vox--2020-02-06--The latest Iowa caucuses drama, from an app meltdown to a possible recanvass, explained

Well , the Iowa caucuses are turning out to be a real shitshow .
Days after the 2020 Democratic primary season kicked off in earnest , Iowa continues to surprise us , and not in a good way .
It ’ s not just that questions continue to swirl about the app at the heart of the meltdown as new information about its severe shortcomings and more revelations about the shadowy groups behind it come to the surface .
Perhaps more worrying , it ’ s increasingly clear that the Iowa caucuses ’ problems go far beyond technical difficulties and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Human error and malice are in play as well .
And now , the Democratic National Committee is calling for a recanvass — meaning auditing the results by hand to double-check the results .
Iowa ’ s importance in the primary process is that it is an early shaper of the race — in many contests past , the winner of Iowa has wound up being the nominee .
But with this debacle , two candidates — Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg — have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outperforming the polling prior to the contest is getting less coverage .
Former Vice President Joe Biden is casting doubt on the entire process .
Conspiracy theories abound .
If you were already nervous about 2020 , what ’ s going on in Iowa is not going to make you feel any better .
In case you missed it , the results of the Iowa caucuses were supposed to land on Monday night , but they didn ’ t , and they still haven ’ t in full .
Initially , the Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do “ quality control ” on results as they trickled in , but it soon became clear that meant more than a few spot checks .
Part of the problem was the new app to report results , made by a tech company called Shadow and backed by a Democratic dark money group named Acronym , wasn ’ t working as intended .
Many precinct chairs reported problems downloading and using the apps , and while the Iowa Democratic Party had backup systems in place , including a hotline for reporting results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those didn ’ t work seamlessly , either .
New rules around results reporting have exposed a multitude of errors in precinct tallies and recordings .
As the results keep trickling out of Iowa , so does more information about what happened .
And the picture it paints isn ’ t pretty .
How screwed up were the Iowa caucuses ?
Well , to start , the app wasn ’ t great .
In the days following the Iowa caucuses , multiple disturbing reports have emerged of the chaotic scene there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a lot of levels .
The new app the Iowa Democratic Party decided to use for the caucuses has perhaps received the most attention in the media .
Sara Morrison at Recode has a complete explainer on it , but to sum it up , the app , called the IowaReporterApp , was built by a tech company called Shadow Inc. Before the caucuses , the IDP wouldn ’ t release the name of the app , and nobody knew much about it , but what we know now isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rush job on which only $ 60,000 was spent , it was barely tested ahead of time , and it had major glitches on caucus day .
Many precinct leaders failed to use the app or were unable to log in to it .
Acronym , the Democratic group that previously claimed to have launched Shadow , has tried to distance itself from the debacle , which has put its operations under scrutiny as well .
Motherboard did a deep dive on the app and spoke with six cybersecurity to get their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were rough : ProPublica consulted a security firm about the app , and it found that while there ’ s no evidence it was hacked , it could have been .
According to the outlet , hackers could have intercepted or changed vote totals , passwords , and other information , especially for devices connected to a wifi hot spot .
Gerard Niemira , the CEO of Shadow , told ProPublica that the company is “ committed to the security of our products , ” including the app , and that it underwent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third party , ” even though vulnerabilities have now been found .
Given the app ’ s issues , it certainly seems the testing could have been a bit more rigorous .
The caucus hotline also had an issue While the app is getting a lot of airtime , it wasn ’ t the only problem with the Iowa caucuses this year .
On caucus night , multiple precinct captains reported having problems with calling the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s hotline to report results when the app failed .
Wait times were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on one precinct canvasser when he was on live television .
Bloomberg reported on Wednesday evening that state party leaders were saying that the hotline had been clogged by President Donald Trump ’ s supporters on caucus night .
The number had been posted online , and people started flooding the line to call and express their support for Trump — not to report results .
NBC News subsequently reported that the hotline number was posted on the internet forum 4chan along with a directive to “ clog the lines.
” According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Uh oh how unfortunate it would be for a bunch of mischief makers to start clogging the lines.
” As if that ’ s not enough , there are reports of errors in the results On Tuesday afternoon , Iowa started releasing some of its results — 62 percent of them , to be exact .
