore in 2000, whose campaign handed out cartons of Newpies to get blacks to vote for him in Detroit and Milwaukee

        1. Gotta source for that?

      3. Yeah that was pretty blatant.

      4. This is the guy polling at 0% of the black vote.

        This is obviously an exaggeration, but his numbers with them are really bad. The ones I've seen had them at around 50% support for Sanders and Biden (which actually bodes well for Sanders considering that Hillary blew him the fuck out in the southern states, where most of the black population lives), and in the mid-20s for Warren and Buttigieg.

  3. To be clear, security concerns don't seem to be the issue; officials aren't suggesting the app was tampered with, nor that any underlying voting data was compromised.

    We've turned a corner if they no longer see Russians hiding under every bed.

    1. The caucus still isn’t legitimate because Facebook.

    2. Come on Fist, they are talking about themselves. If this happened to republicans they would be howling about the Russians rigging our elections again.

    3. Pretty obviously a ploy by the Chinese to distract attention from the coronavirus thing.

    4. I'm inclined to think this delay is nothing nefarious. Mainly because of what we are not hearing.

      We are not hearing anything about how well (or poorly) the system did during development and testing. Any system this large and complex would have needed a lot of testing involving a lot of people to have any hope of working properly.

      That nobody is talking about what happened during testing says that there was either no real testing, or an insubstantial amount of testing. And either way that means it was destined to crash and burn.

      1. Any system this large and complex

        Uh, it's a mobile app that collects vote tabulations and then uploads that data to a server. The words "large" and "complex" are not apt here.

        1. However, the words grossly incompetent are.

    5. We’ve turned a corner if they no longer see Russians hiding under every bed.

      Give it time. We were assured that the 2016 election hadn't been rigged with before the votes had been cast.

      1. Yang: “It might be helpful to have a President and government that understand technology so this sort of thing doesn’t happen.”

        Like the Donkeys? Obamacare fail! Iowa Caucus fail! And yet this idiot wants his homies to have the nuke codes??

        1. Yang is frequently touted as the smart, real-world-practical one. But he keeps saying stupid shit.

  4. Hahahaha! The cheating Dems screwed their own pooch...

    ...right in the Buttigieg

    1. Damn that's good Const

  5. These conspiracy theories are so nuts.


    1. "The Democratic Party didn't suicide itsel...oh fuck...wait...


      1. Yeah, if that is true, me thinks all these sex accusations are fabrications.

        Not that castrated men cannot have sex but Testosterone is mainly produced in the testicles. Testosterone is the hormone that drives most men to be horn-dogs. Testosterone injections could be a replacement that lead to Weinstein being so sexually active.

        Eunuchs have been around for thousands of years as they were not known for messing with the women of the household.

        1. Castration - either physical or chemical does not guarantee sexual dysfunction. What it does guarantee is sterility.

          It is also quite possible his testicles are simply undescended. Which would tend to reduce his fertility, but not adversely alter his hormone levels.

        2. Trump supporters for Weinstein. You guys truly are just the worst people.

          1. DOL for poor reading comprehension. You truly are just a dumb person.

  6. It might be helpful to have a President and government that understand technology so this sort of thing doesn't happen.


    1. I bet Yang can't explain how the caucus math works.

      1. No one can.

        People who seem able to get epsteined pretty quick.

      2. I bet Yang can’t explain how the caucus math works.

        Hell, he apparently doesn't even know who runs them.

  7. The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is "Trump".

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2020

    Scare quotes for the win.

    1. Good news and bad news:
      Hillary is preparing to pounce. You read it here.

      1. Well you can kiss the Bernie vote goodbye if that happens. They will either vote for Trump or stay home. No way would they forgive her.

        1. I don't know - I know a lot of Bernie supporters who were #NeverHillary right up until Day #1 of the convention. By Day #4 of the convention they were #ForeverHillary.

          1. I believe about 10% of Bernie supporters crossed over to Trump, most of the rest did indeed vote for her.

            Which tells you that they were perfectly fine with Hillary screwing their guy over. They'll be fine with it this time, too.

  8. Ex-CIA Engineer Set to Go on Trial for Massive Leak

    You have CIA agents like Eric Ciaramella and CIA agents like Joshua Schulte.

    1. The CIA could fuck up a pot of coffee. Would be nice if we had a legitimate espionage agency, instead of that clusterfuck in Langley.

      1. Maybe there is one, and they are so good you have never even heard of them. And the CIA is just a deliberate distraction.

        1. +1 black helicopter

          1. "Black Helicopter". My nickname in college.

            1. ie., "spinner".

      2. We have the NSA.

        They periodically get in trouble for being evil, but rarely for being incompetent.

      3. We have 17 intelligence operations, each one seems to be set up because the prior one couldn't be trusted.

  9. It appears that "user error" is mostly to blame which indicates the state party didn't deploy it properly with training etc.

    When in doubt, blame the boots on the ground.

    1. I think they call that delegation.

    2. It's that or blame voters.

      1. It is a non-coastal state filled with "Deplorables".

        1. 42nd in the nation in advanced degrees!

          As white as it gets these days.

          A clinger paradise.

          1. Only the left considers Victim Studies degrees as advanced.

            1. Jesse, you must know that most scientists are atheist or non religious and donate much more to Democrats than to Republicans.

              Don't be disingenuous. If you want to be a republican, whatever that means now (whatever Trump said last on the topic), then fine. But you must know that you are among the religious nuts, the anti science kooks, the racists, and the under educated.

              1. Yea, those horrible anti-science Republicans claiming that a baby in the womb is actually a living person.

              2. ""But you must know that you are among the religious nuts, the anti science kooks, the racists, and the under educated.""

                Guilt by association if a fallacy.

              3. Jesse, you must know that most social scientists are atheist or non religious and donate much more to Democrats than to Republicans.

                There, fixed that for you.

              4. Sure, academic scientists lean left, engineers lean right, but the arts and humanities are all die-hard comrades.

              5. Haaahaha! Rev. Lite, eh?
                Have you *seen* what happens to scientists whose research findings are viewed as counter-narrative? It's pretty ugly. Hysterical progbots loudly consign them to the company of "religious nuts, the anti science kooks, the racists, and the under educated."

