hotair--2020-02-04--Too good to check: Team Hillary link to Iowa caucus app?

Just when we thought the Hawkeye Hork was bad enough for Democrats , along comes this link to Democrats ’ previous national faceplant .
The app that caused some — not all , but some — of the problems in Iowa yesterday came from an outfit called Shadow .
Four of its top executives recently worked for … wait for it … Shadow , a tech firm that describes itself as a group that creates “ a permanent advantage for progressive campaigns and causes through technology , ” is the company that created the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least the COO , CEO , CTO and a senior product manager at Shadow all worked for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign , according to LinkedIn profiles .
Shadow is associated with ACRONYM , a nonprofit dedicated to “ advancing progressive causes through innovative communications , advertising and organizing programs.
” Early last year , ACRONYM announced that it was acquiring an SMS tool called Groundbase and , out of Groundbase , “ launching Shadow , a company focused on building the technology infrastructure needed to enable Democrats to run better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Krista Davis , who is the current Shadow CTO , and Gerard Niemira , who is the current Shadow CEO , both held senior positions with the Clinton campaign .
HuffPost corroborated some of this reporting from Fox News , but also threw in a Barack Obama link to boot .
ACRONYM , meanwhile , is hitting reverse on its association with Shadow : Gerard Niemira , a veteran of Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign , is the head of Shadow .
He previously served as chief technology officer and chief operating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LinkedIn page .
In 2019 , David Plouffe , one of the chief architects of President Barack Obama ’ s wins , joined the board of advisers for ACRONYM .
ACRONYM spokesman Kyle Tharp put out a statement distancing the group from Shadow , saying that ACRONYM is merely an investor in the for-profit company .
Let ’ s pause here for a moment to just consider the names of these outfits .
They sound like rejected ideas from the original Daniel Craig reboot of the James Bond franchise .
“ What should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ How about Shadow ?
” “ Naah , too on the nose .
Why not ACRONYM ?
” “ Er … is ACRONYM supposed to be an acronym for something else , or what ?
” “ You ’ re right , let ’ s just stick with S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
” If Democrats want to look creepy and suspicious , they ’ re certainly choosing the right branding .
The rumors of connections to the Democrats ’ erstwhile Hillary Blofeld might have gone one step too far , however .
Robby Mook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , vehemently denied last night that he had a hand in developing Shadow : That denial generated some pushback of its own , as the Des Moines Register and USA Today had previously reported Mook ’ s involvement in the Iowa Democrats ’ planning and execution of the app ’ s Caucus Night operations : Was Mook Shadow ?
Or ACRONYM ?
Or S.P.E.C.T.R.E ?
None of the above , as it turns out ; the DMR story didn ’ t actually link Mook to the app itself .
Rather , he worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa on app development : Both parties in Iowa and their app and web development vendors partnered last fall with Harvard ’ s Defending Digital Democracy Project to develop strategies and systems to protect results and deal with any misinformation that ’ s reported on caucus night .
They worked with campaign experts Robby Mook and Matt Rhodes — as well as experts in cybersecurity , national security , technology and election administration — and simulated the different ways that things could go wrong on caucus night .
Too bad — Mook would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyway , the Democrats can ’ t afford to look backward at this point .
Right now , they have to look to the future , especially in Nevada , where rumor has it that a Shadow may have also fallen : That ’ s also not confirmed , but Fox noted that Nevada Democrats did pay Shadow $ 60,000 last August .
Presumably that wasn ’ t just for consulting .
Whatever the original plans were , Democrats in Nevada made it clear that Shadow won ’ t be in their immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out earlier , it ’ s far from clear that the app was the sole reason for last night ’ s fiasco , or even the main reason .
Caucus organizers had paper ballots too , and thus far haven ’ t been able to produce reliable counts from those either .
That doesn ’ t sound like an app failure .
So who is to blame ?
Only the Shadow knows , apparently .

Just when we thought the Hawkeye Hork was bad enough for Democrats, along comes this link to Democrats’ previous national faceplant. The app that caused some — not all, but some — of the problems in Iowa yesterday came from an outfit called Shadow. Four of its top executives recently worked for … wait for it …
Shadow, a tech firm that describes itself as a group that creates “a permanent advantage for progressive campaigns and causes through technology,” is the company that created the Iowa Democratic Party’s app, according to The New York Times. At least the COO, CEO, CTO and a senior product manager at Shadow all worked for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to LinkedIn profiles. Shadow is associated with ACRONYM, a nonprofit dedicated to “advancing progressive causes through innovative communications, advertising and organizing programs.” Early last year, ACRONYM announced that it was acquiring an SMS tool called Groundbase and, out of Groundbase, “launching Shadow, a company focused on building the technology infrastructure needed to enable Democrats to run better, more efficient campaigns.” Groundbase co-founders Krista Davis, who is the current Shadow CTO, and Gerard Niemira, who is the current Shadow CEO, both held senior positions with the Clinton campaign.
HuffPost corroborated some of this reporting from Fox News, but also threw in a Barack Obama link to boot. ACRONYM, meanwhile, is hitting reverse on its association with Shadow:
Gerard Niemira, a veteran of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is the head of Shadow. He previously served as chief technology officer and chief operating officer of ACRONYM, according to his LinkedIn page. In 2019, David Plouffe, one of the chief architects of President Barack Obama’s wins, joined the board of advisers for ACRONYM. ACRONYM spokesman Kyle Tharp put out a statement distancing the group from Shadow, saying that ACRONYM is merely an investor in the for-profit company.
Let’s pause here for a moment to just consider the names of these outfits. They sound like rejected ideas from the original Daniel Craig reboot of the James Bond franchise. “What should we call the villainous global conspiracy?” “How about Shadow?” “Naah, too on the nose. Why not ACRONYM?” “Er … is ACRONYM supposed to be an acronym for something else, or what?” “You’re right, let’s just stick with S.P.E.C.T.R.E.” If Democrats want to look creepy and suspicious, they’re certainly choosing the right branding.
The rumors of connections to the Democrats’ erstwhile Hillary Blofeld might have gone one step too far, however. Robby Mook, Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, vehemently denied last night that he had a hand in developing Shadow:
Sorry, folks. I did NOT have anythjng to do with building the Iowa caucus app. I dont know anything about it, had no role in it, and dont own a company that makes mobile appa. Please contact @iowademocrats with questions about it. — Robby Mook (@RobbyMook) February 4, 2020
That denial generated some pushback of its own, as the Des Moines Register and USA Today had previously reported Mook’s involvement in the Iowa Democrats’ planning and execution of the app’s Caucus Night operations:
Was Mook Shadow? Or ACRONYM? Or S.P.E.C.T.R.E? None of the above, as it turns out; the DMR story didn’t actually link Mook to the app itself. Rather, he worked as a consultant to both parties in Iowa on app development:
Both parties in Iowa and their app and web development vendors partnered last fall with Harvard’s Defending Digital Democracy Project to develop strategies and systems to protect results and deal with any misinformation that’s reported on caucus night. They worked with campaign experts Robby Mook and Matt Rhodes — as well as experts in cybersecurity, national security, technology and election administration — and simulated the different ways that things could go wrong on caucus night.
Too bad — Mook would have made the Hillary connection golden.
Anyway, the Democrats can’t afford to look backward at this point. Right now, they have to look to the future, especially in Nevada, where rumor has it that a Shadow may have also fallen:
The same app used in Iowa last night, developed for the Iowa Democratic Party by @ShadowIncHQ, is also due to be used in Nevada, a source confirms to CNN. — Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) February 4, 2020
That’s also not confirmed, but Fox noted that Nevada Democrats did pay Shadow $60,000 last August. Presumably that wasn’t just for consulting. Whatever the original plans were, Democrats in Nevada made it clear that Shadow won’t be in their immediate future:
Nevada State Democratic Party on their upcoming caucuses: "We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus. We had already developed a series of backups and redundant reporting systems, and are currently evaluating the best path forward." — Breaking News (@BreakingNews) February 4, 2020
However, as Jazz pointed out earlier, it’s far from clear that the app was the sole reason for last night’s fiasco, or even the main reason. Caucus organizers had paper ballots too, and thus far haven’t been able to produce reliable counts from those either. That doesn’t sound like an app failure.
So who is to blame? Only the Shadow knows, apparently.


hotair--2020-02-04--In 1985, Bernie Sanders defended Nicaragua's 'suspension of certain civil liberties'