And it ’ s slowly been putting out more , bit by bit .
But yet another problem has emerged , and a big one : The results have more than a few errors .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least 100 of the 1,765 precincts have been “ riddled with errors and inconsistencies.
” For example , one wave of results reported Bernie Sanders ’ s votes as being for Deval Patrick , and Elizabeth Warren ’ s as being for Tom Steyer .
The Iowa Democratic Party pushed corrected figures relatively quickly , but it sure doesn ’ t inspire confidence in the “ quality control ” checks it ’ s doing .
And in multiple precincts , the numbers don ’ t add up .
Iowa changed how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so three numbers are reported ( Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop has a complete explainer of how this all works ) , and that new system has revealed significant errors .
As the Times notes , some candidates appeared to lose support in different rounds of voting , even when that ’ s not , by the rules , supposed to happen .
CNN also reported problems between different rounds of voting .
And even though no new voters are allowed to join a caucus after the first count , in dozens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are higher than the first ones .
In multiple precincts , there ’ s a discrepancy between the number of votes and the number of “ state delegate equivalents ” allotted .
In other words , there appear to have been a lot of human error at caucuses across Iowa .
Will we ever know the answer to who won the Iowa caucuses ?
¯\_ ( ツ ) _/¯ At the moment , it looks like Sanders and Buttigieg are the likeliest winners of the Iowa caucuses , with Warren in third , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already kind of tried to declare victory , but Sanders has been leading in the popular vote tallies , and as his state delegate equivalent numbers have crept up , he has declared victory , too .
( Weird thing : The Iowa caucuses , much like the Electoral College , can have a popular vote/delegate split . )
On Thursday , Tom Perez , the head of the Democratic National Committee , called for a recanvass of the results out of Iowa .
“ Enough is enough , ” he tweeted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DNC pointed to the IDP ’ s manual , which explains a recanvass as a “ hand audit ” of caucus math worksheets and reporting forms to make sure they were tallied and reported on the phone and through the app correctly .
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price on Thursday afternoon released a lengthy statement on the latest caucus developments .
“ While I fully acknowledge that the reporting circumstances on Monday night were unacceptable , we owe it to the thousands of Iowa Democratic volunteers and caucusgoers to remain focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
Price said that the IDP has identified “ inconsistencies in the data ” and that correcting errors is an “ ongoing process ” with precinct chairs .
Price ’ s statement suggests that despite the DNC ’ s calls for a recanvass , the request actually has to come from a candidate , after which the IDP would have 48 hours to respond : “ Should any presidential campaign in compliance with the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan request a recanvass , the IDP is prepared .
In such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper records of report , as provided by the precinct chairs and signed by representatives of presidential campaigns .
This is the official record of the Iowa Democratic caucus , and we are committed to ensuring the results accurately reflect the preference of Iowans.
” It ’ s not clear whether any of the campaigns will bite .

Well, the Iowa caucuses are turning out to be a real shitshow.
Days after the 2020 Democratic primary season kicked off in earnest, Iowa continues to surprise us, and not in a good way. It’s not just that questions continue to swirl about the app at the heart of the meltdown as new information about its severe shortcomings and more revelations about the shadowy groups behind it come to the surface.
Perhaps more worrying, it’s increasingly clear that the Iowa caucuses’ problems go far beyond technical difficulties and a product that didn’t deliver: Human error and malice are in play as well. And now, the Democratic National Committee is calling for a recanvass — meaning auditing the results by hand to double-check the results.
Iowa’s importance in the primary process is that it is an early shaper of the race — in many contests past, the winner of Iowa has wound up being the nominee. But with this debacle, two candidates — Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — have now declared victory. Sen. Elizabeth Warren outperforming the polling prior to the contest is getting less coverage. Former Vice President Joe Biden is casting doubt on the entire process. Conspiracy theories abound.
If you were already nervous about 2020, what’s going on in Iowa is not going to make you feel any better.
In case you missed it, the results of the Iowa caucuses were supposed to land on Monday night, but they didn’t, and they still haven’t in full. Initially, the Iowa Democratic Party said they needed some time to do “quality control” on results as they trickled in, but it soon became clear that meant more than a few spot checks.
