Plan B Forum

Once again, the democrats have shown how good they are of shooting themselves in the foot. This latest mess just plays into the hands of the Trump campaign (trying hard to get Bernie supporters to boycott the election again) and bringing new light to the points NPR raised a couple of weeks ago as to how this app and the testing was never made public. Screwing up the reporting of the results is bad enough, but the lack of transparency just invites claims of corrupted results, just as the Biden campaign hinted at (well more than hinted at) last night.

And the failure of the backup system is unbelievable. During the 1976 election, I got a part time (actually only a day for training and for th election night) with the News Election Service, which recorded and tabulated precinct results and reported them to the media. We had phone banks in a number of cities, and over the election night I spoke with precincts (in Indiana, then Texas and then Arizona) tabulated the reported election results, totaled up for the counties I was responsible for, and reported them into the state desks by phone. These were the results reported to, and by, the media. We had something like 2 hours training and were paid minimum wage (or thereabouts), and the system worked for the results of the entire country; nearly 45 years later Iowa can't even report/tabulate their results for a single state and a single party by phone?

The election season isn't looking good.

I propose "Dembacle".

The conspiracy theories were definitely flying among the Bernie partisans online. Depending on whom one listened to, this was either a way for the DNC to delay announcing Bernie's victory in order to blunt his momentum, or a plot by another candidate (primarily Buttigieg, but occasionally Warren or Biden) to corrupt the results in their favour. There was a particular tendency to cite right wing media reports alleging nefarious links between rival campaigns and the company from whom the reporting app had been sourced.

IOW, the same old story that the "establishment" had it in for Bernie, a narrative that they would have found a way to peddle no matter what.

A shame that such a pretext had to be dropped in their lap, though.

1. Instead of reporting one piece of data - the number of delegates awarded - the caucuses are now reporting three pieces of data: first tally, final tally, and delegates awarded. More data takes more time and that wasn’t properly planned for.

2. The reporting changes are a result of Sanders people complaining in 2016, because HRC was awarded more delegates. If they are complaining now, they are hypocrites.

3. Caucuses are anti-democratic and should be abolished. Most people do not have the time to commit. This is why there are 12-14 hours available to vote in a primary. Caucuses also bring out zealots, not just the average voter, are difficult for anyone with a disability, and throw up too many barriers to participation in the democratic process

4. There is paper backup for everything. My understanding is that it is all being tallied and state-wide results released all together, instead of it coming out in dribs and drabs. Be patient, it will be fine. In 2012 is took the Rs weeks to confirm Santorum over Romney.

5. I was so impressed with Amy Klobuchar’s comments and her excellent instincts, to go ahead and speak and then go on to NH. Lizzie Warren was also excellent. I think these two women and their campaigns handled this crisis with grace and poise, and leadership, and that makes me hopeful for them in the future. Contrast the three men, who were grumpy, throwing firebombs, and/or claiming victory without any data on which to base it.

6. The most concerning thing is the low turnout compared to other years. Is that the death of the caucus format and all its attendant issues coming to roost or lack of interest in these candidates? Time will tell.

I caucused once in Maine, for Howard Dean. It was an exhausting and frustrating experience and I felt, very undemocratic - I saw people bullied in the process. I think Maine has since done away with the caucus - I seem to recall voting in a primary there for Bernie in 2016?

It would be good if the remaining caucus states transitioned to a primary system.

1. If the additional data being reported arose from Sanders' complaints in 2016, they have had 4 years to deal with it; that they couldn't resolve it in 4 years is pretty surprising.

2. I don't know if Sanders is complaining, but the Biden campaign sent a letter last night pretty much questioning the accuracy of any data reported.

3. Iowa has insisted that it must be the first state to get primary results; that they can't get their act together doesn't real help them in this regard.

4. The main result of the Iowa's caucuses has always been a winnowing of the field before the early primary elections; those who did well could generally raise more money (unless they were big enough to have it before), while those who did not would start to drop out; taking longer to report the results dilutes this effect.

5. This delay has played well into the Trump campaign camp, which has once again raised the specious claim that this delay is just a cover to disenfranchise those who support Bernie; many of these supporters stayed home last election and we can ill afford to have that happen again.

6. As I said before, this shouldn't be so hard; we just have to make sure our systems work--if they could work 45 years ago on a national scale, there's no excuse for it.

7. Warren's and Klobuchar's speeches were good, as were Buttigieg's and Bernie's (didn't hear any others), but we didn't need Biden's carping.

8. It's interesting you raise the Romney/Santorum problem in 2012--that played right into Mitt's hands and Santorum lost any "bump" he may have gotten for his victory. The campaigns invest heavily in the Caucuses; the least the state parties can do is to deliver timely results.