Yesterday the Washington Post published a story headlined “ Bernie Sanders ’ s foreign policy is a risk for Democrats against Trump.
” If you ’ re a regular reader then you ’ ve already seen some of the material cataloged in this story but there were several eye-popping things I hadn ’ t seen before , all of which were given to the Post by a rival Democratic campaign .
One of those was a 1983 letter from a Soviet spy : A Democratic official associated with a rival campaign — and concerned that Sanders ’ s foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general election — sent me a batch of documents from the Sanders archive at the University of Vermont about his foreign policy activity as mayor of Burlington in the 1980s .
One issue involves Sanders ’ s stance toward the former Soviet Union , a record that could undercut Democrats ’ ability to criticize Trump for being too close to Russia today .
The documents from the Sanders archives include a letter from Soviet Embassy First Secretary Vadim Kuznetsov in March 1983 , congratulating Sanders on his reelection as mayor and thanking Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Kuznetsov had been in Burlington to attend a conference on nuclear disarmament at the University of Vermont a few days earlier .
Neither Sanders nor conference organizers appear to have read a 1976 Time magazine article that identified Kuznetsov as a member of a “ Soviet intelligence squad ” posing as diplomats to infiltrate U.S. politics .
The fact that Sanders was cozy with a Soviet spy just a few years before the collapse of the Soviet Union is almost too perfect and yet it ’ s true .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear in a general election campaign ad .
The other letter given to the Post is even more worrisome .
In Nov. 1985 a Burlington , Vermont resident named Edward Pike wrote Sanders about the Sandinista ’ s suspension of human rights .
“ Correct me if I ’ m wrong , Mayor Sanders , this is the same government which invited you to visit , and which you declared was governing its citizens in accordance with basic human and civil rights , rights that were recently revoked by Daniel Ortega.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a true civil libertarian , and I presume that you do , I think that it is high time for you to eat crow , and realize that this government is but another in a long line of dictatorships whose only true concern is the length of its stay in power.
” Bernie ’ s response doesn ’ t deny that human rights have been abridged in Nicaragua .
“ It ’ s my view that the point you make regarding Nicaragua and the temporary suspension of certain civil liberties is considerably more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wrote .
“ Nicaragua , a tiny and impoverished nation of three million , is today fighting a brutal war—with their enemy being totally financed by the most powerful nation on earth .
The democratically-elected government of Nicaragua has made the decision that , like many other countries engaged in war , they will not allow their enemy the total freedom to defeat them and destroy their government.
” Sanders went on to say the situation was comparable to Japanese interment in WWII : “ As you ’ ll recall—in a totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ west coast were herded into concentration camps as a war time protection measure—amd the war was being fought thousands of miles from California.
” Bernie really seems to be trying to have it both ways here .
He ’ s saying internment was wrong and unconstitutional but he ’ s also saying that what Nicaragua is doing is justifiable .
Shouldn ’ t he just say what Nicaragua is doing is wrong ?
But he can ’ t bring himself to do that .
Back in 2016 , Sanders was asked about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was too focused on campaigning to spare a thought on that .
He was asked about it again nearly a year ago and refused to call Nicolas Maduro a dictator .
Even more recently he has said he does not regret his support for the Sandinistas .
I guess you can give him points for consistency , but I think most Americans would agree Sanders was wrong to support the Soviet Union and that there ’ s really no doubt that Daniel Ortega and Nicolas Maduro are tyrants .
What ’ s worrisome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t admit it .
Here ’ s what I wrote about this last year : This is one of the most worrisome things about the modern American promoters of socialism .
They are unwilling or unable to recognize the degree to which the examples of “ bad socialism ” they seek to disassociate themselves from started out as the “ good socialism ” they support .
For instance , Hugo Chavez started with the goal of creating a more equal society .
He promised , in a televised speech back in 2008 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made by the Soviet Union .
“ No , we ’ re not going to fall into those same mistakes .
Those mistakes that dogmatized that proposal and at the end of the Stalin era even tyrannized it , ” Chavez said .
Jump forward 11 years and Venezuela is a tyrannical hellhole where opposition figures are jailed and starving people who don ’ t support the revolution don ’ t get the food doled out by Nicolas Maduro .
It all happened in the span of about 15 years .
Why can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Bernie Sanders wants to embrace European Social Democracy , which it seems he does these days , why can ’ t he admit he went too far as a younger man promoting the nationalization of entire industries and excusing socialist dictators .
Why can ’ t he call out some of the more extreme voices on the left who have made it clear that Denmark and Sweden are not their goal and would still be too capitalist to suit their taste ?
If he really wants to put this behind him there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen with AOC .
The fact that it hasn ’ t happened suggests he ’ s still taking a ‘ no enemies on the left ’ approach to socialism .
But that ’ s not good enough when the potential consequences , like the ones in Venezuela and Nicaragua , are so dire .
The fact that Sanders has been consistently wrong on communist states run by tyrants is not charming and should not earn him points .
If he had any sense he ’ d be ashamed of himself or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s matured a lot since his mid-30s .

Yesterday the Washington Post published a story headlined “Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy is a risk for Democrats against Trump.” If you’re a regular reader then you’ve already seen some of the material cataloged in this story but there were several eye-popping things I hadn’t seen before, all of which were given to the Post by a rival Democratic campaign. One of those was a 1983 letter from a Soviet spy:
A Democratic official associated with a rival campaign — and concerned that Sanders’s foreign policy record will be a liability in the general election — sent me a batch of documents from the Sanders archive at the University of Vermont about his foreign policy activity as mayor of Burlington in the 1980s. One issue involves Sanders’s stance toward the former Soviet Union, a record that could undercut Democrats’ ability to criticize Trump for being too close to Russia today. The documents from the Sanders archives include a letter from Soviet Embassy First Secretary Vadim Kuznetsov in March 1983, congratulating Sanders on his reelection as mayor and thanking Sanders for receiving him in Sanders’s office. Kuznetsov had been in Burlington to attend a conference on nuclear disarmament at the University of Vermont a few days earlier. Neither Sanders nor conference organizers appear to have read a 1976 Time magazine article that identified Kuznetsov as a member of a “Soviet intelligence squad” posing as diplomats to infiltrate U.S. politics.
The fact that Sanders was cozy with a Soviet spy just a few years before the collapse of the Soviet Union is almost too perfect and yet it’s true. I’m definitely looking forward to seeing this appear in a general election campaign ad.
The other letter given to the Post is even more worrisome. In Nov. 1985 a Burlington, Vermont resident named Edward Pike wrote Sanders about the Sandinista’s suspension of human rights. “Correct me if I’m wrong, Mayor Sanders, this is the same government which invited you to visit, and which you declared was governing its citizens in accordance with basic human and civil rights, rights that were recently revoked by Daniel Ortega.” He continued, “If you consider yourself a true civil libertarian, and I presume that you do, I think that it is high time for you to eat crow, and realize that this government is but another in a long line of dictatorships whose only true concern is the length of its stay in power.”
Bernie’s response doesn’t deny that human rights have been abridged in Nicaragua. “It’s my view that the point you make regarding Nicaragua and the temporary suspension of certain civil liberties is considerably more complex than your letter indicates,” he wrote. “Nicaragua, a tiny and impoverished nation of three million, is today fighting a brutal war—with their enemy being totally financed by the most powerful nation on earth. The democratically-elected government of Nicaragua has made the decision that, like many other countries engaged in war, they will not allow their enemy the total freedom to defeat them and destroy their government.”
Sanders went on to say the situation was comparable to Japanese interment in WWII: “As you’ll recall—in a totally unconstitutional manner—thousands of Japanese Americans on the west coast were herded into concentration camps as a war time protection measure—amd the war was being fought thousands of miles from California.”
Bernie really seems to be trying to have it both ways here. He’s saying internment was wrong and unconstitutional but he’s also saying that what Nicaragua is doing is justifiable. Shouldn’t he just say what Nicaragua is doing is wrong? But he can’t bring himself to do that.
Back in 2016, Sanders was asked about the crisis in Venezuela and essentially said he was too focused on campaigning to spare a thought on that. He was asked about it again nearly a year ago and refused to call Nicolas Maduro a dictator. Even more recently he has said he does not regret his support for the Sandinistas.
I guess you can give him points for consistency, but I think most Americans would agree Sanders was wrong to support the Soviet Union and that there’s really no doubt that Daniel Ortega and Nicolas Maduro are tyrants. What’s worrisome is that even now Sanders can’t admit it. Here’s what I wrote about this last year:
This is one of the most worrisome things about the modern American promoters of socialism. They are unwilling or unable to recognize the degree to which the examples of “bad socialism” they seek to disassociate themselves from started out as the “good socialism” they support. For instance, Hugo Chavez started with the goal of creating a more equal society. He promised, in a televised speech back in 2008, that his revolution would avoid the mistakes made by the Soviet Union. “No, we’re not going to fall into those same mistakes. Those mistakes that dogmatized that proposal and at the end of the Stalin era even tyrannized it,” Chavez said. Jump forward 11 years and Venezuela is a tyrannical hellhole where opposition figures are jailed and starving people who don’t support the revolution don’t get the food doled out by Nicolas Maduro. It all happened in the span of about 15 years. Why can’t Bernie Sanders admit it? If Bernie Sanders wants to embrace European Social Democracy, which it seems he does these days, why can’t he admit he went too far as a younger man promoting the nationalization of entire industries and excusing socialist dictators. Why can’t he call out some of the more extreme voices on the left who have made it clear that Denmark and Sweden are not their goal and would still be too capitalist to suit their taste? If he really wants to put this behind him there’s a Sister Souljah moment waiting to happen with AOC. The fact that it hasn’t happened suggests he’s still taking a ‘no enemies on the left’ approach to socialism. But that’s not good enough when the potential consequences, like the ones in Venezuela and Nicaragua, are so dire.
The fact that Sanders has been consistently wrong on communist states run by tyrants is not charming and should not earn him points. If he had any sense he’d be ashamed of himself or, at a minimum, explain that he’s matured a lot since his mid-30s.


hotair--2020-02-04--<span class='red'>Coming at 5 p.m. ET: The (partial) results of the Iowa caucus! Update: Buttigieg 2

Coming at 5 p.m. ET: The (partial) results of the Iowa caucus! Update: Buttigieg 26.9, Sanders 25.1, Warren 18.3, Biden 15.6