Part of the problem was the new app to report results, made by a tech company called Shadow and backed by a Democratic dark money group named Acronym, wasn’t working as intended. Many precinct chairs reported problems downloading and using the apps, and while the Iowa Democratic Party had backup systems in place, including a hotline for reporting results and a paper trail, a lot of those didn’t work seamlessly, either. New rules around results reporting have exposed a multitude of errors in precinct tallies and recordings.
As the results keep trickling out of Iowa, so does more information about what happened. And the picture it paints isn’t pretty.
How screwed up were the Iowa caucuses? Well, to start, the app wasn’t great.
In the days following the Iowa caucuses, multiple disturbing reports have emerged of the chaotic scene there. There were a lot of mistakes, on a lot of levels.
The new app the Iowa Democratic Party decided to use for the caucuses has perhaps received the most attention in the media. Sara Morrison at Recode has a complete explainer on it, but to sum it up, the app, called the IowaReporterApp, was built by a tech company called Shadow Inc.
Before the caucuses, the IDP wouldn’t release the name of the app, and nobody knew much about it, but what we know now isn’t good. It looks like it was a rush job on which only $60,000 was spent, it was barely tested ahead of time, and it had major glitches on caucus day. Many precinct leaders failed to use the app or were unable to log in to it. Acronym, the Democratic group that previously claimed to have launched Shadow, has tried to distance itself from the debacle, which has put its operations under scrutiny as well.
Motherboard did a deep dive on the app and spoke with six cybersecurity to get their takes on it, and the reviews were rough:
“Honestly, the biggest thing is—I don’t want to throw it under the bus—but the app was clearly done by someone following a tutorial. It’s similar to projects I do with my mentees who are learning how to code,” [Kasra Rahjerdi, an Android developer] said. “They started with a starter package and they just added things on top of it. I get deja vu from my classes because the code looks like someone Googled things like ‘how to add authentication to React Native App’ and followed the instructions,” Rahjerdi said. “The mobile app looks hastily thrown together,” Dan Guido, CEO of cybersecurity consulting firm Trail of Bits, told Motherboard.
ProPublica consulted a security firm about the app, and it found that while there’s no evidence it was hacked, it could have been. According to the outlet, hackers could have intercepted or changed vote totals, passwords, and other information, especially for devices connected to a wifi hot spot.
Gerard Niemira, the CEO of Shadow, told ProPublica that the company is “committed to the security of our products,” including the app, and that it underwent “multiple, rigorous tests by a third party,” even though vulnerabilities have now been found. Given the app’s issues, it certainly seems the testing could have been a bit more rigorous.
The caucus hotline also had an issue
While the app is getting a lot of airtime, it wasn’t the only problem with the Iowa caucuses this year.
On caucus night, multiple precinct captains reported having problems with calling the Iowa Democratic Party’s hotline to report results when the app failed. Wait times were long, and the IDP hung up on one precinct canvasser when he was on live television.
Bloomberg reported on Wednesday evening that state party leaders were saying that the hotline had been clogged by President Donald Trump’s supporters on caucus night. The number had been posted online, and people started flooding the line to call and express their support for Trump — not to report results. NBC News subsequently reported that the hotline number was posted on the internet forum 4chan along with a directive to “clog the lines.” According to the outlet, one user remarked, “Uh oh how unfortunate it would be for a bunch of mischief makers to start clogging the lines.”
As if that’s not enough, there are reports of errors in the results
On Tuesday afternoon, Iowa started releasing some of its results — 62 percent of them, to be exact. And it’s slowly been putting out more, bit by bit. But yet another problem has emerged, and a big one: The results have more than a few errors.
The New York Times reported that results in at least 100 of the 1,765 precincts have been “riddled with errors and inconsistencies.” For example, one wave of results reported Bernie Sanders’s votes as being for Deval Patrick, and Elizabeth Warren’s as being for Tom Steyer. The Iowa Democratic Party pushed corrected figures relatively quickly, but it sure doesn’t inspire confidence in the “quality control” checks it’s doing.
And in multiple precincts, the numbers don’t add up. Iowa changed how it’s reporting its results election cycle so three numbers are reported (Vox’s Andrew Prokop has a complete explainer of how this all works), and that new system has revealed significant errors. As the Times notes, some candidates appeared to lose support in different rounds of voting, even when that’s not, by the rules, supposed to happen.