Maine had a caucus for its primary delegates in 2016. Bernie and Ted Cruz won. My Swede caucused for Bernie, and we had quite the discussion about that.....

We winnow out too quickly. I would rather have more candidates than fewer, and let the voters actually decide - not polls and cash flow and the Party committees.

More candidates, not less. All should be on the stage, and success or failure should be based on winning delegates, not polls and cash flow.

True, but without this thinning, only the candidates who have a lot of money from the outset get the exposure. It costs a lot to campaign, and some of the lesser known candidates have trouble raising it when there are many candidates competing for the same pot of money. Until we find a new way to fund campaigns (and overrule Citizens United), this thinning is a necessity if any of the also-rans are to have a chance against the more well known and well-heeled candidates (just look how many Bloomberg ads are already being broadcast--even during the Superbowl, while I didn't see one Buttigieg or Klobuchar ad).

Debacle? Only for the news disseminators who have to have the first headline. It would not change anything if the results in Iowa were not known for a week. Even the delegates do not need to buy their plane tickets this early.

snailgate.

If that were the case, why do the campaigns spend so much (in dollars and in time) in Iowa? It certainly isn't for the small number of delegates the winning awards.

Guinevere wrote:3. Caucuses are anti-democratic and should be abolished. Most people do not have the time to commit. This is why there are 12-14 hours available to vote in a primary. Caucuses also bring out zealots, not just the average voter, are difficult for anyone with a disability, and throw up too many barriers to participation in the democratic process

I agree. It takes way too long to attend a caucus. Mrs Mc and I did it when Bob Dole ran in '96. She went for Ted Cruz in '16, not that it did any good. I couldn't spend the time, but I probably would not have made any difference. She is quick to point out that Drumpf is NOT HER FAULT.

Guinevere wrote:Maine had a caucus for its primary delegates in 2016. Bernie and Ted Cruz won. My Swede caucused for Bernie, and we had quite the discussion about that.....

Where can I get a Swede? I've had a few Volvos and a Saab, but never a Swede of my own.

Sorry Guin, I just needed to do that.

It's a good thing I'm already married. She's mostly German.

Guinevere wrote:Maine had a caucus for its primary delegates in 2016. Bernie and Ted Cruz won. My Swede caucused for Bernie, and we had quite the discussion about that.....

Ah, okay - I must recall registering to vote at the urging of a young Bernie supporter at the nonprofit where I was working. I don’t think I voted in the primary at all here in Massachusetts as I was in the thick of relocating and sorting health issues.

I think that the Dems in Iowa could make lemonade from these lemons if they want: they are taking the time to make sure they get it right at the expense of speed. If that takes a day or two extra, what difference does it make?

All the swedes you can stand, right next to the turnips:

The Iowa Caucus system undemocratic? I dunno. I remember my HS freshman Civics textbook with a reproduction of a painting, I think by Thomas Heart Benton, showing an frontier election. A group of males, gathered outside a single story frame building with males with large books sitting on the porch, writing down the names of voters and how they voted. Lots of people standing around observing and passing around adult beverages. No such thing as a secret ballot. The voter stood up on his (always a white male) hind legs and proudly announced out loud to the whole world his vote. That was the way it was done by our founding fathers. Perhaps the conservatives who believe the US federal constitution is fixed once and for all (allowing for the formal amendment process) prefer that we abandon the Australian Ballot and go back to the original voting mechanism. And those voters did NOT elect the senators.

Back to yesterday and today in Iowa. Consider what was actually decided there. I listened and watched the CBS talking heads from 5-6 Eastern time as they analyzed the numbers finally officially coming in from Iowa. The process selected the delegates to the State convention. That is all they did. The news people were vastly frustrated that they had three sets of numbers and could not figure out how to spin all that data in to a report of a horse race. The had to really think about it and consider it a human event about politics.

snailgate

I haven't had to say this for some time, but you need reminding every so often...

Your system is fucked....

Caucuses, primaries, party leadership conferences, back-room deals and all other forms of candidate selection all have their own pros and cons. I think the Democrats ought to institute a ranked voting system, which would demonstrate that several candidates might be highly viable contenders and which would allow later-voting states to still have some say in actually choosing the ultimate candidate. Allowing Iowa (pop. 3 million, 700k Democrats) and New Hampshire (pop. 1 million, 275k Democrats)) to have such an outsized role in determining the Democratic nominee is insane. I can't even recall the last presidential primary where my state's vote actually made any difference whatsoever, and there's 9 million of us -- 2.3 million registered as Democrats.