I ’ ve got a good feeling about this .
Why would they release partial results ?
Unless it ’ s a blowout for one candidate , which it assuredly isn ’ t , it doesn ’ t tell us much of anything .
Although I suppose a partial result in which Bernie , Buttigieg , and Warren are all north of 20 percent while Biden ’ s staggering along at 12 would tell us something .
Then again , imagine that partial results are released today from mostly urban precincts showing Biden getting hammered , the media goes into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then a few days from now complete results are released showing Biden finishing higher on the strength of rural support .
The partial results might have wrecked his chances in New Hampshire as voters there quickly — and falsely — became convinced that his candidacy has already fizzled .
Fun stuff .
Anyway , the GOP is making hay of this fiasco by speculating about the Democratic establishment “ rigging ” the vote against Bernie but the wrinkle in that theory is that , as far as I ’ m aware , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced to caucusgoers right then and there once they ’ re tallied .
They ’ re not a secret .
If the state party tries to fiddle with the numbers in a given precinct there ’ ll be dozens , hundreds , possibly thousands of witnesses from caucus night who can call BS .
But that raises a question .
If the results at each individual precinct are publicly known , how the hell can they not have complete results by now after nearly a full day of counting ?
They ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 1,700 or so precinct chairs .
Normally they do this on caucus night in the span of two hours .
There ’ s got to be more to this .
From the reporting I ’ ve read today , it seems there were three distinct problems last night that converged to form the perfect storm .
One was the now-infamous app to report precinct results , which itself had a host of sub-problems .
It was reportedly buggy .
Some precinct chairs weren ’ t able to download it in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently never got around to training everyone in how to use it : The app was built just within the past two months and was apparently never tested on a statewide scale to make sure that it could handle 1,700 precinct results all being reported more or less simultaneously .
Which would have been useful in hindsight : But that ’ s okay .
There ’ s always the old-fashioned way of reporting results to HQ , the trusty telephone .
Which brings us to problem two : The trusty telephone wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ packets , there was a public hotline number and a precinct chair hotline .
Many people in the call center who were fielding calls from caucus chairs also got many calls through what appeared to be the public hotline , which was listed prominently on the state party ’ s website .
That led to a significant amount of calls coming into the party ’ s call center that weren ’ t from caucus chairs , jamming up the system .
Multiple people in the room reported receiving non-stop calls from two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Dubuque-area number , that clogged up the phone lines .
No one was on the other end of the call when answered , and the number would call back almost immediately to the room after someone hung up on it .
It only took up about 30 seconds of someone ’ s time each time it happened , but those still added up… The other widely reported problem from those working the phones was the number of journalists who called into the line to ask about what was happening and if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the problem were a simple matter of the precinct chairs getting in touch with the state party to officially report , you ’ d expect they ’ d have ample time to do so by 5 p.m. this afternoon .
What ’ s probably still complicating the matter is problem three , the sheer complexity of having to report not one , not two , but three separate sets of results statewide .
If you read last night ’ s live thread you already know what they are .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when caucusgoers named their first preference ; there ’ s the “ final alignment , ” after supporters of candidates who failed to clear 15 percent had a chance to realign with viable candidates ; and there ’ s the final delegate haul for each candidate .
Berniebros wanted those changes made in the name of transparency after his near-miss in 2016 but calculating those numbers is more complicated than you might think .
Slog through Nate Cohn ’ s explanation of how it ’ s done and you ’ ll find there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates will have won the first alignment , final alignment , and delegate count when this is all over .
On top of that , the Iowa Democratic Party alleged last night that there were “ inconsistencies ” between some numbers , which may be a reference to getting delegate totals to match up to each candidate ’ s “ final alignment ” share .
Or , more ominously , it may refer to the possibility that the number of preference cards signed by caucusgoers at each precinct stating the name of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ match some of the head counts at that precinct .
E.g.
, if you have 190 preference cards for Bernie at a given location and an official total of 180 on the head count , which number is the correct one ?
If you want to see how chaotic it can get in the room , read Timothy Carney ’ s dispatch from one precinct last night about the various ways votes can be miscounted when dozens or hundreds of people are shuffling around .
Caucus systems are lots of fun to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But they ’ re raw sewage in terms of electoral security , and a raw deal for anyone who can ’ t make it out to a precinct in a particular two- or three-hour window on a particular day or just doesn ’ t want their neighbors to know how they vote .
It finally caught up to Iowa last night .
In 2024 they ’ ll either have a true primary or they ’ ll lose their first-in-the-nation status .
Or both .
One more fun tidbit from the Times : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party was built by Shadow Inc. , a for-profit technology company that is also used by the Nevada Democratic Party , the next state to hold a caucus… ” Uh , not as of this afternoon .
I ’ ll leave you with this as we wait for the IDP to finally , finally report results .
Update : The chair of the IDP is speaking at a little after 5 p.m. and says he intends to release 62 percent of the results .
When the other 38 percent is coming he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe Mayor Pete was right last night when he said he was “ victorious.
” The results with 62 percent reporting : That ’ s a big number for Buttigieg , probably aided by Biden and Klobuchar fans gravitating to him in precincts where those two candidates weren ’ t viable .
It ’ s a good number for Bernie too , as he ’ s obviously well positioned to win when all of the votes are counted .
And even if he doesn ’ t , Buttigieg is the one candidate more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferred to lose to in Iowa if he had to lose .
A Warren win would have knocked Sanders down , questioning his status as the progressive champion .
A Biden win would have proved that Grandpa Joe is for real , complicating Bernie ’ s path to the nomination .
Few expect Buttigieg to have legs in a long race to come , though .
In fact , having Pete in the top two may help Bernie inasmuch as Pete ’ s continued viability makes it that much harder for Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is a lead like this one enough to make a projection , with nearly two-thirds of precincts reporting ?
Probably not , says Nate Cohn : Klobuchar , by the way , is currently at 12.6 percent , conspicuously close to Biden ’ s fourth-place number .
Major subplot for the final tally : Will she actually pass him for fourth ?
If she does , what does that do to their respective totals in New Hampshire ?
Update : This is likely true .
Team Bernie thinks they won .
And maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only results we get from Iowa before New Hampshire votes , then Buttigieg does surprisingly well on election night in NH .
Then Iowa turns around and says , “ We finished the count and , um , Bernie won.
” Sanders will go nuts , believing that Mayor Pete got a bounce from these partial results that wasn ’ t properly his .
And that bounce may translate into a real win , or at least a strong , encouraging showing , in New Hampshire .
Update : Cohn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actual voting while another candidate leads in the delegate count was prescient .
Check this out : Bernie leads on the first alignment and the final alignment .
But presumably because Buttigieg ’ s support is a bit more rural , and rural precincts tend to “ weigh ” more for complicated reasons , he ’ s ahead on delegates .