CNN also reported problems between different rounds of voting. And even though no new voters are allowed to join a caucus after the first count, in dozens of precincts, the final numbers of voters are higher than the first ones. In multiple precincts, there’s a discrepancy between the number of votes and the number of “state delegate equivalents” allotted.
In other words, there appear to have been a lot of human error at caucuses across Iowa.
Will we ever know the answer to who won the Iowa caucuses? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
At the moment, it looks like Sanders and Buttigieg are the likeliest winners of the Iowa caucuses, with Warren in third, and Biden in fourth. Buttigieg has already kind of tried to declare victory, but Sanders has been leading in the popular vote tallies, and as his state delegate equivalent numbers have crept up, he has declared victory, too. (Weird thing: The Iowa caucuses, much like the Electoral College, can have a popular vote/delegate split.)
On Thursday, Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, called for a recanvass of the results out of Iowa. “Enough is enough,” he tweeted.
A recanvass is a review of the worksheets from each caucus site to ensure accuracy.
The IDP will continue to report results. — Tom Perez (@TomPerez) February 6, 2020
When asked exactly what that means, the DNC pointed to the IDP’s manual, which explains a recanvass as a “hand audit” of caucus math worksheets and reporting forms to make sure they were tallied and reported on the phone and through the app correctly.
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price on Thursday afternoon released a lengthy statement on the latest caucus developments. “While I fully acknowledge that the reporting circumstances on Monday night were unacceptable, we owe it to the thousands of Iowa Democratic volunteers and caucusgoers to remain focused on collecting and reviewing incoming results,” he said. Price said that the IDP has identified “inconsistencies in the data” and that correcting errors is an “ongoing process” with precinct chairs.
Price’s statement suggests that despite the DNC’s calls for a recanvass, the request actually has to come from a candidate, after which the IDP would have 48 hours to respond: “Should any presidential campaign in compliance with the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan request a recanvass, the IDP is prepared. In such a circumstance, the IDP will audit the paper records of report, as provided by the precinct chairs and signed by representatives of presidential campaigns. This is the official record of the Iowa Democratic caucus, and we are committed to ensuring the results accurately reflect the preference of Iowans.”
It’s not clear whether any of the campaigns will bite.


vox--2020-02-06--Threats, misogyny, hypocrisy — Trump’s post-impeachment speech had a little of everything

The post-impeachment victory lap speech President Donald Trump delivered on Thursday from the White House has to be one of the most bonkers official events in presidential history .
Speaking off the cuff , Trump began remarks by falsely claiming that the investigations into him predated his presidency , called the Russia investigation “ bullshit , ” and mocked a Purple Heart recipient who testified during the impeachment trial .
He also complained Hillary Clinton was never prosecuted and referred to former leaders of the FBI as “ scum.
” That ’ s just a sampling of some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than hour-long speech he delivered the day after the Senate voted to acquit him on two articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Trump talked about the impeachment process — enshrined in the Constitution — as a tool Democrats used “ to try to overthrow the government ” and expressed no remorse about his actions that prompted Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings in the first place .
“ I call it a perfect call , because it was , ” he said of his attempts to strong-arm the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
Perhaps most significantly , the fact that the president feels emboldened to deliver such a speech is a bad omen for those hoping that this year ’ s campaign will be less of a mess than 2016 was .
Trump heaped scorn on Democrats who played leading roles in the impeachment saga , including impeachment manager Adam Schiff ( “ a vicious , horrible person ” ) , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( “ I doubt she prays at all ” ) , and former FBI Director James Comey ( “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though he was speaking to a room full of Republicans , Trump also repeatedly bashed Mitt Romney , the only Republican in the Senate to vote for his removal from office , describing him as “ a guy that can ’ t stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency.
” On the flip side of the coin , Trump singled out dozens of Republicans for praise .
But his comments about a number of the women he mentioned objectified them .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liked it .
That ’ s how I picked it .
I liked the name .
I saw that face , I saw that everything , ” Trump said of Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko .
He made similar remarks about New York Rep. Elise Stefanik .