                Meanwhile social sciences (the "soft" or "bullshit" sciences) are having a crisis of replicability, with constant scandals of data selection, P-hacking and outright sloppiness and fraud. But hey, there's no political gatekeeping among the grant-money-doling-out institutions.

                Making it ironic at best (and vile lies at worst) that the "we're the fact-based party" types, the ones who seem to believe that "assertion=evidence, for high enough values of 'assertion'", continue to delude themselves.

                Fuck off.

          2. "42nd in the nation in advanced degrees!"

            So you're saying their household debt is very low?

          3. If you're going to claim sour grapes, at least try to do so with something other than your usual NPC bot responses.

          4. Keep on hating, Rev.

            You are boring, and an asshole.

            1. It keeps him warm at night.

      2. ""It’s that or blame voters.""

        Iowa is no Broward County.

    3. It appears that "user error" is mostly to blame

      Sounds just like my IT department

  10. Leave it up to the Democrats and their stupid three tier fucking bullshit voting and broke ass app to fuck it all up. Oh well, goodbye Iowa caucuses. I grew up in Iowa and participated in many caucuses, and used to defend the “first in the nation” status, but for the last 20 years it’s been a race to see which candidate can suck the ethanol dick harder.

    1. If ethanol came out of dicks, we might get more BJs.

      1. So I guess that would be before it's denatured.

    2. It's a true shame. The party bosses and big money have been trying to eliminate caucuses altogether for decades. Which also means eliminating the only possible way a party can organize itself from the bottom-up rather than the top-down

      Colorado eliminated caucuses in Nov 2016. Yet another example of stupid people from CA moving elsewhere and, with the assistance of big money, getting rid of whatever looks unlike the crap they were used to in CA.

      Hope Iowa can hang on - but this clusterfuck looks like (or will be painted as) a caucus killer even though the caucus itself clearly worked.

      1. On edit: Nevada also paid this company to use their app for their caucus reporting in a couple weeks. That's the only significant caucus left so looks like big money and top-down incompetence has effectively killed off the only alternative to big money and top-down incompetence

        1. There's definitely a party line being pushed here that caucuses are obselete and undemocratic--NPR had a bit on yesterday that had someone claim she'd seen people decide to support a candidate because the lead caucus delegate brought in cookies.

          Hillary and Pete somehow winning every coin flip for delegates was an even more blatant means of undermining the concept.

    3. The ethanol thing should be done with. Cruz told them it was a silly thing, and he still won Iowa.

  11. Hannity’s interview was watched by 10.3 million viewers total when it aired in the hours before the big game, with a whopping 4.2 million alone in the 25-54 demographic.

    Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s 2017 interview with Trump drew 12.2 million total viewers, while O’Reilly’s sit down with President Barack Obama nabbed 17.3 million viewers.

    Obama’s first pre-Super Bowl interview, with NBC in 2009, drew a massive 22 million viewers. In fact, each one of Obama’s game day interviews had more viewers than Trump’s this year.

    To be fair, it's like comparing Racists to Chocolate Jesus'.

    Meanwhile, the actual game scored 102 million viewers.

    1. up against the Puppy Bowl

    2. Meanwhile Shakira and J Lo got all the attention for halftime, but the dancers with Pitbull during the pregame were also worth checking out.

      1. Props to the ladies for holding up so well but it's hard to get excited about 2 post-menopausal women shaking their booties.

        1. You'll get old some day too.

          1. Still gonna get more aroused by young women.
            Or so I've been told. :sheepish emoji:

  12. Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price told the paper then: "We are confident in the security systems we have in place."

    How about job security?

  13. The biggest problem with the Iowa caucus is the timing. The winner of the Iowa caucus gets a big stump speech on national television the next morning and everybody nationally starts paying attention to him or her. That's how Obama became the nominee. It's an incredibly important moment on the election calendar.

    Blowing that opportunity is even worse this year because no one will be talking about Iowa tonight or tomorrow. Tonight they'll be talking about President Trump's state of the union speech--through tomorrow morning. Tomorrow, they'll be talking about the impeachment vote on Wednesday. By the time they announce the winner of the Iowa caucuses, it'll be old news.

    Meanwhile, it also blows the opportunity for the collective will of registered Democrats everywhere to settle on one candidate. They'll be just as split going into New Hampshire as they were going into Iowa--increasing the chance of disputed convention. If you think things are bad now, wait 'til the superdelegates make the difference in who wins the nomination . . .

    If they'd stayed up all night trying to think of a better way to screw up the campaign, no matter who wins the nomination, they couldn't have come up with anything better than screwing up the timing of reporting the Iowa caucus results.

    It must have been Trump and the Ukrainians out to get Biden!

    1. Like the man [Napolean] said, "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."

      At this rate Trump really should just shut down his twitter account.

      1. He's a unifying force. He's a common enemy.

        If he's smart tonight, he won't even bring up the impeachment.

        He'll talk about what a great job he's done on the economy. He'll talk about USMCA.

        It reminds me of the time he debated Hillary when the story on "pussy grabbing" had broken the night before. It takes an arrogant asshole to perform well under those circumstances, and he kicked Hillary's ass that night. That's what he should do tonight--turn the night before a vote on whether to remove him from office into a speech about why he should be reelected.

        We have Democrats openly advocating authoritarian socialism. I fundamentally disagree President Trump on a number of issues, but the truth of the matter is that America is in a place right now where what we really need is an arrogant asshole. He doesn't need to right about everything, but he needs to be right about enough things--and be the kind of arrogant asshole who can look the progressives and their sycophants in the news media in the eye and laugh in their faces.

        1. ^^^^^^^

        2. This was explained thoroughly in Team America.

          1. Its really the best explanation of leadership/politics that's ever been done.

        3. I just flag you now because you're a lying piece of shit.

  14. "Dems Want to Run the Country, but They Can't Even Run an Election in Iowa"

    I don't know if I like this framing. I'd rather go with "Dems may have mishandled Iowa, but Drumpf ruined the greatest economy ever, which he inherited from Obama."


  15. Why liberal white women pay a lot of money to learn over dinner how they're racist

    Nothing like one race of people telling another race of people how bad they are in comparison.

    1. Do these same women seek out abusive boyfriends and husbands?

      1. Asking for a friend

      2. don't they all?