I’ve got a good feeling about this.
State party chairman Troy Price informed campaigns that he would release at least 50% of all caucus results at 5 p.m. EST, but he declined to answer pointed questions from frustrated campaign representatives about when the party would release the full results or how it could ensure their integrity — even whether it would be a matter of days or weeks.
Why would they release partial results? Unless it’s a blowout for one candidate, which it assuredly isn’t, it doesn’t tell us much of anything. Although I suppose a partial result in which Bernie, Buttigieg, and Warren are all north of 20 percent while Biden’s staggering along at 12 would tell us something. Then again, imagine that partial results are released today from mostly urban precincts showing Biden getting hammered, the media goes into frenzy and kills Biden over it, and then a few days from now complete results are released showing Biden finishing higher on the strength of rural support. The partial results might have wrecked his chances in New Hampshire as voters there quickly — and falsely — became convinced that his candidacy has already fizzled.
Fun stuff. Anyway, the GOP is making hay of this fiasco by speculating about the Democratic establishment “rigging” the vote against Bernie but the wrinkle in that theory is that, as far as I’m aware, the results at each precinct are publicly announced to caucusgoers right then and there once they’re tallied. They’re not a secret. If the state party tries to fiddle with the numbers in a given precinct there’ll be dozens, hundreds, possibly thousands of witnesses from caucus night who can call BS.
But that raises a question. If the results at each individual precinct are publicly known, how the hell can they not have complete results by now after nearly a full day of counting? They’ve had around 20 hours to touch base with 1,700 or so precinct chairs. Normally they do this on caucus night in the span of two hours. There’s got to be more to this.
From the reporting I’ve read today, it seems there were three distinct problems last night that converged to form the perfect storm. One was the now-infamous app to report precinct results, which itself had a host of sub-problems. It was reportedly buggy. Some precinct chairs weren’t able to download it in the first place. And the Iowa Democratic Party apparently never got around to training everyone in how to use it:
“The app wasn’t included in the chair training that everyone was required to take,” said Zach Simonson, the Democratic Party chair in Wapello County. “When you have an app that you’re sending out to 1,700 people and many of them might be newer to apps and that kind of stuff, it might have been worth doing a couple months’ worth of testing,” said Mr. Bagniewski, the Polk County chairman.
The app was built just within the past two months and was apparently never tested on a statewide scale to make sure that it could handle 1,700 precinct results all being reported more or less simultaneously. Which would have been useful in hindsight:
The details of Shadow's epic fail keep getting worse. They deployed the Android app through a free version of TestFairy, which caps the number of users at 200. https://t.co/8Xq3WRWA7v pic.twitter.com/fogUbRxJ9k — Adrienne (@AdrienneRoyer) February 4, 2020
But that’s okay. There’s always the old-fashioned way of reporting results to HQ, the trusty telephone. Which brings us to problem two: The trusty telephone wasn’t so trusty.
In precinct chairs’ packets, there was a public hotline number and a precinct chair hotline. Many people in the call center who were fielding calls from caucus chairs also got many calls through what appeared to be the public hotline, which was listed prominently on the state party’s website. That led to a significant amount of calls coming into the party’s call center that weren’t from caucus chairs, jamming up the system. Multiple people in the room reported receiving non-stop calls from two phone numbers, one of which had a Dubuque-area number, that clogged up the phone lines. No one was on the other end of the call when answered, and the number would call back almost immediately to the room after someone hung up on it. It only took up about 30 seconds of someone’s time each time it happened, but those still added up… The other widely reported problem from those working the phones was the number of journalists who called into the line to ask about what was happening and if they could get results.
Yeesh. Still, if the problem were a simple matter of the precinct chairs getting in touch with the state party to officially report, you’d expect they’d have ample time to do so by 5 p.m. this afternoon. What’s probably still complicating the matter is problem three, the sheer complexity of having to report not one, not two, but three separate sets of results statewide. If you read last night’s live thread you already know what they are. There’s the “first alignment,” when caucusgoers named their first preference; there’s the “final alignment,” after supporters of candidates who failed to clear 15 percent had a chance to realign with viable candidates; and there’s the final delegate haul for each candidate. Berniebros wanted those changes made in the name of transparency after his near-miss in 2016 but calculating those numbers is more complicated than you might think. Slog through Nate Cohn’s explanation of how it’s done and you’ll find there’s a possibility that three different candidates will have won the first alignment, final alignment, and delegate count when this is all over.
On top of that, the Iowa Democratic Party alleged last night that there were “inconsistencies” between some numbers, which may be a reference to getting delegate totals to match up to each candidate’s “final alignment” share. Or, more ominously, it may refer to the possibility that the number of preference cards signed by caucusgoers at each precinct stating the name of the candidate they support didn’t quite match some of the head counts at that precinct. E.g., if you have 190 preference cards for Bernie at a given location and an official total of 180 on the head count, which number is the correct one? If you want to see how chaotic it can get in the room, read Timothy Carney’s dispatch from one precinct last night about the various ways votes can be miscounted when dozens or hundreds of people are shuffling around.
Caucus systems are lots of fun to watch and doubtless more fun to participate in. But they’re raw sewage in terms of electoral security, and a raw deal for anyone who can’t make it out to a precinct in a particular two- or three-hour window on a particular day or just doesn’t want their neighbors to know how they vote. It finally caught up to Iowa last night. In 2024 they’ll either have a true primary or they’ll lose their first-in-the-nation status. Or both.
One more fun tidbit from the Times: “The app used by the Iowa Democratic Party was built by Shadow Inc., a for-profit technology company that is also used by the Nevada Democratic Party, the next state to hold a caucus…” Uh, not as of this afternoon. I’ll leave you with this as we wait for the IDP to finally, finally report results.
Update: The chair of the IDP is speaking at a little after 5 p.m. and says he intends to release 62 percent of the results. When the other 38 percent is coming he … cannot say.
Update: Maybe Mayor Pete was right last night when he said he was “victorious.” The results with 62 percent reporting:
62% reporting, per CNN Pete 26.9
Sanders 25.1
Warren 18.3
Biden 15.6 — Sam Stein (@samstein) February 4, 2020
That’s a big number for Buttigieg, probably aided by Biden and Klobuchar fans gravitating to him in precincts where those two candidates weren’t viable. It’s a good number for Bernie too, as he’s obviously well positioned to win when all of the votes are counted. And even if he doesn’t, Buttigieg is the one candidate more than any other whom he would have preferred to lose to in Iowa if he had to lose. A Warren win would have knocked Sanders down, questioning his status as the progressive champion. A Biden win would have proved that Grandpa Joe is for real, complicating Bernie’s path to the nomination. Few expect Buttigieg to have legs in a long race to come, though. In fact, having Pete in the top two may help Bernie inasmuch as Pete’s continued viability makes it that much harder for Biden to gain traction in the early states.
Is a lead like this one enough to make a projection, with nearly two-thirds of precincts reporting? Probably not, says Nate Cohn:
As a general proposition, the media organizations aren't usually able to project even fairly competitive races with ~62% counted. If it's extremely representative, maybe in a 4 pt race. — Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 4, 2020
Klobuchar, by the way, is currently at 12.6 percent, conspicuously close to Biden’s fourth-place number. Major subplot for the final tally: Will she actually pass him for fourth? If she does, what does that do to their respective totals in New Hampshire?
Update: This is likely true.
Releasing the 62% of the vote that shows Pete edging Bernie somehow made it all worse. The Bernie people are going to lose their everloving MINDS over this. — Chris Hansen (@tankcat) February 4, 2020
Team Bernie thinks they won. And maybe they did. Imagine that these are the only results we get from Iowa before New Hampshire votes, then Buttigieg does surprisingly well on election night in NH. Then Iowa turns around and says, “We finished the count and, um, Bernie won.” Sanders will go nuts, believing that Mayor Pete got a bounce from these partial results that wasn’t properly his. And that bounce may translate into a real win, or at least a strong, encouraging showing, in New Hampshire.
Update: Cohn’s point that one candidate might lead in the actual voting while another candidate leads in the delegate count was prescient. Check this out:
With 62% of precincts reporting: 1st alignment
Sanders 24%
Buttigieg 21%
Warren 19%
Biden 15%
Klobuchar 13% Realignment
Sanders 26%
Buttigieg 25%
Warren 21%
Biden 13%
Klobuchar 12% SDEs
Buttigieg 27%
Sanders 25%
Warren 18%
Biden 16%
Klobuchar 13% — Nathaniel Rakich (@baseballot) February 4, 2020
Bernie leads on the first alignment and the final alignment. But presumably because Buttigieg’s support is a bit more rural, and rural precincts tend to “weigh” more for complicated reasons, he’s ahead on delegates.


hotair--2020-02-04--Convictions reversed for people aiding illegal aliens

You may recall that in March of last year , a judge in Arizona handed down some rather light sentences to fifteen people associated with a group named No More Deaths who had been found leaving water and other supplies for illegal aliens seeking to cross the remote Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge .
The defendants appealed the verdict , leading to the better part of a year ’ s worth of legal wrangling .
Now , a federal judge has issued a stern reversal of those convictions , describing the original case as being based on “ gruesome logic.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge in Tucson , Arizona , reversed the conviction of four humanitarian aid volunteers on religious freedom grounds Monday , ruling that the government had embraced a “ gruesome logic ” that criminalizes “ interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death.
” The reversal , written by U.S. district judge Rosemary Márquez , marked the latest rebuke of the Trump administration ’ s crackdown on humanitarian aid providers in southern Arizona , and the second time in matter of months that a religious freedom defense has prevailed in a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrants in the borderlands .
Normally we see judges ruling on such cases based on the merits of the evidence and the strength or weakness of the prosecutors ’ case .
That clearly wasn ’ t what was going on here .
Judge Marquez was preaching from the bench , rather than addressing the evidence presented .
Any time a group of misdemeanor convictions results in a speech about “ a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death , ” you know you ’ re listening to politics rather than legal opinions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and convictions had nothing whatsoever to do with providing aid to illegal aliens .
Oh , that was certainly the message that authorities were looking to send with these prosecutions , but none of the fifteen were charged with anything related to illegal immigration .
One of them was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area and entering a national refuge without a permit .
Others were charged with abandonment of property .
( The milk crates , water and other supplies they left there . )
Each was given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentence .
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge is one of those areas on the southern border where we don ’ t have a fence ( for the most part ) because we don ’ t need a fence .
The desert is the fence .
Making it across that expanse of deadly terrain alive is nearly impossible and many who make the attempt are later found dead in the wilderness .
But just as a news flash for the judge , it ’ s still illegal to cross the border even where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the government ’ s responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity if they are foolish enough to try it .
The real question here is whether or not Judge Marquez upheld her oath and did her job properly in this case .
Was any evidence offered to indicate that the defendants didn ’ t enter the wilderness area illegally or that they weren ’ t the ones who abandoned their property in those locations ?
No .
No such defense was offered .
In fact , they ’ d already admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturned a pack of valid if minor convictions despite it being obvious that the charges had been supported .
And she did it so she could give a political speech and RESIST the Trump administrations ’ immigration enforcement policies .

You may recall that in March of last year, a judge in Arizona handed down some rather light sentences to fifteen people associated with a group named No More Deaths who had been found leaving water and other supplies for illegal aliens seeking to cross the remote Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The defendants appealed the verdict, leading to the better part of a year’s worth of legal wrangling. Now, a federal judge has issued a stern reversal of those convictions, describing the original case as being based on “gruesome logic.” (The Intercept)
A federal judge in Tucson, Arizona, reversed the conviction of four humanitarian aid volunteers on religious freedom grounds Monday, ruling that the government had embraced a “gruesome logic” that criminalizes “interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death.” The reversal, written by U.S. district judge Rosemary Márquez, marked the latest rebuke of the Trump administration’s crackdown on humanitarian aid providers in southern Arizona, and the second time in matter of months that a religious freedom defense has prevailed in a federal case involving the provision of aid to migrants in the borderlands.
Normally we see judges ruling on such cases based on the merits of the evidence and the strength or weakness of the prosecutors’ case. That clearly wasn’t what was going on here. Judge Marquez was preaching from the bench, rather than addressing the evidence presented. Any time a group of misdemeanor convictions results in a speech about “a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death,” you know you’re listening to politics rather than legal opinions.
Keep in mind that the original charges and convictions had nothing whatsoever to do with providing aid to illegal aliens. Oh, that was certainly the message that authorities were looking to send with these prosecutions, but none of the fifteen were charged with anything related to illegal immigration. One of them was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a wilderness area and entering a national refuge without a permit. Others were charged with abandonment of property. (The milk crates, water and other supplies they left there.) Each was given a $250 fine and a suspended sentence.
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge is one of those areas on the southern border where we don’t have a fence (for the most part) because we don’t need a fence. The desert is the fence. Making it across that expanse of deadly terrain alive is nearly impossible and many who make the attempt are later found dead in the wilderness. But just as a news flash for the judge, it’s still illegal to cross the border even where there is no fence and it’s not the government’s responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity if they are foolish enough to try it.
The real question here is whether or not Judge Marquez upheld her oath and did her job properly in this case. Was any evidence offered to indicate that the defendants didn’t enter the wilderness area illegally or that they weren’t the ones who abandoned their property in those locations? No. No such defense was offered. In fact, they’d already admitted to doing it. So the judge overturned a pack of valid if minor convictions despite it being obvious that the charges had been supported. And she did it so she could give a political speech and RESIST the Trump administrations’ immigration enforcement policies.