“ I thought , ‘ she looks good , she looks like good talent , ’ but I didn ’ t realize that when she opens that mouth , she was killing them.
” Trump also went on a bizarre , tongue-in-cheek rant about how most wives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t be especially bothered if they were in the hospital — contrasting that state of affairs with the wife of Rep. Steve Scalise , noting she was despondent after her husband was shot during a congressional baseball practice in 2017 .
But it wasn ’ t only Republican women whom Trump talked about in this way .
He also made a crude reference to former FBI agent Lisa Page ’ s appearance .
“ He ’ s probably trying to impress her , for obvious reasons , ” Trump said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent Peter Strzok and Page exchanged that are still at the center of conspiracy theories Trump has pushed about purported FBI bias .
Trump wrapped things up by apologizing to his family — not for anything he did , but for having to endure the impeachment process at all .
“ I want to apologize to my family for having them have to go through a phony , rotted deal by some very evil and sick people , ” he said .
“ And Ivanka is here , and my sons , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barron.
” Trump ’ s unapologetic attitude about everything was also apparent in an aside he made during his speech about the Access Hollywood tape in which he can be heard bragging about sexually assaulting women .
He characterized the day the tape was published by the Washington Post in October 2016 as “ my worst day ” — not because of what he said , but because it jeopardized his chances of being elected the next month .
One of the two articles of impeachment that Trump was acquitted on was abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech indicated he has little remorse .
“ If this happened to President Obama , a lot of people would ’ ve been in jail for a long time already , ” he said .
Trump pushed unfounded conspiracy theories about Joe Biden ’ s alleged corrupt dealings in Ukraine , and — in an especially shameless moment — held his own family up as paragons of virtue when it comes to corruption .
At the end , Trump suggested that former law enforcement and intelligence community officials and Democrats who have tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some rough days .
“ Let ’ s see what happens .
It ’ s in the hands of some very talented people , ” he said , alluding to Attorney General William Barr and Republican senators who have already indicated they plan to investigate the Bidens .
“ These are the crookedest , most dishonest , dirtiest people I ’ ve ever seen.
” So if anyone was holding out hope that going through the impeachment process and receiving a bipartisan vote for his removal from office would chasten Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt : It did not .
In fact , the opposite appears to be the case .
Not only is Trump still Trump , but those who look back fondly on the days when presidents felt constrained by the rule of law can ’ t help but wonder how bad things will get .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

The post-impeachment victory lap speech President Donald Trump delivered on Thursday from the White House has to be one of the most bonkers official events in presidential history.
Speaking off the cuff, Trump began remarks by falsely claiming that the investigations into him predated his presidency, called the Russia investigation “bullshit,” and mocked a Purple Heart recipient who testified during the impeachment trial. He also complained Hillary Clinton was never prosecuted and referred to former leaders of the FBI as “scum.”
That’s just a sampling of some of the topics Trump touched on during the more than hour-long speech he delivered the day after the Senate voted to acquit him on two articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Trump laments that Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted and calls the former leaders of the FBI "scum" pic.twitter.com/hittsDWoJD — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
Trump talked about the impeachment process — enshrined in the Constitution — as a tool Democrats used “to try to overthrow the government” and expressed no remorse about his actions that prompted Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings in the first place.
“I call it a perfect call, because it was,” he said of his attempts to strong-arm the Ukrainian government to do political favors for him.
Perhaps most significantly, the fact that the president feels emboldened to deliver such a speech is a bad omen for those hoping that this year’s campaign will be less of a mess than 2016 was.
Trump’s comments about women were cringeworthy
Trump heaped scorn on Democrats who played leading roles in the impeachment saga, including impeachment manager Adam Schiff (“a vicious, horrible person”), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (“I doubt she prays at all”), and former FBI Director James Comey (“that sleazebag”).
And even though he was speaking to a room full of Republicans, Trump also repeatedly bashed Mitt Romney, the only Republican in the Senate to vote for his removal from office, describing him as “a guy that can’t stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency.”
Without saying his name, Trump criticizes Mitt Romney for "using religion as a crutch" and describes him as "a failed presidential candidate." pic.twitter.com/SiUkjFXQov — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
On the flip side of the coin, Trump singled out dozens of Republicans for praise. But his comments about a number of the women he mentioned objectified them.