        1. If a woman can't complain what is it all for?

      3. If only. No, instead they'll seek out pretty much any male to accuse of raping them.

    2. “But wealthy white women have been taught never to leave the dinner table.”

      This really isn't a joke, like The Onion or Babylon Bee, is it?

      1. Evidently 100% real.

    3. This is almost impossible to believe. Surreal.

    4. To be fair, this lady sounds like a racist:

      “Recently, I have been driving around, seeing a black person, and having an assumption that they are up to no good,” says Alison Gubser.

      1. and it only cost her $2500 to find out!

        1. Yeah - $2,500 a pop to call white ladies racist?

          Nice work if you can get it.

          1. Hell, for $100 I'll come to dinner and go full Don Rickles on you.

    5. Only liberal white women would pay $2500 to attend their own struggle session.

      1. Have to admit, while the logic of the concept is infinitely retarded, the grift is absolutely brilliant. There's no one who loves getting verbally abused by peeoohhseeees more than white female lefties.

    6. It might be worth it to have Regina Jackson and Saira Rao over and when they start with the white racism insults start by hurling your drinks in their faces. The whole party ends in a massive pie fight.

    7. White people are terrible. E’rebody know dat!

    1. Take me down to a Paradise City where the grass is green and the girls are pretty!

    2. First sentence:
      "Locals in Oahu know that the best way to get from Waikiki’s crowded beaches to the cool North Shore is to drive along the island’s eastern coast."

      No local drives to the North Shore this way.

    3. Who's on First.

    1. first you get the money ...

      1. Say hello to my little friend!

  16. Trump reinvented tariffs and it worked

    Poor Boehm. A Trump precedent that can never be erased.

    1. That article pretty much sums up the right's view of trade as some Nationalistic battle to be won.

      And here I thought individuals traded...

      1. Wwl yeah, we already knew you were an idiot.

      2. " The same corporations that adorn themselves in rainbow flags; virtue signal about their commitment to the environment, equality, and human rights; and can’t wait to tell you how inclusive they are on their hiring page had zero concern exporting their manufacturing to a country that spits in the face of all of these causes and is the world’s worst polluter to boot."

        Leo reads that and sees what he wants to see.

        1. Look the right is making arguments that used to come from the left! The government is the only one who can make decisions for the rest of us on how we run our businesses or with whom we trade.

          1. LOL, sure Leo, that's what it's all about.

            1. Wasn't one of Trump's many stated goals to bring manufacturing jobs back home? You don't think he's trying to influence businesses?

      3. The vast majority of trade is corporation to corporation. So no, what you thought was wrong. Likewise every time a good passes a border conditions are imposed. This is reality. Stop using models of simplistic assumptions that don't exist anywhere. Retaliatory tariffs were extremely common until the 1950s and are actually prescribed by even simplistic game theory as a necessity.

        1. So no, what you thought was wrong.

          My understanding is that 'Individual Trade' is still pretty unfettered with regard to tariffs. If you drive to Mexico and buy 2 tons of steel that used to be a classic car and drive it back to your garage in California or Nevada, you don't pay for the steel you brought into this country. Convert it to a car and sell it, even back to Mexico, you don't pay any tariffs for the car manufacturing business you just conducted.

          When your garage is moving a handful of car carriers per week, then you might have issues.

        2. Even if your argument were correct that corporations do the majority of trade (nevermind that they're are ultimately manufacturing for individual consumption), why shape the narrative as if countries trade? That's exactly what this article, and Trump supporters do. It's anti-individualism, anti-capitalism, and simply a lie.

          actually prescribed by even simplistic game theory as a necessity.

          Thanks for proving my point. "That article pretty much sums up the right’s view of trade as some Nationalistic battle to be won."

    2. Pundits disparaged them as economically illiterate, and the same class of expert that predicted Trump will lay waste to the economy claimed these tariffs would usher in recession and global malaise.

      I remember when Trump was campaigning on 4% growth in GDP as being easy to accomplish. Well he hasn't accomplished that. Maybe the government sucking billions of dollars out of the economy through tariffs are just as anti-growth as sucking them out through payroll or corporate taxes?

      1. Or maybe you're just an idiot.

        1. A well thought out argument as usual!

  17. Tech firm started by Clinton campaign veterans is linked to Iowa caucus reporting debacle

    HAHA. More evidence that the Democrat Party is falling apart.

    1. That actually raises a bunch of questions. Like, was it actually user error or is the DNC using this to buy time so they can tip the scales a bit... Any time you see companies connected to politicians mixed up in a scandal, start getting paranoid. I'm really interested to see what the number of voters were, and if they were lower or higher than normal.

      1. Reporting I am seeing say they were down and Biden is a distant 4th or 5th place. You know Biden is doing bad because he campaign started to try downplaying expectations fairly early in the evening. What was the weather like in Iowa? Because if voting turnout for the caucuses was down, I am sure the Dems and MSM will play the weather angle.

        1. They'll use every excuse under the sun, still can't get over Schiff trying to claim that Trump would SELL Alaska. I've seen a few newspapers already raise the idea of "If we Democrats lose the election, here's why".

          1. Trump would never sell Alaska without first buying Greenland.

          2. Hell, the "fact-based party" has their media operatives doing such glaringly obvious bullshit things as "Imagine this: Trump decides to..." followed by a wholly imaginary scenario concluding with "THAT'S the kind of thing Trump might do."

            (not gonna go find the clip, but it was a shockingly lame "news" segment, and I've seen a lot of lame. The specific one I saw recently involved Trump throwing out all of California's votes or some shite.)

        2. Biden is done. The people of Iowa considered the issues with him, namely corruption and potential influence peddling, and decided he was not the first choice nominee. That is fatal for a former VP.

          Super Tuesday is what matters.

        3. The weather was fine in Iowa. ~32 degrees out and clear. No inclement weather and just coming out of a thaw so all streets are clear. Also, so glad to no longer hide from pollsters knocking on my door. I did chase away a Bernie Bro who stopped at my door- I called him an evil communist and to get off my property - now! On the bright side, in four years I hopefully won't have to put up with pandering politicians.

      2. Yep. I predict Trump will mention this tonight.

      3. Reporting prior to the caucus was all 'prepping for huge turnout' while day of had switched to 'on track to reach 2016 turnout'. Given 2016 had a grand total of 2 candidates running, one of whom was practically coronated before the primary even started, this is a bit like celebrating the 'increase' in chocolate rations.