hotair--2020-02-04--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: The Hawkeye Hork, SOTU uncorked, Weinstein torqued, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
Has personality politics hollowed out the policy structure of both parties ?
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatic State of the Union speech circumstances in several years , plus try to figure out what the heck happened in Iowa .
• Guess who ’ s doing a Harvey Weinstein trial podcast ?
The new master of the medium himself , Phelim McAleer .
It features “ veteran voice actors recreating the drama , allegations emotions and anger in what will be one of the most watched trials of the decade.
” Find out more in our show today !
• We ’ ll turn our minds toward the more transcendent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend Richard Vigilante comes by to discuss his Teach for Christ mission again .
We ’ ll find out how to make Catholic schools more robust , more effective , and more joyful through this innovative vision — and how you can help .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. Has personality politics hollowed out the policy structure of both parties? We’ll also preview one of the most dramatic State of the Union speech circumstances in several years, plus try to figure out what the heck happened in Iowa.
Guess who’s doing a Harvey Weinstein trial podcast? The new master of the medium himself, Phelim McAleer. It features “veteran voice actors recreating the drama, allegations emotions and anger in what will be one of the most watched trials of the decade.” Find out more in our show today!
We’ll turn our minds toward the more transcendent in our final segment, when my friend Richard Vigilante comes by to discuss his Teach for Christ mission again. We’ll find out how to make Catholic schools more robust, more effective, and more joyful through this innovative vision — and how you can help.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-02-04--"Toxic work culture"? Dem 2020 convention host committee suspends top two officials

When it rains in Des Moines , it pours in Milwaukee , it seems .
As Democrats try to slog their way through the disaster at the start of their nomination voting process , another disaster now looms at the other end of it .
The host committee for their convention in Milwaukee has suspended its top two officials over allegations of a “ toxic work culture.
” What precisely does that mean ?
Nothing good , most assuredly : The two top officials overseeing Milwaukee ’ s host committee for the 2020 Democratic National Convention were sidelined Monday amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a letter to staff obtained by the Journal Sentinel , the board said it had retained an attorney to investigate “ concerns about the work environment ” for the Milwaukee 2020 Host Committee .
During the investigation , Liz Gilbert , president of the host committee , will not be in the office and “ will not have direct contact with staff , ” the letter says .
Adam Alonso , the chief of staff for the group , has been placed on administrative leave , pending the outcome of the probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top advisers ” to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy , which is where this gets even more curious .
During his 2017 campaign , former Murphy aide Julie Roginsky abruptly quit and took a position with the Democratic Governors Association .
No one was quite sure at the time why Roginsky would have left suddenly less that four months before the election .
Observer reporter Salvador Rizzo noted at the time that the move “ came as a bit of a surprise , ” as her new position meant she was now at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the election.
” Last week , Roginsky explained why she left , the day after Murphy waived a gag order under some pressure from Roginsky .
Another high-ranking advisor — neither Gilbert nor Alonso but Brendan Gill — verbally abused her repeatedly , including calling her the “ C-word.
” The catalyst for this treatment , Roginsky told NJ.com editor Tom Moran , was her attempt to inform Murphy that Alonso was exploiting his campaign position to benefit his private interests : There are more layers to this , which no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead .
Roginsky claims that four lobbyists complained to her during the campaign that Gill and a man he hired on the campaign staff , Adam Alonso , were using their proximity to Murphy to press the lobbyists for private business , a claim the governor ’ s campaign says it investigated .
She ’ s not accusing them of corruption , but said she forwarded the complaints to campaign attorneys , and that helps explain Gill ’ s animosity towards her .
Gill denies any wrongdoing , and Alonso didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … This is about men on his staff shouting , throwing chairs , cutting women out of meetings , and retaliating against those who object .
Roginsky is describing behavior that ’ s bad , even a bit sickening , but this is not a Harvey Weinstein scandal .
Still , add Roginsky to the list of women who claim they were mistreated by men during this campaign , the transition , and the early days of the administration .
Julia Fahl , now the mayor of Lambertville , complained of “ toxic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior campaign aide and now a deputy chief of staff , who lost his temper and threw a chair against a wall in her presence .
Allison Kopicki criticized Kelley in the press , and later quit her state job after claiming she faced “ discrimination and hostility ” from Murphy ’ s team .
[ Katie ] Brennan was wildly mistreated after reporting her alleged rape [ by a senior campaign employee ] , forced to watch as Murphy ’ s crew broke a promise to fire the man she accused , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fat raise .
This news broke on Monday of last week .
Roginsky ’ s testimony to Moran doesn ’ t include Gilbert at all , or at least not that Moran mentions in his report on his interview with Roginsky .
Still , both worked on the same campaign , which means that both may well be involved in the “ toxic ” issues from 2017 , or close enough to them to count in terms of PR .
The DNC and/or the host committee might have decided that discretion would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping this from infecting the 2020 process .
It ’ s possible that Roginsky ’ s public airing of the 2017 issues connected to the Murphy campaign prompted employees at the DNC convention organization to come forward with fresh complaints about Alonso and Gilbert .
It might also be that some employees , having read Roginsky ’ s interview , didn ’ t want to wait for things to get toxic and made pre-emptive complaints .
Either way , it seems pretty unlikely that Alonso will get invited back after Roginsky ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gilbert out just to cut ties with those who were in high-ranking positions on Murphy ’ s 2017 campaign .
Or was there something more recent that prompted this move ?
The Associated Press report makes it sound as though the host committee was concerned about the present work environment in Milwaukee rather than the 2017 environment on the Murphy campaign : The two leaders of Milwaukee ’ s host committee for the 2020 Democratic National Convention have been placed on leave pending an investigation into allegations that they oversaw a toxic work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working on planning the event revealed .
… Joe Solmonese , the chief executive of the Democratic National Convention Committee , said in a statement that claims made by employees of the host committee described “ an unacceptable and upsetting environment.
” “ The Democratic Party is firm in our belief that every person deserves to feel safe and respected at their place of work and we will always take seriously claims of bullying and workplace harassment , ” Solmonese said .
The host committee board of directors was moving forward with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that aligns with the values and expectations of our party , ” he said .
WISN ’ s report last night made it sound more acute than historical , too : “ There have been multiple complaints , ” reports Caroline Reinwald , “ about a toxic work culture — specifically , a sexist work environment.
” Oh my .
Democrats will rely on a big gender gap in the fall against Donald Trump , so that kind of issue has the potential for big blowback .
If , say , those involve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or form , it ’ s going to give Republicans lots of room to pounce .
As is their wont , as the media seems to think .
Even without that danger , this move leaves convention planning and organization rudderless with five months to go before it takes place .
It puts the Democrats even further behind the 8-ball than Iowa left them last night and today , and potentially puts a cloud over their convention as well .
Democrats may end up playing catch-up all year with Trump … and @ @ @ @ @ @

When it rains in Des Moines, it pours in Milwaukee, it seems. As Democrats try to slog their way through the disaster at the start of their nomination voting process, another disaster now looms at the other end of it. The host committee for their convention in Milwaukee has suspended its top two officials over allegations of a “toxic work culture.”
What precisely does that mean? Nothing good, most assuredly:
The two top officials overseeing Milwaukee’s host committee for the 2020 Democratic National Convention were sidelined Monday amid allegations of a toxic work culture. In a letter to staff obtained by the Journal Sentinel, the board said it had retained an attorney to investigate “concerns about the work environment” for the Milwaukee 2020 Host Committee. During the investigation, Liz Gilbert, president of the host committee, will not be in the office and “will not have direct contact with staff,” the letter says. Adam Alonso, the chief of staff for the group, has been placed on administrative leave, pending the outcome of the probe.
The two officials are former “top advisers” to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, which is where this gets even more curious. During his 2017 campaign, former Murphy aide Julie Roginsky abruptly quit and took a position with the Democratic Governors Association. No one was quite sure at the time why Roginsky would have left suddenly less that four months before the election. Observer reporter Salvador Rizzo noted at the time that the move “came as a bit of a surprise,” as her new position meant she was now at “some distance from the nerve center of the election.”
Last week, Roginsky explained why she left, the day after Murphy waived a gag order under some pressure from Roginsky. Another high-ranking advisor — neither Gilbert nor Alonso but Brendan Gill — verbally abused her repeatedly, including calling her the “C-word.” The catalyst for this treatment, Roginsky told NJ.com editor Tom Moran, was her attempt to inform Murphy that Alonso was exploiting his campaign position to benefit his private interests:
There are more layers to this, which no doubt will be combed over in the weeks ahead. Roginsky claims that four lobbyists complained to her during the campaign that Gill and a man he hired on the campaign staff, Adam Alonso, were using their proximity to Murphy to press the lobbyists for private business, a claim the governor’s campaign says it investigated. She’s not accusing them of corruption, but said she forwarded the complaints to campaign attorneys, and that helps explain Gill’s animosity towards her. Gill denies any wrongdoing, and Alonso didn’t respond to questions sent by e-mail. … This is about men on his staff shouting, throwing chairs, cutting women out of meetings, and retaliating against those who object. Roginsky is describing behavior that’s bad, even a bit sickening, but this is not a Harvey Weinstein scandal. Still, add Roginsky to the list of women who claim they were mistreated by men during this campaign, the transition, and the early days of the administration. Julia Fahl, now the mayor of Lambertville, complained of “toxic” behavior by Joe Kelley, a senior campaign aide and now a deputy chief of staff, who lost his temper and threw a chair against a wall in her presence. Allison Kopicki criticized Kelley in the press, and later quit her state job after claiming she faced “discrimination and hostility” from Murphy’s team. [Katie] Brennan was wildly mistreated after reporting her alleged rape [by a senior campaign employee], forced to watch as Murphy’s crew broke a promise to fire the man she accused, and instead promoted him and gave him a fat raise.
This news broke on Monday of last week. Roginsky’s testimony to Moran doesn’t include Gilbert at all, or at least not that Moran mentions in his report on his interview with Roginsky. Still, both worked on the same campaign, which means that both may well be involved in the “toxic” issues from 2017, or close enough to them to count in terms of PR. The DNC and/or the host committee might have decided that discretion would be the better part of valor in keeping this from infecting the 2020 process.
It’s possible that Roginsky’s public airing of the 2017 issues connected to the Murphy campaign prompted employees at the DNC convention organization to come forward with fresh complaints about Alonso and Gilbert. It might also be that some employees, having read Roginsky’s interview, didn’t want to wait for things to get toxic and made pre-emptive complaints. Either way, it seems pretty unlikely that Alonso will get invited back after Roginsky’s allegations, and the DNC might keep Gilbert out just to cut ties with those who were in high-ranking positions on Murphy’s 2017 campaign.
Or was there something more recent that prompted this move? The Associated Press report makes it sound as though the host committee was concerned about the present work environment in Milwaukee rather than the 2017 environment on the Murphy campaign:
The two leaders of Milwaukee’s host committee for the 2020 Democratic National Convention have been placed on leave pending an investigation into allegations that they oversaw a toxic work environment, a letter sent to staff working on planning the event revealed. … Joe Solmonese, the chief executive of the Democratic National Convention Committee, said in a statement that claims made by employees of the host committee described “an unacceptable and upsetting environment.” “The Democratic Party is firm in our belief that every person deserves to feel safe and respected at their place of work and we will always take seriously claims of bullying and workplace harassment,” Solmonese said. The host committee board of directors was moving forward with a plan to “restore an office culture that aligns with the values and expectations of our party,” he said.
WISN’s report last night made it sound more acute than historical, too:
“There have been multiple complaints,” reports Caroline Reinwald, “about a toxic work culture — specifically, a sexist work environment.” Oh my. Democrats will rely on a big gender gap in the fall against Donald Trump, so that kind of issue has the potential for big blowback. If, say, those involve misogynistic treatment in some way, shape, or form, it’s going to give Republicans lots of room to pounce. As is their wont, as the media seems to think.
Even without that danger, this move leaves convention planning and organization rudderless with five months to go before it takes place. It puts the Democrats even further behind the 8-ball than Iowa left them last night and today, and potentially puts a cloud over their convention as well. Democrats may end up playing catch-up all year with Trump … and may not succeed at all.