“I like the name ‘Lesko.’ I liked it. That’s how I picked it. I liked the name. I saw that face, I saw that everything,” Trump said of Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko.
He made similar remarks about New York Rep. Elise Stefanik.
“I thought, ‘she looks good, she looks like good talent,’ but I didn’t realize that when she opens that mouth, she was killing them.”
Trump on @EliseStefanik: "I thought, 'she looks good, she looks like good talent,' but I didn't realize that when she opens that mouth, she was killing them." pic.twitter.com/KWxkqi3kGM — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
Trump also went on a bizarre, tongue-in-cheek rant about how most wives don’t love their husbands and wouldn’t be especially bothered if they were in the hospital — contrasting that state of affairs with the wife of Rep. Steve Scalise, noting she was despondent after her husband was shot during a congressional baseball practice in 2017.
Trump jokes that most wives wouldn't care if their husbands were shot, but Steve Scalise's wife clearly did pic.twitter.com/pYCSKR9SVl — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
But it wasn’t only Republican women whom Trump talked about in this way. He also made a crude reference to former FBI agent Lisa Page’s appearance.
“He’s probably trying to impress her, for obvious reasons,” Trump said, alluding to the text messages former FBI agent Peter Strzok and Page exchanged that are still at the center of conspiracy theories Trump has pushed about purported FBI bias.
"He's probably trying to impress her, for obvious reasons" -- Trump makes a crude reference to Lisa Page's looks pic.twitter.com/i6iFo3YGj7 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
(Trump also offered some strange praise for Rep. Jim Jordan, saying he’s “obviously very proud of his body” and talking specifically about his ears.)
Trump wrapped things up by apologizing to his family — not for anything he did, but for having to endure the impeachment process at all.
“I want to apologize to my family for having them have to go through a phony, rotted deal by some very evil and sick people,” he said. “And Ivanka is here, and my sons, and my whole family. And that includes Barron.”
TRUMP: "I want to apologize to my family for having them have to go through a phony, rotted deal by some very evil and sick people. And Ivanka is here, and my sons, and my whole family. And that includes Barron." pic.twitter.com/IfjR5RhBSc — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
Trump’s unapologetic attitude about everything was also apparent in an aside he made during his speech about the Access Hollywood tape in which he can be heard bragging about sexually assaulting women. He characterized the day the tape was published by the Washington Post in October 2016 as “my worst day” — not because of what he said, but because it jeopardized his chances of being elected the next month.
Trump seems intent on exacting revenge
One of the two articles of impeachment that Trump was acquitted on was abuse of power. But his White House speech indicated he has little remorse.
“If this happened to President Obama, a lot of people would’ve been in jail for a long time already,” he said.
Trump pushed unfounded conspiracy theories about Joe Biden’s alleged corrupt dealings in Ukraine, and — in an especially shameless moment — held his own family up as paragons of virtue when it comes to corruption.
Trump gets a gold medal in the Shamelessness Olympics for claiming that Ivanka Trump is a shining example of how not to be corrupt pic.twitter.com/XNY9bjm077 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
At the end, Trump suggested that former law enforcement and intelligence community officials and Democrats who have tried to hold him accountable may be in for some rough days.
“Let’s see what happens. It’s in the hands of some very talented people,” he said, alluding to Attorney General William Barr and Republican senators who have already indicated they plan to investigate the Bidens. “These are the crookedest, most dishonest, dirtiest people I’ve ever seen.”
TRUMP: "They were going to try to overthrow the govt of the US, a duly-elected POTUS. And if I didn't fire Comey we would never have found this stuff out. B/c when I fired that sleazebag, all held broke out...let's see what happens. It's in the hands of some very talented people" pic.twitter.com/AkkE9YB5B7 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 6, 2020
So if anyone was holding out hope that going through the impeachment process and receiving a bipartisan vote for his removal from office would chasten Trump, his victory lap speech should resolve any doubt: It did not. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case.