        My guess is that the final numbers will be somewhere between those for Obama's reelection and those for 2016, which would indicate lack of enthusiasm for any of the contenders and ambivalence about getting rid of Trump.

      4. ""That actually raises a bunch of questions. Like, was it actually user error or is the DNC using this to buy time so they can tip the scales a bit…""

        Or how did Hillary win Iowa?

  18. Oh, and if Biden did poorly in Iowa, it's almost certainly because of his association with the impeachment.

    There isn't anything about the revelations of Biden's behavior in regards to shutting down a corruption investigation into his son that makes average people want him to be president.

    We argue so much about what the FBI should be or shouldn't be investigating and whether the House should impeach, whether the Senate should remove President Trump from office, etc. Just like with removing Trump from office, the ultimate jury isn't in the Senate, and the question of whether Biden should be held accountable for what he did for his son doesn't ultimately rest with the FBI either.

    Ultimately, Trump will be held accountable to the voters. The senate didn't remove Trump from power because not enough voters would tolerate senators who voted to remove him. Ultimately, Biden will be held accountable--maybe by the registered Democrats in the Iowa caucuses, who refuse to coronate the elitists' choice for president because what he did for his son in Ukraine doesn't pass the smell test.

    1. Shut the fuck up you lying piece of shit.

      1. What is he lying about?

  19. If this Iowa thing is more than a 1-day story, it will prove the media is biased in favor of Drumpf like in 2016. I still remember how absurdly they overplayed Hillary Clinton's minor fainting incident. It's like any minor issue with Democrats becomes the dominant story for weeks at a time.

    1. Okay, this one is good. And it will probably be stolen by the MSM.

    2. Superbowl.
      Iowa results
      Trump's State of the Union
      Impeachment vote

      The impeachment vote will take place at least three news cycles after the outcome was decided. It will be about as exciting as reporting on the outcome of the World Series from three years ago.

      When the Iowa caucus results are reported, if it isn't three news cycles old by then, it'll be overshadowed by the drama of Trump's state of the union address the day before an impeachment vote anyway.

      I understand the appearance of a conspiracy. It's hard to believe this stuff happens by accident. But nobody plans to screw the pooch. It just somehow works out that way.

      1. You're lying trash.

        1. Please point out the lie?

        2. You are boring, and an asshole.

      2. You haven’t seen these pooches walking around here askin for it

    3. OBL you are back on your game, good job.

    4. It was particularly galling how the media spiked voter turn out for Hillary by constantly reassuring us how she was going to win in a landslide.

  20. Hey Beavis, Pete's last name is "Butt." Hehe. Hehe. Hehehehehe.

    1. It's Booty Judge.

  21. It's obviously the fault of those darn bumpkins in flyover country! Those blasted bitter clingers! Those deplorables! Those racists! Those homophobes! Those...

    (, dude, those are Democrat Party voters)

    1. Are you channeling the Rev, because he did post something almost word for word like that already today.

  22. Who knows for sure with that total clusterfuck last night, but if the limited amount of information that has come out is at all accurate, Biden the “front runner” is probably fucked.

    It probably shouldn’t be a surprise. America knew decades ago that he’s a total buffoon, and now America is coming to realize that he’s going senile, and thanks to his worthless good for nothing cokehead son, America also knows that he’s a corrupt, thieving scumbag.

    1. Biden was always an idiot. The joke about Obama picking him as VP for impeachment insurance was only funny because it had a nugget of truth to it.

      I never worried about Biden winning the Presidency even before all this stuff about his son came out. In 2016 Biden was like the backup quarterback for a losing football team. The most popular player on any losing team is the backup quarterback. Since he doesn't play, fans project all of their hopes onto him. Meanwhile the starter gets no love because the team is losing and they see every game how bad he is. Of course the backup is only popular until he actually gets into the game and everyone remembers how bad he is.

      Biden is the same. He was always a terrible candidate. Democrats just forgot that and pretended he wasn't because Hillary sucked so bad and Biden wasn't campaigning to remind them that he sucks even worse.

      1. Of course the backup is only popular until he actually gets into the game and everyone remembers how bad he is.

        What I'm hearing is that Biden needs to pick Jay Cutler as his running mate.

        1. Will Jay Cutler have a cheesy fake mustache and look a lot like Hillary?

          1. Yeah, keep an eye out for that.

            Somehow, the "Jay Cutler Pantsuit" seems unlikely to become a fashion trend.

  23. "Dems Want to Run the Country..."

    Aim higher. They want to control the climate of the earth. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. They want to control the climate of the earth.

      Nah. They have a solution in search of a problem.

      The solution is total government control over every aspect of human existence.

      The problems have ranged from overpopulation to food shortages to too much food to global cooling to global warming to climate change to.... whatever.

      The solution is always the same.

      1. They want to control the climate of the earth.

        You mean they lied? Say it ain't so!

        1. People control the climate. Control people and you control the climate. Or something.

      2. sarc, best summary ever of lefties.

        1. Watermelons. Green on the outside. Red on the inside.

  24. No one knows which Democrat took top place in Iowa due to flawed new systems implemented by state party officials for the presidential caucuses yesterday.

    Nobody ever said ducking the Russkies was going to be easy.

    1. I saw Ke$ha is on tour. I'm not gonna buy tickets.

      1. Don’t buy them for me too.

        1. What happened to $parky and Ke$ha sitting in a tree, p-i-s-s-i-n-g?

          1. I told you, I’d love to hang out with her but I don’t want to listen to her music.

            1. So drinking buddies.

            2. fair enough

            3. My next concert plan is Glitch Mob. What's yours?

              1. I don’t do concerts.

              2. I am kind of on the fence about KMFDM and Ministry in Boston this July though.

                1. I saw that on my feed. I'll go with you. Front row, guaranteed. Skip the line. I've yet to not be in the front row at that place.

                  1. Just created a throwaway email sarcasmic966atgmail. Drop me a line if you want. Let's have dinner and rock out. Fuck it.

                  2. Maybe not. They want $90 for a floor ticket. $35 for upstairs. I'd pay that.

  25. "...Making matters weirder, Pete Buttigieg went ahead and declared victory anyway..."