hotair--2020-02-04--Zerlina Maxwell: 'The Iowa caucus is essentially the perfect example of systemic racism'

If you ’ re MSNBC , I guess this is what you wanted when you hired Zerlina Maxwell as a political analyst .
Maxwell announced ahead of time that this is what she would be saying : After her appearance she tried to clarify what she meant about the kids in cages : I see a couple of obvious problems with her point about who feels the pain .
First , the people she ’ s talking about were Central Americans apprehend after crossing the border .
So it ’ s true that “ white ” kids were not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it ’ s also true that black kids were not in cages because the kids were all Hispanic .
Maxwell glosses over this saying “ black and brown ” people are seeing “ their kids…put in cages.
” But that ’ s not really true at least for the most part .
Unless she wants to extend this argument for low turnout to black people too , she isn ’ t really being consistent .
Here ’ s the other obvious problem with her argument : I ’ m sure she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic racism problem , but in this case she ’ s really indicting the Democrats .
And maybe that ’ s her point .
There are a lot of progressives saying today that Democrats should stop participating in the Iowa caucus .
The fact that it ’ s not demographically representative of the party is just one more reason to add to the pile .
Mediaite ’ s Tommy Christopher tried to help clarify Maxwell ’ s point by offering up an alternate segment from the same appearance ( which Maxwell then retweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate [ in Iowa ] doesn ’ t reflect the makeup of the Democratic electorate , which the base of the Democratic Party is black people , ” she said .
She added , “ You ’ re just going to have a complete disconnect in terms of any predictions you could make out of Iowa… ” I guess Maxwell ’ s analysis is arguable , but that doesn ’ t mean there aren ’ t some major problems with it .
First , it ’ s overstating things quite a bit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply because it has a lot of white people in it .
Democratic voters in the state handed Barack Obama a resounding victory in 2008 ( 38 % of the vote ) that helped propel him into the White House .
The runner up was John Edwards at 30 percent .
So it seems white voters don ’ t necessarily equate to voting for white candidates .
Second , it ’ s not true that the Iowa caucus has no value simply because it ’ s not a perfect demographic representation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pretty good record , on the Democratic side , of narrowing the field to the winner and a couple of spares : I guess you could argue that Iowa is so powerful it ’ s making this happen rather than reflecting the will of the electorate .
Maybe Maxwell believes that ?
But that ’ s a different argument from the one she made , i.e .
that there is a “ complete disconnect ” between Iowa caucus-goers and Democratic Party such that it has no predictive value .
Third and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats pushed Corey Booker and Kamala Harris , the leading black candidates , off the stage before they even reached Iowa .
So Iowa didn ’ t play any role in discouraging black candidates .
All of the top four candidates were white before we got this far .
That decision was made by donors and poll respondents around the country .
If the party chose from a group of white candidates that obviously isn ’ t Iowa ’ s fault .
Which leaves me to wonder what actual racist impact the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have results , Maxwell ought to explain how the results would actually be significantly different if the demographics of the state had been different and then also explain why primaries in other states can ’ t further refine that result ?
In sum , there are a lot of problems with Maxwell ’ s claims , but I guess if the goal was to create a viral clip that people would talk about she seems to have accomplished that .

If you’re MSNBC, I guess this is what you wanted when you hired Zerlina Maxwell as a political analyst.
.@ZerlinaMaxwell: The Iowa caucus is essentially the perfect example of systemic racism. 91% of the voters in Iowa are white. The reason why you see a drop in turnout, I’m just speculating here, it could be perhaps that white children are not in the cages. pic.twitter.com/P6ruOIQCcx — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) February 4, 2020
Maxwell announced ahead of time that this is what she would be saying:
I’ll be on tv with @craigmelvin in the 11am hour talking about how this should be the very last time Iowa goes first and also how it’s the perfect example of systemic racism. Tune in! — Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) February 4, 2020
After her appearance she tried to clarify what she meant about the kids in cages:
My point being that the urgency and pain isn’t felt in the same way. That matters even though no one will want to admit it. I also noted that the caucus system is UNDemocratic & suppresses votes of historically marginalized like folks with accessibility needs and single parents https://t.co/UPidSfWzOb — Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) February 4, 2020
I see a couple of obvious problems with her point about who feels the pain. First, the people she’s talking about were Central Americans apprehend after crossing the border. So it’s true that “white” kids were not in cages because the kids were all Hispanic. But it’s also true that black kids were not in cages because the kids were all Hispanic. Maxwell glosses over this saying “black and brown” people are seeing “their kids…put in cages.” But that’s not really true at least for the most part. Unless she wants to extend this argument for low turnout to black people too, she isn’t really being consistent. Here’s the other obvious problem with her argument:
The people voting are Democrats. She knows that…right? https://t.co/x1N1WYzXUl — Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) February 4, 2020
I’m sure she believes white Democrats are part of the systemic racism problem, but in this case she’s really indicting the Democrats. And maybe that’s her point. There are a lot of progressives saying today that Democrats should stop participating in the Iowa caucus. The fact that it’s not demographically representative of the party is just one more reason to add to the pile.
Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher tried to help clarify Maxwell’s point by offering up an alternate segment from the same appearance (which Maxwell then retweeted). “The makeup of the electorate [in Iowa] doesn’t reflect the makeup of the Democratic electorate, which the base of the Democratic Party is black people,” she said. She added, “You’re just going to have a complete disconnect in terms of any predictions you could make out of Iowa…”
Here’s the clip (top one):
She's not saying Iowans are racist. Clearly @ZerlinaMaxwell is talking about centering a white state in a diverse party, using an undemocratic process. Here's a little more context from the show. https://t.co/w3VmYSeatC pic.twitter.com/NCHsDEHBQ4 — Tommy X-TrumpIsARacist-opher (@tommyxtopher) February 4, 2020
I guess Maxwell’s analysis is arguable, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some major problems with it. First, it’s overstating things quite a bit to say that Iowa is perpetuating systemic racism simply because it has a lot of white people in it. Democratic voters in the state handed Barack Obama a resounding victory in 2008 (38% of the vote) that helped propel him into the White House. The runner up was John Edwards at 30 percent. So it seems white voters don’t necessarily equate to voting for white candidates.
Second, it’s not true that the Iowa caucus has no value simply because it’s not a perfect demographic representation of the party. In fact, Iowa has a pretty good record, on the Democratic side, of narrowing the field to the winner and a couple of spares:
Since 1972, no Democratic or Republican candidate who finished worse than fourth place in Iowa has gone on to win their party’s nomination. And both parties have only had one case of fourth-place survival: Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992 and Republican John McCain in 2008. For the other ten caucuses during this time, the eventual party nomination was always awarded to a top-three candidate in the Iowa caucus.
I guess you could argue that Iowa is so powerful it’s making this happen rather than reflecting the will of the electorate. Maybe Maxwell believes that? But that’s a different argument from the one she made, i.e. that there is a “complete disconnect” between Iowa caucus-goers and Democratic Party such that it has no predictive value.
Third and perhaps most importantly with regard to this year, Democrats pushed Corey Booker and Kamala Harris, the leading black candidates, off the stage before they even reached Iowa. So Iowa didn’t play any role in discouraging black candidates. All of the top four candidates were white before we got this far. That decision was made by donors and poll respondents around the country. If the party chose from a group of white candidates that obviously isn’t Iowa’s fault.
Which leaves me to wonder what actual racist impact the Iowa caucus had yesterday? Once we have results, Maxwell ought to explain how the results would actually be significantly different if the demographics of the state had been different and then also explain why primaries in other states can’t further refine that result?
In sum, there are a lot of problems with Maxwell’s claims, but I guess if the goal was to create a viral clip that people would talk about she seems to have accomplished that.


hotair--2020-02-04--WaPo: Removal? Censure? Hey... how about both!