Not only is Trump still Trump, but those who look back fondly on the days when presidents felt constrained by the rule of law can’t help but wonder how bad things will get.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-02-06--Harvard historian Jill Lepore on what “Why We’re Polarized” gets wrong

Jill Lepore is a Harvard historian , a New Yorker contributor , the author of These Truths , and one of my favorite past guests on The Ezra Klein Show .
But in this episode of the show , the tables are turned : I ’ m in the hot seat , and Lepore has some questions .
Hard ones .
This is , easily , the toughest interview on my book so far .
Lepore isn ’ t quibbling over my solutions or pointing out a contrary study — what she challenges are the premises , epistemology , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book , and much of my work .
Her question , in short , is : What if social science itself is too crude to be a useful way of understanding the political world ?
But that ’ s what makes this conversation great .
We discuss whether all political science research on polarization might be completely wrong , whether Fox News is a “ villain ” in the polarization story , and whether I am morally obliged to delete my Twitter account .
We also talk about the missing party in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , media polarization , and much more .
This is , on one level , a conversation about Why We ’ re Polarized .
But on a deeper level , it ’ s about different modes of knowledge and whether we can trust them .
Here ’ s a lightly edited transcript of part of our conversation , which we released this week on The Ezra Klein Show .
If you ’ re really concerned about polarization , why not leave Twitter ?
I think I ’ m about as publicly critical of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the problem I ’ ve found is that everybody seems to feel that the central political conversation is there now there .
I ’ m not saying they ’ re correct , but ...
I think that ’ s an illusion .
I don ’ t think the central political conversation is on Twitter .
Only one in five Americans has a Twitter account , and most of them never read political news .
There ’ s no doubt that Twitter is home to the conversation that political elites are having with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem and we know that Twitter is polarizing ...
I agree that Twitter is polarizing .
But what I ’ m trying to do there is understand a lot of the currents of opinion and where they ’ re coming from .
It ’ s very hard to figure out , for instance , what the Bernie Sanders campaign is doing if you ’ re not watching what their supporters are saying .
Twitter does help with that .
So I think the difference between reporters who use Twitter well and poorly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter to report and those just using it to opine .
I think the problem is that the media is somewhat self-referential .
And there ’ s no doubt that oftentimes for worse we ’ re in a conversation with ourselves .
It ’ s also hard to fall too much out of that and just continue doing the job well .
Maybe that ’ s because the media just does the job poorly .
I think it would actually be totally reasonable to say that our whole definition of how news is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be right .
It might just be that I should be off of Twitter , and I haven ’ t quite had the courage to say screw it .
It seemed to me that in a big structural way there ’ s a quite noticeable absence of villains in the book .
Could you talk about that as a narrative choice ?
Why no villains ?
I generally understand people as following incentives .
I don ’ t trust people ’ s stories of why they do things .
I am not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow sense .
Obviously , if Donald Trump had not run for president , American history would have been different .
But I don ’ t think if Mitch McConnell was beaten in Kentucky a couple of years ago that the current Republican leadership would be dramatically different .
Given the incentives of the system , I think what happened was going to happen one way or the other .
So there are obviously people I think of as villains in the sense that I find their values toxic .
But , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is tell you how a machine works , and what happens to almost everybody in it .
I don ’ t think of the book as relaying an argument .
I think of it as a model of how to understand politics — a model that I filter new information through and that now I want to give to you .
What I want to tell you is how the thing is working .
That makes a lot of sense .
I wonder though if we could expand the notion of villainy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as institutions .
A person could write this book and blame the entire thing on higher education or house leadership .
The thing that I find tricky here is that I wanted to call some institutions villains , but I had a lot of trouble figuring out a chain of causality .
I ’ ll give you an example .
I am still caught in this question : Is Fox News the problem , or is Fox News a symptom of a problem ?
It is hard for me to tell .
Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But when I look at moments when I think Fox News wanted to drive things in a different direction , things get messy .
One example is when Fox News decided they were going to take Trump on in the first Republican primary debate .
So , Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace and Bret Baier really laid into him about things he said before about how Canadian health care is great and all the terrible things he said about women .
So , Trump gets into a fight with Fox news and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year later : Megyn Kelly is gone , and now you ’ ve got Tucker Carlson channeling Trump at the 8 pm hour .
The same holds with politicians .