    The hag told him it was his turn.

    1. Fuck, I’d declare victory too. No one is going to trust the numbers anyways when they report them.

      The New Hampshire primary is going to look like a cake walked compared to this dumpster fire. Unless they can screw up walking into a voting booth and filling in a ballot, which I am sure they will find a way.

    2. I think he hired Stacy Abrams as his speech writer.

      1. Or Farah Abrams.

  26. Meanwhile the real scandal is how severely Drumpf's abysmal economy is hurting's benefactor Charles Koch.

    Mr. Koch has fallen out of the top 10 richest people on the planet.

    He's currently a pathetic #12.
    He lost $426,000,000 yesterday.
    He's lost $2,840,000,000 this year.


  27. Democrats - fuck up the Iowa caucuses.
    Also Democrats - "Why would Trump do this?"

  28. I don't know any more about the government of Brazil than what I read about him in the news, which means I don't trust a lot of what I read. I'm looking at this new policy the government there is pushing to address deforestation in the Amazon, however, and the policy seems too good to be true: They're addressing the tragedy of the commons with privatization.

    "Because he expanded into land he doesn’t own, he can’t use it as collateral for a loan to buy equipment and fertilizer, nor can he tap the expertise of a government agronomist. The upshot is that he uses more land to raise each cow than do legal farmers in the breadbasket of southern Brazil.

    It may sound counterintuitive, but Brazilian authorities think giving Mr. Pacheco a deed to the land he farms might curtail deforestation. The idea is it could help him become a more efficient farmer, able to produce more on less land, and also make him hesitate to just walk away from depleted pastures and carve new ones. In short, it might discourage him and squatters like him from cutting ever deeper into the jungle.

    The administration of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro wants to see if he is right. In February, it plans to start handing out deeds to some 300,000 Amazon squatters, with a plan that might help but has raised a howl of disapproval for rewarding bad behavior.

    The problem with the Amazonian rain forest is that nobody really owns it. The libertarian solution to the tragedy of the commons is privatization.

    This won't give "the squatters" a deed to protected forest that hasn't been slashed and burned yet. There is a danger of moral hazard, here, but if the immediate danger is the forest that hasn't been slashed and burned yet . . .

    People have no incentive to farm depleted soil they don't hold title to when they can just take more land whenever they want.

    Meanwhile, that moral hazard cuts both ways. Giving people the deed to the land they clear may entice more people to clear more land so that they'll get title in the distant future, but refusing to give them title to land they've already cleared entices them to slash and burn more land immediately. And the danger of fires getting out of control in the Amazon, like they did last year, is immediate. You want to prevent more slashing and burning right now.

    1. Fuck off you lying piece of garbage.

      1. You are boring, and an asshole.

  29. You go to a can't-keep-up backwater state, you get a can't-keep-up backwater result.

    They can fry an Oreo-stuffed, bacon-wrapped pork chop in Iowa, but you can't expect the people left behind in a stale whitebread state to operate one of these here new-fangled computationater devices.

    Being 42nd in number of advanced degrees has consequences.

    Let's hope this is the final year of the "first primary is Iowa" silliness.

    1. Your contempt for average people is irrational and stupid.

      1. Average people are his superiors. He hates them.

      2. ^this.

        Also, it is boring, and an asshole.

    2. You do realize it was the democrat party people who screwed up while the deplorable republican voters had no problems, who is stupid now.
      The good Rev hating his own people

    3. You should stop eating the food they produce. It has that clinger taste anyway.

    4. "Being 42nd in number of advanced degrees has consequences."

      Yeah, how do you expect anyone to run an election without some doctorates in "Diversity Studies"?

      1. Much of politics is about appealing to people's qualitative preferences, and there isn't anything about owning an advanced degree that makes anyone's qualitative preferences more authoritative than anyone else's.

        1. Eat shit liar.

        2. True, but you would tend to think that persons capable of completing advance degrees might have a leg up at appealing to other people's qualitative preferences.

          But I suppose, like most all forms of sales, it's more a matter of being born not made.

    5. "Being 42nd in number of advanced degrees has consequences."

      It isn't surprising that a rural state is not awash in advanced degrees, as doctorates in transgender folk dance theory are not very useful and are costly to obtain.

      But if you look at performance on standardized tests at the high school level, Iowa does very well in comparison to states with lots of PhDs in folk dance theory.

      But you wouldn't know that because you really aren't informed. Your thinking is just a collection of prejudices and stereotypes.

      1. What's hilarious about Arthur L. Hicklib's limpout is that every student, for decades, underwent the Iowa standardized tests in 3rd grade, 8th grade, and 10th grade as a measurement of basic educational capability. The University of Iowa has one of the leading creative writing programs in the entire country.

        But according to our hyper-compensating, slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded, inbred hicklib, it's his fellow Democrat voters that are the real problem.

    6. All the Democrats in Iowa should probably just move to California.

      Anyway, did this happen at the last Republican caucus?

    7. Fuckin' LOL, god DAMN but are those grapes sour!

      1. Best part was that an app created by Hillary cronies and incompetently deployed by the DNC is somehow the fault of Iowa Democrats.

        You're literally calling your own hicklib brethren retards for Big Blue's mistakes. This couldn't get any better than if an MS-13 gangster beat the shit out of your old white ass.

        1. Don't forget Petey boy paid for a good part of it.

    8. The rev just outed himself as Jerry Nadler, "Oreo-stuffed, bacon-wrapped pork chop"
      gave it away.

    9. If you think Iowa is a backwater, wait until the primaries are held in Chicago.

    10. You go to a can’t-keep-up backwater state, you get a can’t-keep-up backwater result.

      That's odd...the Republican caucus went off without a hitch, in the exact same backwater state. It appears to be only the brilliantly superior Democrats who can't keep up.

      I don't mind that you're a troll...but could you at least put some effort into not being a thoroughly incompetent one?

  30. How does one f up an app that only has to show names and number of votes next to it and why need an app just text the results with paper to follow leave it to those who love government to make something simple complicated.
    Speaking of ing up the state of California is going to require more proof with hunting licenses because of some mass shooter even though the two don't corralate

    1. "How does one f up an app that only has to show names and number of votes next to it..."

      Hold my beer.