It appears , at least at times , as if the editorial board at the Washington Post has finally given up on the dream that some sort of Groundhog Day miracle is on the way and two-thirds of the Senate will somehow vote to expel President Trump from office .
But that doesn ’ t mean that they ’ re going to give up on trying .
While waiting for the final vote to acquit the President , they gamely pitched another idea this week .
Perhaps we could go for a vote on censure instead .
Or , better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and then remove him from office anyway !
I ’ m still not entirely sure if that ’ s what ’ s being proposed in this editorial , but it certainly sounds like it .
The piece begins with what passes for high praise of both Ben Sasse and Lamar Alexander , both of whom have at least gone so far as to say that some of the President ’ s actions regarding Ukraine were “ inappropriate ” while not rising to the level of impeachable crimes .
Using that as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate to at least push forward with a censure .
But then they immediately seem to backtrack and say that Trump also needs to be removed .
Judge for yourself from this excerpt .
The strongest argument offered by Republicans is that the Senate should allow voters to decide Mr. Trump ’ s fate .
Striking him from the ballot , they say , would turbocharge the country ’ s divisions and leave many convinced that U.S. democracy had been subverted .
We agree that ’ s a danger , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it : remove Mr. Trump , thereby guarding against further election interference , while allowing him on the ballot if the Republican Party renominates him .
The reality is that Republicans who acknowledge Mr. Trump ’ s guilt appear less interested in a remedy than in an excuse to vote for acquittal .
They ought to be tested on whether they will stand behind their conclusion that the president ’ s behavior was wrong .
Democrats should put forward a censure resolution saying that the extortion of Ukraine ’ s president was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP senators will still dare to speak truth to Mr. Trump .
The amount of muddled thinking on display here is notable , but let ’ s see if we can ’ t sort a few things out .
The editors give a nod to the idea that “ striking him from the ballot ” would convince people that Democracy had been subverted .
Let ’ s just zoom past the fact that Congress has no control over who does or doesn ’ t get on the ballot for either party unless they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural-born citizens or are younger than the age of 35 .
The premise here seems to be that the Senate Republicans should join in with the Democrats and remove Trump from office for now , but let him try to run for a second term in November .
I hate to be the one to bring it up , but someone at WaPo HQ might want to take a look at Article I Section 3 of the Constitution .
For those who skipped school on the day this was covered , here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the emphasis being added by yours truly .
“ Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office , and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor , trust or profit under the United States ; ” One would assume that the Founders considered the Presidency to be an “ office of honor , trust or profit.
” If you impeach and remove the President , he ’ s disqualified from running again .
So the wheels come off of this plan pretty rapidly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I suppose so if that ’ s how you ’ re inclined .
I still doubt you could find enough Republicans willing to go along with it , but let ’ s say you did .
It wouldn ’ t even be the first time .
The Senate censured Andrew Jackson back in 1834 , though it was widely seen as a political maneuver by the Whigs and Jackson still served out his term .
In the modern era , you may recall that Charlie Rangel was censured by the House in 2010 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He went on to win several more terms and retired of his own free will in 2017 .
It really sounds as if the WaPo editors are letting their frustration over Donald Trump ’ s apparent Teflon skin get the best of them here .
Depending how you interpret this request , they ’ re either asking for something unconstitutional , essentially meaningless , or both .

It appears, at least at times, as if the editorial board at the Washington Post has finally given up on the dream that some sort of Groundhog Day miracle is on the way and two-thirds of the Senate will somehow vote to expel President Trump from office. But that doesn’t mean that they’re going to give up on trying. While waiting for the final vote to acquit the President, they gamely pitched another idea this week. Perhaps we could go for a vote on censure instead. Or, better yet… (wait for it) censure him and then remove him from office anyway! I’m still not entirely sure if that’s what’s being proposed in this editorial, but it certainly sounds like it.
The piece begins with what passes for high praise of both Ben Sasse and Lamar Alexander, both of whom have at least gone so far as to say that some of the President’s actions regarding Ukraine were “inappropriate” while not rising to the level of impeachable crimes. Using that as a springboard, the editors challenge the Republicans in the Senate to at least push forward with a censure. But then they immediately seem to backtrack and say that Trump also needs to be removed. Judge for yourself from this excerpt.
The strongest argument offered by Republicans is that the Senate should allow voters to decide Mr. Trump’s fate. Striking him from the ballot, they say, would turbocharge the country’s divisions and leave many convinced that U.S. democracy had been subverted. We agree that’s a danger, but there’s also a solution for it: remove Mr. Trump, thereby guarding against further election interference, while allowing him on the ballot if the Republican Party renominates him. The reality is that Republicans who acknowledge Mr. Trump’s guilt appear less interested in a remedy than in an excuse to vote for acquittal. They ought to be tested on whether they will stand behind their conclusion that the president’s behavior was wrong. Democrats should put forward a censure resolution saying that the extortion of Ukraine’s president was “inappropriate.” Then Americans will see which GOP senators will still dare to speak truth to Mr. Trump.
The amount of muddled thinking on display here is notable, but let’s see if we can’t sort a few things out. The editors give a nod to the idea that “striking him from the ballot” would convince people that Democracy had been subverted. Let’s just zoom past the fact that Congress has no control over who does or doesn’t get on the ballot for either party unless they can prove that they aren’t natural-born citizens or are younger than the age of 35. The premise here seems to be that the Senate Republicans should join in with the Democrats and remove Trump from office for now, but let him try to run for a second term in November.
I hate to be the one to bring it up, but someone at WaPo HQ might want to take a look at Article I Section 3 of the Constitution. For those who skipped school on the day this was covered, here’s what it says in part, with the emphasis being added by yours truly. “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States;”
One would assume that the Founders considered the Presidency to be an “office of honor, trust or profit.” If you impeach and remove the President, he’s disqualified from running again. So the wheels come off of this plan pretty rapidly.
As to the censure idea… sure. I suppose so if that’s how you’re inclined. I still doubt you could find enough Republicans willing to go along with it, but let’s say you did. It wouldn’t even be the first time. The Senate censured Andrew Jackson back in 1834, though it was widely seen as a political maneuver by the Whigs and Jackson still served out his term. In the modern era, you may recall that Charlie Rangel was censured by the House in 2010 over various ethics questions and tax evasion. He went on to win several more terms and retired of his own free will in 2017.
It really sounds as if the WaPo editors are letting their frustration over Donald Trump’s apparent Teflon skin get the best of them here. Depending how you interpret this request, they’re either asking for something unconstitutional, essentially meaningless, or both.


hotair--2020-02-04--Biden lost, right? Update: Injunction? Update: Biden denies

I agree with Tim Carney that this is the most important result from last night that we kinda sorta know at this point .
Not the only important one , and it ’ ll matter just how badly Biden did relative to the other top three .
But if we ’ re grasping for winners and losers from what little information we have , there ’ s no question who the loser is .
The large campaigns have precinct captains in nearly every precinct who call in results .
The Sanders campaign released all the results it had , coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it showed , by all three counts , Sanders winning with nearly 30 % , Buttigieg in second , Elizabeth Warren in third , and Biden way back in fourth .
The Warren campaign said its numbers showed Biden also in a distant fourth .
The Biden campaign hasn ’ t reported any results .
Nearly every reporter who reported results last night showed Biden underperforming .
( In the two precincts I covered , Biden wasn ’ t viable and actually had fewer supporters than Andrew Yang . )
… But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first or second in all the polls , he is the former vice president , he has near universal name ID — and yet he finished fourth .
Based on their partial results , Team Bernie had it Sanders 29.7 , Buttigieg 24.6 , Warren 21.2 , and Biden at … 12.4 .
They also had Mayor Pete gaining more than Bernie between the first round of voting and the second round , which is plausible and intuitive and lends credibility to their estimates .
Since Warren was viable in most precincts last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ d be few hard-left votes available to migrate to Bernie during the second round .
Not so for Buttigieg , who could pick up votes from supporters of Biden and Klobuchar , each of whom missed the viability cut in various places .
As Carney notes , Team Warren ’ s best guess is also that Biden finished way back in fourth .
Biden ’ s own allies sounded glum yesterday afternoon before the caucus began , which makes me wonder if their internal polling was showing bad vibes to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not going to be great , ” one longtime Biden ally who has had conversations with top aides inside the campaign , acknowledged Monday .
Biden ’ s aides and allies said they were hoping to place in the top three .
But even if they fall short , the campaign is “ built for the long haul , ” one Biden confidant said… “ If Amy or Pete does better than expected and is getting a ton of buzz going into New Hampshire , that ’ s really bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has raised money for Biden .
“ The longer there are more moderate candidates fighting over table scraps while Bernie gains strength , the more narrow the path gets for him going forward.
” The final RCP average of Iowa placed Biden in second place at 19.3 percent .
He led the final Monmouth poll there by two points late last month .
If in fact he finished statewide at 12-13 percent , that would be a bad , demoralizing miss .
Not only would he have finished second in his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be more or less on par with Klobuchar ’ s vote share .
New Hampshire was shaping up to be a low-stakes election since Bernie has surged ahead there and seems likely to win , having won easily in 2016 and enjoying a home-field advantage by dint of Vermont ’ s proximity .
But if Biden did in fact get blitzed in Iowa , his finish in New Hampshire will be watched closely by Democratic movers and shakers .
Right now he ’ s in second place at 17.8 percent in NH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Buttigieg is declared first or second in Iowa today — which seems highly likely — and Klobuchar ’ s Iowa numbers are in the same ballpark as Biden ’ s then Joe ’ s centrist fans in NH will have a hard decision to make .
Do they stick with him or do they abandon him for Pete or Amy ?
And if they do , and he finishes fourth again by underperforming his polls , where does that leave him ?
His allies will remind the world for the umpteenth time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are conspicuously lacking in Iowa and New Hampshire .
“ Wait until South Carolina and Super Tuesday , ” they ’ ll say .
Okay , but the media will dine out for weeks on the narrative that poor old Joe has disappointed in his quest for the presidency yet again , just like he did in 1988 and 2008 .
At a minimum they ’ ll start gaming out a contested convention in which Biden potentially wins enough delegates to deny Bernie an outright majority but not enough to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throat by wondering if Dem voters in South Carolina aren ’ t better off cutting him loose and finding a more viable alternative .
If Biden does rebound from last night , I wonder if we ’ ll look back and see the meltdown in vote-counting as his saving grace , however inadvertent it was .
If the votes had been counted properly , newspapers today would be bludgeoning this guy for having looked so weak .
As it is , they ’ re preoccupied with bludgeoning the Iowa Democratic Party .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Friday ’ s debate in New Hampshire and say , “ That mess is thankfully behind us , ” or even “ Who knows if we can trust the numbers they finally gave us ?
They don ’ t know what they ’ re doing.
” And in the meantime , notes Nate Silver , there ’ s less media oxygen for Bernie and Buttigieg to tout their results last night , which may limit any bounce in the polls that the winner and second-place finisher in Iowa might normally receive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ night , Klobuchar might have quit the race if the results had been reported in a timely way .
As it is , she now has a reason to compete hard in New Hampshire , potentially drawing away moderate swing voters who might have broken for Biden or Buttigieg .
On the flip side , Warren ends up robbed of a night of hype she might have enjoyed for finishing a surprisingly strong third ( or second ) .
Hopefully the Iowa Democrats cough up the actual results today or at least before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can utilize them at Friday night ’ s New Hampshire debate .
But even if they release the data today , last night ’ s media cycle is gone and can ’ t be recovered .
Everyone who might have benefited from good buzz is screwed .
And everyone who would have suffered from bad buzz — a.k.a .
Joe Biden — benefits .
But only for so long .
If he loses badly in New Hampshire and Nevada and comes back with an expected win in South Carolina , will it do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Biden ’ s real problem , as Joe Scarborough notes in the clip below .
He can ’ t keep pace with Bernie ’ s money machine because Sanders runs on small donations from hundreds of thousands of people whereas Biden runs on support from the donor class , whose donations are capped beyond a few thousand dollars .
He needs to give centrist Dems a reason to invest in his campaign .
Doesn ’ t look like it happened last night .
And there ’ s no good reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New Hampshire .
In lieu of an exit question , go watch a pro-Biden caucusgoer last night in Iowa try to sway people by reminding them that even though he ’ s very old he might still choose a good VP to take over for him if need be .
Hoo boy .
Update : Sounds like this is only a rumor for the moment , but Biden filing an injunction to try to block the Iowa results from being released is perfectly in keeping with the “ Joe tanked ” buzz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking an injunction , says Team Joe , which is smart .
Trying and failing to bottle up the results would make a bad performance smell even worse once they inevitably leaked anyway .

