It’s sort of a fair criticism, though: they should not have been relying on phone lines, or on cell phones. Instead of the stupid app, they could have used a phone tree, or better yet a spreadsheet tree, or even (imagine!) an online reporting spreadsheet. Saboteurs should not have been at work here—it’s horrifically un-American—but at the same time, even a modicum of common sense could have prevented jammed phone lines from having an impact at all.
It doesn’t matter - there never should have been that opportunity in the first place. The Iowa Democrats just ran an amateurish event that really has major ramifications.
Democrats: We need to protect elections! We need to stop Republicans from rigging elections! Voters need to have faith in election results!!!
Republicans: <cough> Iowa <cough>
100% in. Pete still holds narrow lead (2.5 SDEs out of 2701).
Candidates have until noon central time tomorrow to request a recanvass. Not sure if that’s all candidates. Like, can Michael Bennett finally make his presence in this race known by requesting a recanvass just to be a dick?
What exactly does this mean, in this day and age of cell phones?
They only had so many people answering phones to receive results. And they were getting calls saying “Go Trump! Wooo!”
The back up plan phone number was posted on 4chan and many, many trolls called the number repeatedly making it hard for legitimate callers to get through to report precinct level results.
Projected delegate totals are still Buttigieg 11, Sanders 11, Warren 7, Biden 6, Klobuchar 6
That is why you do not do the alternate phone reporting single-number telethon style. You do it distributed: do a county phone bank for the precincts to report, then have the county phone bank report to the Congressional District phone bank and from there to the state phone bank.
And that’s a good point: people – not just interested candidates but people in the chatterign classes – had in the past expressed a desire to see “popular vote” numbers rather than the SDEs. But…
…the problem as I see it is that the Iowa-style caucus never did, never was supposed to, work like a straight popular vote election. Heck, as I understand it until this year there was no auditable paper trail of *individual *choices, basically the precinct captains’ tally sheet was it.
True, but the optics are lose-lose. The narrative since well before 2016 is that the DNC is working to rig the game, but in a case like this if you say nothing then you are supporting the “bad” system, if you suggest something you are intervening, if you throw them under the bus you are being a coastal elitist.
Iowa’s apparently has been at best a suboptimal system all along, but because of a handful of notable past successes in taking someone from relative obscurity to the frontrunners’ club, nobody dared say a thing. Well, here we are.
538 has…
Buttigieg 14
Sanders 11
Warren 8
Biden 7
Which adds to 40. I don’t know if that means Klobuchar 1 or that last one is TBD.
I normally don’t watch the debates but I’m going to watch the debate tomorrow. This will be interesting.
Per the Bloomberg News story the party’s statement said “the unexplained, and at times hostile, calls contributed to the delay in the Iowa Democratic Party’s collection of results, but in no way affected the integrity of information gathered or the accuracy of data sets reported” but integrity of results is the bigger controversy now than delay. Also that story reported sources saying that claim was made by Ken Sagar a state Democratic central committee member on a conference call, but that Sagar wouldn’t comment directly to repeat the claim to BN.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/trump-fans-flooded-iowa-caucus-hotline-top-democrat-says
Altogether I’d say that claim has the appearance at least of ‘lame excuse’.
.
A small example of why people love Bernie: he went on TV this afternoon, before the final counts were in, and made exactly that point (I’m on my phone and it’s easier to quote myself than to link to the speech). Who does that? Most politicians would wait and see whether they had won the SDE count or not, and if they did they’d spin the hell out of it to create a media narrative that their campaign had incredible momentum. And, really, it probably would have worked to some degree. But it would have been a bullshit narrative, and Bernie doesn’t do bullshit.
Yes, they’re giving Klobuchar 1.
Maybe I was looking at an out-of-date news article, but it seems that a huge question of overriding significance now is whether Bernie beat Buttigieg 24.3 to 24.2 (or whatever the numbers are) or whether he lost 24.2 to 24.3.
:smack: :eek:
In an election where the difference in delegate counts will also be miniscule. America’s political junkies focus on the photographs at the finish line, while the jockeys aren’t sure what to do in the Winner’s Circle. Did [del]Secretariat[/del] Buttigieg win by a whisker? Or is that whisker just a smudge on the photo? (Recall my recent post that Americans are astounded to learn that a Japanese baseball game tied after nine innings is called a Draw.)
Yes, yes, I know, they each want the Big Headline, and some simpletons can’t distinguish a 24.3 to 24.2 victory from a 99 to 1 victory. But that’s rather my point.
Heaven help America! Am I the only one who finds much of this very silly? And sad??
Sad, yes. They do teach “significant digits” in high school — a college student of mine just yesterday told me they call them “sigdigs” — but the lesson is soon forgotten by many, clearly.
Anyway, that’s my 0.024327 euros on this subject.
Did I hear correctly that Iowa has 1,635,000 registered voters and less than 170,000 participated in the Democratic Caucuses?
“Er, you did remember to apply the 15% rule when converting SDEs to delegates, right?”
Uh… :smack:
My “revised” projection, based on the final numbers, has Buttigieg with 13 and Sanders with 12, but other than that, 538 has it right (when you inlcude Klobuchar’s 1, as mentioned earlier).
Sorry for the back-to-back posts, but I think I found another glitch in the numbers.
It looks like the SDEs for the Satellite Caucuses are calculated based on the “head count” at each site - e.g. in District 2, Davenport’s Humility of Mary Center had 18 voters while Ottumwa’s UAW Local 74 had 15, so the Humility of Mary Center got 0.21 SDEs while the UAW got 0.175. However, the rules say that both should have received the same number of “county delegate equivalents” (4), so they should have the same number of total SDEs.
Satellite caucuses don’t actually send delegates to the county convention, but for SDE calculation purposes, each gets a number of county delegate equivalents based on how many voters turn up; 3, plus 1 for every 20 voters or fraction thereof, capped at 9. (Source: Iowa Delegate Selection Plan, sections 1.A.4.j.3 and 1.A.4.k.3)
Did they have Russian accents?
Have the phone lines been tied up for four straight days? Even if the phone lines were jammed, this should have been resolved within a day.
This is another example of Democrats blaming others for their own incompetence.
Going by 538 numbers, performance versus expectation is…
Name Expected Projected % Change
Buttigieg 7.5 14 +73.3%
Warren 5.7 8 +40.4%
Sanders 13.6 11 -11.8%
Biden 12.0 7 -41.7%
Other 2.2 1 -54.5%