    2. Well, a house is mostly a pile of bricks and/or lumber. I know how to build one, but you really wouldn't want me to build yours.

    3. The Ceo of Acronym
      A. Is a girl.
      B. Is a journalist
      C. Is a political consultant.

      1. D. All the above

        1. Gee, who could have predicted that hiring and promoting with "diversity, inclusion and equity" as more important principles than old-fashioned good-at-the-jobbedness would have consequences?

          I mean, obviously not Disney, Google, Theranos, WB, etc....

          1. ps) I think this is a greater threat to American business than China is. We shall see...

    4. You create an app that you can cause to give inconsistent results if the wrong person is winning. Hillary Clinton has her fingerprints all over this.

  31. This Iowa thing is fucking insanity. I don't even know what to think about it. It's so damaging on so many levels. I honestly hope Trump scrapped his entire speech to focus on either this monumental level of ineptitude of this or impeachment. This is completely bananas.

    1. How are there no fucking results yet? WTF. This is incredible.

      1. it takes a while to cheat the new system to eliminate Bernie and install Hillary even though she's not running

        1. The fact they didn't tally the votes and write them down after they knew they had problems with the app in advance tells you everything there is to know about these tards.

        2. It's her turn, It will always be her turn. It's The Turn of the Shrew".

      2. And if they don't talk about the results before we get to the SOTU and the impeachment vote, they won't be talked about by most people.

        There won't be any big bump for any candidate.

        1. It's fucking bananas I've never in my life. There is no chance this doesn't help Sanders more than him just winning. Nobody can watch this and not put an over/under conspiracy to diminish Bernie at <50%. It plays so much into his and his supporters hands going forward that I almost don't understand how this could be a conspiracy.

          1. Best part is Sanders doesn't even need to say anything--it's all coming from his supporters.

            Imagine their heartbreak when he does the J-O-B again.

          2. Same. At this point it reeks of the Dems fucking up trying to make sure the "right" person gets elected

        2. Which is the goal, since the right candidate didn't win, so the dems needed to eliminate the bump.

  32. Wait until the Ds vote on impeachment!
    768 in favor!

  33. To be clear, security concerns don't seem to be the issue; officials aren't suggesting the app was tampered with, nor that any underlying voting data was compromised.

    Perhaps this is the solution to computer security in general: Just fuck up the original data.

  34. DNC hates its voters just as much as the RNC this shit is beautiful.

    1. Badmouthing the good people of Iowa for this (like Kirkland does above) isn't doing the Democrat nominee any favors either.

      This election will be decided by the voters of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--just like the last one was. They went for Trump in 2016 because they thought the left was contemptuous of them, and seeing the left hate on the people of Iowa isn't about to impress the swing vote in those swing states at all.

      1. the "advanced degree" barb doesn't play. feeding the world requires early rising and hard work not school loans and braggadocio.

        1. You can't hate the people you need to vote for you in order to win and reasonably expect to win.

          1. They've been doing it for decades though. They used to be much better at hiding it.

    2. I would say they hate them more. If you take them at their word they think they in and the rest of America are no smarter than sheep or cattle and can't be trusted to even run their lives. Wonder what they say about them when the cameras are off?

      1. It would be like a scene from Veep that was cut out for being too disgusting and unfunny

  35. "We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system."


  36. I think the thing that confuses me most is how delegates are handed out. There was a twitter exchange where one precinct supervisor reported that he had 6 delegates to give out and had the following votes:

    Sanders - 111
    Warren - 82
    Buttigieg - 47

    That's 240 votes. 240/6 should mean that for every 40 votes you get a delegate. But, thru the magic of rounding,

    Sanders - 2 delegates
    Warren - 2 delegates
    Buttigieg - 2 delegates

    Some dodgy shit happening.

    1. Common Core-uption?

      1. HA! Nice!

    2. If there's a contested convention and the nominee is picked by the superdelegates, it's gonna be the most fun people who don't like progressives have had since November 8, 2016.

      1. I'm already having more fun than anyone should at this it's a smoldering crater of incompetence and corruption. I can't get over the fact the name of the fucking software company "responsible" is Shadow and is run by former Clinton staffers. This is so far in bizarro world it's insane.

        1. they couldn't have picked a better name? maybe they should have just named it Kaos after the old get Smart TV show to hide their real intent

          1. "Not 'Craw'! CRAWWWW!!"

            1. A true fan

      2. I can't wait to watch Milwaukee burn

        1. Save the curds and bratwurst!

      3. I'm looking forward to it. DNC won't accept Bernie Sanders as its pick, and the Bernie Bros won't accept anyone that isn't him. Even some Dems who aren't hardcore Sanders supporters are going to be turned off if it becomes clear that the DNC did a repeat of last year and put their finger on the scales. I have a feeling the Bernie supporters are gonna get the Girondin and Trotskyist treatment when the Dems lose.

    3. Well I really hope Biden is declared winner. Internet will explode:)

      1. I expect Biden to do poorly myself--because of the allegations about him that got a public airing in regards to the impeachment.

        Hearing that this company is run by former Clinton staffers (from Idle Hands above) is interesting. If Biden does well, we may see Bernie supporters echo all the conspiracy allegations against Clinton that we saw leveled against Comey on her behalf in regards to the 2016 election.

        Also, remember the stories about how the Clinton campaign had colonized the DNC and used the position to hurt the Sanders campaign?

        1. "On July 28, 2016, Wasserman Schultz resigned from her position after WikiLeaks released a collection of stolen emails indicating that Wasserman Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries.[3][4] She was subsequently appointed honorary chair of the Clinton campaign's "50 state program".[73]

          1. Live through a grease fire, liar.

            1. Get the Full ISIS, hicklib.

            2. Why are you cluttering up the threads instead of looking for kiddies to molest?

        2. "Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton ally who stepped in as DNC chair last year in the wake of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s resignation, published an excerpt of her upcoming book in Politico in which she disclosed the details of a fundraising agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign reached in August 2015.

          “The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] Marc Elias— specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote in the story under the headline “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.”

          If Sanders supporters are looking for a conspiracy against them originating from the DNC, it isn't because they're crazy.

          If Sanders supporters aren't looking for a conspiracy against them originating from the DNC, they're stupid.