I agree with Tim Carney that this is the most important result from last night that we kinda sorta know at this point. Not the only important one, and it’ll matter just how badly Biden did relative to the other top three. But if we’re grasping for winners and losers from what little information we have, there’s no question who the loser is.
The large campaigns have precinct captains in nearly every precinct who call in results. The Sanders campaign released all the results it had, coming from about 40% of precincts, and it showed, by all three counts, Sanders winning with nearly 30%, Buttigieg in second, Elizabeth Warren in third, and Biden way back in fourth. The Warren campaign said its numbers showed Biden also in a distant fourth. The Biden campaign hasn’t reported any results. Nearly every reporter who reported results last night showed Biden underperforming. (In the two precincts I covered, Biden wasn’t viable and actually had fewer supporters than Andrew Yang.)… But definitely, Biden bombed. He was first or second in all the polls, he is the former vice president, he has near universal name ID — and yet he finished fourth.
Based on their partial results, Team Bernie had it Sanders 29.7, Buttigieg 24.6, Warren 21.2, and Biden at … 12.4. They also had Mayor Pete gaining more than Bernie between the first round of voting and the second round, which is plausible and intuitive and lends credibility to their estimates. Since Warren was viable in most precincts last night, it stands to reason that there’d be few hard-left votes available to migrate to Bernie during the second round. Not so for Buttigieg, who could pick up votes from supporters of Biden and Klobuchar, each of whom missed the viability cut in various places.
As Carney notes, Team Warren’s best guess is also that Biden finished way back in fourth. Biden’s own allies sounded glum yesterday afternoon before the caucus began, which makes me wonder if their internal polling was showing bad vibes to come:
“Most [aides] feel it’s not going to be great,” one longtime Biden ally who has had conversations with top aides inside the campaign, acknowledged Monday. Biden’s aides and allies said they were hoping to place in the top three. But even if they fall short, the campaign is “built for the long haul,” one Biden confidant said… “If Amy or Pete does better than expected and is getting a ton of buzz going into New Hampshire, that’s really bad for Biden,” said one Democrat who has raised money for Biden. “The longer there are more moderate candidates fighting over table scraps while Bernie gains strength, the more narrow the path gets for him going forward.”
The final RCP average of Iowa placed Biden in second place at 19.3 percent. He led the final Monmouth poll there by two points late last month. If in fact he finished statewide at 12-13 percent, that would be a bad, demoralizing miss. Not only would he have finished second in his “moderate” lane to Buttigieg, he might be more or less on par with Klobuchar’s vote share. New Hampshire was shaping up to be a low-stakes election since Bernie has surged ahead there and seems likely to win, having won easily in 2016 and enjoying a home-field advantage by dint of Vermont’s proximity. But if Biden did in fact get blitzed in Iowa, his finish in New Hampshire will be watched closely by Democratic movers and shakers. Right now he’s in second place at 17.8 percent in NH based on the RCP average, but if Buttigieg is declared first or second in Iowa today — which seems highly likely — and Klobuchar’s Iowa numbers are in the same ballpark as Biden’s then Joe’s centrist fans in NH will have a hard decision to make. Do they stick with him or do they abandon him for Pete or Amy?
And if they do, and he finishes fourth again by underperforming his polls, where does that leave him? His allies will remind the world for the umpteenth time that Biden does best with black voters, who are conspicuously lacking in Iowa and New Hampshire. “Wait until South Carolina and Super Tuesday,” they’ll say. Okay, but the media will dine out for weeks on the narrative that poor old Joe has disappointed in his quest for the presidency yet again, just like he did in 1988 and 2008. At a minimum they’ll start gaming out a contested convention in which Biden potentially wins enough delegates to deny Bernie an outright majority but not enough to win himself. Some will go for the throat by wondering if Dem voters in South Carolina aren’t better off cutting him loose and finding a more viable alternative.
If Biden does rebound from last night, I wonder if we’ll look back and see the meltdown in vote-counting as his saving grace, however inadvertent it was. If the votes had been counted properly, newspapers today would be bludgeoning this guy for having looked so weak. As it is, they’re preoccupied with bludgeoning the Iowa Democratic Party. Biden has an opportunity now to show up at Friday’s debate in New Hampshire and say, “That mess is thankfully behind us,” or even “Who knows if we can trust the numbers they finally gave us? They don’t know what they’re doing.” And in the meantime, notes Nate Silver, there’s less media oxygen for Bernie and Buttigieg to tout their results last night, which may limit any bounce in the polls that the winner and second-place finisher in Iowa might normally receive.
Silver’s also sensing rising chances of a contested convention:
By giving the winning candidates a boost, the presence of Iowa also reduced the chance of an unstructured race and a potential brokered convention. The chance of there being no delegate majority was 17 percent without Iowa, but would have been 20 percent with it… Iowa is typically a state that winnows the field. But with every candidate either having performed well there, potentially having an excuse for a disappointing finish there, or somewhere in between, it might not do that. Delaying the winnowing process would tangibly increase the chance of a contested convention.
Depending upon how poorly she did last night, Klobuchar might have quit the race if the results had been reported in a timely way. As it is, she now has a reason to compete hard in New Hampshire, potentially drawing away moderate swing voters who might have broken for Biden or Buttigieg. On the flip side, Warren ends up robbed of a night of hype she might have enjoyed for finishing a surprisingly strong third (or second). Hopefully the Iowa Democrats cough up the actual results today or at least before Friday so that each of the candidates can utilize them at Friday night’s New Hampshire debate. But even if they release the data today, last night’s media cycle is gone and can’t be recovered. Everyone who might have benefited from good buzz is screwed.
And everyone who would have suffered from bad buzz — a.k.a. Joe Biden — benefits.
But only for so long. If he loses badly in New Hampshire and Nevada and comes back with an expected win in South Carolina, will it do much to pad his fundraising? That’s Biden’s real problem, as Joe Scarborough notes in the clip below. He can’t keep pace with Bernie’s money machine because Sanders runs on small donations from hundreds of thousands of people whereas Biden runs on support from the donor class, whose donations are capped beyond a few thousand dollars. He needs to give centrist Dems a reason to invest in his campaign. Doesn’t look like it happened last night. And there’s no good reason to think it’ll happen next week in New Hampshire.
In lieu of an exit question, go watch a pro-Biden caucusgoer last night in Iowa try to sway people by reminding them that even though he’s very old he might still choose a good VP to take over for him if need be. Hoo boy.
Update: Sounds like this is only a rumor for the moment, but Biden filing an injunction to try to block the Iowa results from being released is perfectly in keeping with the “Joe tanked” buzz.
CNN's John King reports that the Biden campaign may seek a court injunction to halt this afternoon’s release of the Iowa Caucus results. Before the Iowa results are released, Biden's campaign is questioning the integrity of the results. pic.twitter.com/nkr83ZE5fD — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 4, 2020
Update: We’re not seeking an injunction, says Team Joe, which is smart. Trying and failing to bottle up the results would make a bad performance smell even worse once they inevitably leaked anyway.