          1. It's too late.
            The conspiracy is already proven.
            Doesn't even matter that Bernie will be announced the winner.
            If he doesn't get the nomination, Milwaukee burns.
            Fun stuff!

          2. Oh exactly, not to mention the last poll going into the voting showed Sanders ahead and Biden like 4th. If Biden were to come out ahead, start making the popcorn.

          3. ya know, I kinda get why Sander's supporters are a little more... extremist? I guess that's the right word, in their rhetoric. If my guy was supposed to be the candidate and he got shunted aside by a bunch of corrupt elites, I probably wouldn't care too much about playing by the rules anymore either.

    4. an average person of elementary school education would have given it a 3,2,1 but hey i didn't go to Harvard school of theft

    5. It’s not that simple. They report the first vote. Then they realign voters for candidates below 15%. Then “they use a mathematical formula” to assign delegates.

      Even if they use the simplest formula for delegates it may not match the initial vote tally.

      Check the link in the article. It doesn’t explain the actual formula.

    6. So Round.
      So Firm.
      So Fully Packed.

  37. This is beautiful. Democrats are a bigger joke than Trump.

    1. It's fucking amazing. Trump has this incredible gift of making people who you assume have to be smarter than him look either just as bad or somehow even far worse. It's some gift. It's so savant like and incredible I'm some times have a thought his speechs, public appearances going back decades, mannerisms and twitter feed have to be some kind of Primal Fear/SNL Reagan skit/Keyser Soize level front that took a lifetime of discipline and development.

  38. Snooze. The media doesn't get this but we don't care. We don't care if the results came last night or next week. We are not as eager as journos to pronounce victors. Why? Because when the primaries get to our state we want a choice too. We don't want journos telling us we are throwing away our votes because so-and-so is behind the pack. So shove it Reason and all the other media outlets who think we should care about any of this.

    1. Awe, someone's bitter the Ds have (again) proven themselves to be a clown show

    2. More sour grapes! I love it!

      1. This really has been the most enjoyable Iowa caucus of my lifetime

        1. Who knew that something as boring as a caucus could turn out to be more entertaining than anything currently available on NetFlix?

  39. Democrats seem to have problems with complicated data systems. Remember the ACA registration fiasco.

    1. Funny you should mention that

      "The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare Website, that should have cost 2% of that. The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is “Trump”."

      1. "There's no sugarcoating it."

      2. Gee what a surprise. Trump tries to make it all about Trump.

        1. It's not like he's wrong here, even NPR was conceding that this morning.

  40. Amazon's Ring is made slightly less awful

    This might be the focus of a good story here at Reason, the intersection of home surveillance equipment and the government surveillance state

  41. Seriously, "Shadow"?

    Why, because SPECTRE was taken?

    1. Yes. So was Sinister Spectre and Wraith.

      1. Legion of Doom was available, but the DNC thought that was a bit too on the nose.

  42. So for the Democrats, you CAN vote with your smartphone?

  43. Dems Want to Run the Country, but They Can't Even Run an Election in Iowa

    Predictable. Well, Republicans can’t win elections without gerrymandering, the support of fat hick rubes, and the Russians. Pick your poison.

    1. OK Rev.

      1. "We'd win every election if it wasn't for the Republicans!"

      2. It's true, though.

        1. That’s how the Ds lost over 1100 elected positions to the Rs during the Obama years?

        2. Right, the Dems lost the Senate because of gerrymandering and the Russians.

  44. Sure ignore the conspiracy theories, until it comes out this afternoon that Hillary won.

  45. These conspiracy theories are so nuts. A major problem with the caucuses is that there's *no secret ballot*. The results of many precincts are on twitter. There's room for lots of temporary chaos and incompetence, but not really for much deceit.

    Does anyone really believe this bullshit after the DNC colluded to fuck over Bernie in 2016?

    1. I believe a conspiracy is possible. And if there is anyone fucked up and insane enough to try it would be the DNC.

      But that doesn't make it likely. It does mean that, if they are doing so, they will never get away with it (way too many people involved) and the net result will be an even bigger disaster.

      1. The conspiracy has to do with the twisted way they have of apportioning delegates where if you meet the 15% threshold you automatically get a share of the delegates and the rest get apportioned out through some unknown algorithm. You don't actually have to steal a lot of Bernie votes to deny him a lot of delegates, just add enough to the other candidates' totals to get them to the 15% threshold. These are small precincts and low numbers of caucus-goers, if you have a few hundred votes and 6 delegates at stake, 10 or 12 votes can make the difference between Bernie getting 2/3 of the delegates and getting only 1/3 if those votes go to the candidates hovering around 14%. I saw a report where Biden's people were doing just that - once they got their 15% they were encouraging new supporters coming in to go caucus with Klobachar to make sure she got 15% as well and thereby take a delegate away from Bernie.

        The theory is the same as the Democrat's idea that "the best man for the job" is a racist statement - as long as they meet a certain minimum standard they're "an adequate man for the job" and everybody who meets the standard should be treated the same. Both Tom Brady and Colin Kaepernick meet the minimum standards for NFL quarterbacks so if you prefer Tom Brady to Colin Kaepernick it can only be because you're racist. If Bernie gets 55% of the vote and Mayor Pete and Warren and Biden each get 15%, well, they've all met the 15% standard and why should Bernie get more delegates just because he vastly exceeded the standard?

        1. If Bernie gets 55% of the vote and Mayor Pete and Warren and Biden each get 15%, well, they’ve all met the 15% standard and why should Bernie get more delegates just because he vastly exceeded the standard?

          "You have plenty of delegates, Bernie, you can afford to share some with those who have less."

          1. Nobody makes a billion delegates, they take a billion delegates.

  46. And are the Iowa caucuses dead?

    The Iowa caucuses did not kill themselves.

  47. And yet, not a single mention of the prime issue with caucuses; there is no secret ballot. You have to show up and vote in person with your body, subjecting yourself to future persecution if you vote for the 'wrong' candidate. In other words, disenfranchise the mobility limited.
    For real primaries, use secret paper ballots.
    (And, yeah, oh by the way, nobody actually cares because it was just to pick the democrat that will lose the next election)

    1. They are all Democrats so there is no “wrong” vote at this stage.

    2. The point of a caucus is that it publicly binds the participants to work together. Secret ballots get in the way of that whole 'public bond' thing.

      Admittedly, it works better if the group of people acting in concert are expected to work together publicly towards the aims of the caucus.

      1. Why would they do that when there are wealthy and powerful people to appease and loud Twitter minorities to pander to?

  48. Tara McGowan CEO ACRONYM
    Occupation: Political strategist /Journalist

    Relearn to code.


      Interesting read.

      "Tara McGowan, a digital producer for Obama for America in 2011 and the proprietor behind ACRONYM, raised at least $25 million from wealthy liberals to create a media company called Courier Newsroom that is designed to deliver information favorable to Democrats.

      Courier is rolling out newspapers in swing states to counter what McGowan believes is right-wing spin on Facebook and across the digital domain.

      McGowan plans on spending roughly $75 million on digital ads to rebut what Democrats believe is President Donald Trump’s insurmountable edge in battleground states, Bloomberg Businessweek reported in November."

      1. Well, if she can get socialists to cough up $25 mill to combat right wing bias (?), she can probably sell Alaska to pay off the national debt.
        Any word on how that $25 million in 'contributions' becomes $75 million? Use the Clinton charity model?

        And, oh by the way, if Trump has an insurmountable lead in BATTLEGROUND states, why are they even running?

        Oh, wait. Yahoo news? Really?

        1. Yahoo news does not produce news. They link articles from other sources.

          ""Any word on how that $25 million in ‘contributions’ becomes $75 million? "'

          Where does it say the $75 million is from contributions?

      2. Just imagine what happens when these assholes become the dominant voice in the Democrat party after the Boomers retire. AOC's lunacy is just a preview of coming attractions.

      3. "Courier is rolling out newspapers in swing states to counter what McGowan believes is right-wing spin on Facebook and across the digital domain."

        'Right-wing spin on Facebook'? That's not, 'Are you crazy'?; that's, "Do I have to have the attendants stuff you into that straitjacket, or are you going to voluntarily check yourself in?"

        Who is giving her money and do they feel like giving me any? I mean, clearly her donors aren't screening for rationality or for getting value for their money.

  49. Remember when we used to call Democrats the Evil party and Republicans the Stupid Party?


    1. And the Democrats are calling it win, now that they're the "Stupid Evil Party".

  50. This was the fault of the Iowa Democratic Party, and no one else, and in no way says anything about what a Democratic administration would look like.

    It is below the dignity of Reason to parrot Republican talking points.

    1. Pretty funny that you would think ENB would parrot republican talking points.

    2. More salt for my margaritas!

    3. "Below the dignity of Reason," would be a hell of an album title.

      And Molly, the Iowa Democratic Party didn't insist on that abortion of a voting app. The DNC did.

  51. Well, before his comment in this article, I thought Andrew Yang was a pretty smart guy. Now, I realize he's just as much of a moron as the rest. This has nothing to do with the President, and blaming it on Trump's technological knowledge is about as stupid of a thing as I've heard this week. It's almost as stupid as Warren saying that a transgender child will have to approve the Secretary of Education in her admin.

    1. I thought Andrew Yang was a pretty smart guy. Now, I realize he’s just as much of a moron as the rest.

      Not necessarily. Remember that a pandering politician doesn't have to be stupid enough to believe what he/she is saying. Only his/her audience needs to be...and that's a pretty safe bet in this case.

    2. He wasn't blaming it on Trump, he was touting his own tech credentials. "Imagine a president who knows how to do this shit" is him saying "this won't happen if you elect me as President, because I know how to do this shit."

      1. The problem being that neither POTUS nor any other agent of fed gov have anything to do with it. So he's either pandering to his moronic followers, or he's a moron himself.

  52. Someone just told me that the Democrats shouldn't let Iowa be the first state to hold a primary anymore because they're too rural, too white, etc.

    Putting aside whether the first state in the primaries should be chosen on the basis of race, whether snubbing the farm vote is in the best interests of anybody, etc. . . .

    I asked this person why they thought that the Democratic Party was in charge of when each state sets the date for its primaries?

    It seems to be a common delusion, among progressives, that they make the rules without any input from state legislators or Republicans.

    I'm not sure if they imagine that one morning, the head of the DNC can wake up and decide when the primaries will be held in which state or whether these people are just completely oblivious to the existence of state legislatures and Republicans.

    . . . and I'm not sure which is worse.

    1. good point, something I'd forgotten myself

  53. The DNC put their thumb on the scale for Clinton in 2016. They then claim this year will be fair. Then they change the debate rules in favor of Bloomberg, the Des Miones register poll mysteriously cannot be released and now this? They spent three years blaming Russian bots on twitter for 2016( a supposed threat to the democracy), and completely botch the first primary? Now they're blaming Sanders supporter for pushing for more transparency after 2016 and Iowans in general for being too old and/or too white? They must really want to lose 20202.

  54. of COURSE it's Trump's fault. What else COULD it be? Everything bad or confused is his fault. Everything good is leftover "good" from the kinyun.

    When will these bratty little kids take their lumpy cracked old ball and go home?

  55. ""With Shadow, we're building a new model," McGowan tweeted in 2019, stressing the company's "deep focus on" helping Democrats "use the most effective new tools in smarter ways."

    I just downloaded it to my phone and it's showing me the same dudes that Grindr and Scruff all have. 2/10. Interface is cool, but that's it.

  56. The Iowa Cauc-up.

  57. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot...Start here>→. Read more

  58. This might be an example of a problem with "local control". Only Iowa has a caucus and not a primary. The local party decided an App would make things easier. As one of my friends that was an election judge put it, most poll volunteers are computer illiterate. Why would you tell such people to use an App?

    There needs to be a better way to structure primaries. Also a caucus is something most people don't have the time to participate in.

  59. Liberals like government making decisions for them. Why would they worry if their votes are counted in a primary? Just like 2016 they will be told who they can choose.

  60. This whole mess made me LOL like crazy!

  61. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ..... Read more

  62. Remember the bookies who in 2016 offered long odds against God's Own Prohibitionists? They now offer long odds against Saracen-importing anti-energy econazis:

  63. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.=…. VIST THIS SITE >>Read MoRe

  64. Google pay 350$ reliably my last pay check was $45000 working 9 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 19k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.=…. VIST THIS SITE >> Read more

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.