There ’ ve been a number of Republicans who have tried to challenge Trump — Justin Amash , Mark Sanford , Bob Corker , Jeff Flake — and they just get destroyed as did the 16 Republicans that Trump ran against .
So , on the one hand , clearly Donald Trump is an individual — is an agent who made decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics .
But clearly it wasn ’ t just him .
He had figured out what was true about the audience .
So , I ’ ve had trouble assigning the causality or even figuring out where it begins .
All of these things seem to be in a dynamic relationship with each other .
So it is hard to figure out whether if you replaced a given player or institution you would really get a different result .
You can listen to the full episode by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or wherever you get your podcasts .

Jill Lepore is a Harvard historian, a New Yorker contributor, the author of These Truths, and one of my favorite past guests on The Ezra Klein Show. But in this episode of the show, the tables are turned: I’m in the hot seat, and Lepore has some questions. Hard ones.
This is, easily, the toughest interview on my book so far. Lepore isn’t quibbling over my solutions or pointing out a contrary study — what she challenges are the premises, epistemology, and meta-structure that form the foundation of my book, and much of my work. Her question, in short, is: What if social science itself is too crude to be a useful way of understanding the political world?
But that’s what makes this conversation great. We discuss whether all political science research on polarization might be completely wrong, whether Fox News is a “villain” in the polarization story, and whether I am morally obliged to delete my Twitter account. We also talk about the missing party in American politics, why I mistrust historical narratives, media polarization, and much more.
This is, on one level, a conversation about Why We’re Polarized. But on a deeper level, it’s about different modes of knowledge and whether we can trust them.
Here’s a lightly edited transcript of part of our conversation, which we released this week on The Ezra Klein Show.
Jill Lepore
If you’re really concerned about polarization, why not leave Twitter?
Ezra Klein
I think I’m about as publicly critical of Twitter as I can possibly be. But the problem I’ve found is that everybody seems to feel that the central political conversation is there now there. I’m not saying they’re correct, but ...
Jill Lepore
I think that’s an illusion. I don’t think the central political conversation is on Twitter. Only one in five Americans has a Twitter account, and most of them never read political news.
Ezra Klein
There’s no doubt that Twitter is home to the conversation that political elites are having with each other.
Jill Lepore
But if polarization is a problem and we know that Twitter is polarizing ...
Ezra Klein
I agree that Twitter is polarizing. But what I’m trying to do there is understand a lot of the currents of opinion and where they’re coming from. It’s very hard to figure out, for instance, what the Bernie Sanders campaign is doing if you’re not watching what their supporters are saying. Twitter does help with that. So I think the difference between reporters who use Twitter well and poorly is the difference between those who use Twitter to report and those just using it to opine.
I think the problem is that the media is somewhat self-referential. And there’s no doubt that oftentimes for worse we’re in a conversation with ourselves. It’s also hard to fall too much out of that and just continue doing the job well. Maybe that’s because the media just does the job poorly. I think it would actually be totally reasonable to say that our whole definition of how news is defined is wrong.
You might just be right. It might just be that I should be off of Twitter, and I haven’t quite had the courage to say screw it.
Jill Lepore
It seemed to me that in a big structural way there’s a quite noticeable absence of villains in the book. Could you talk about that as a narrative choice? Why no villains?
Ezra Klein
I generally understand people as following incentives. I don’t trust people’s stories of why they do things. I am not a huge believer in individual agency in a narrow sense.
Obviously, if Donald Trump had not run for president, American history would have been different. But I don’t think if Mitch McConnell was beaten in Kentucky a couple of years ago that the current Republican leadership would be dramatically different. Given the incentives of the system, I think what happened was going to happen one way or the other.
So there are obviously people I think of as villains in the sense that I find their values toxic. But, what I try to do with the book is tell you how a machine works, and what happens to almost everybody in it. I don’t think of the book as relaying an argument. I think of it as a model of how to understand politics — a model that I filter new information through and that now I want to give to you. What I want to tell you is how the thing is working.
Jill Lepore
That makes a lot of sense. I wonder though if we could expand the notion of villainy, not just to individuals, as much as institutions. A person could write this book and blame the entire thing on higher education or house leadership.
Ezra Klein
The thing that I find tricky here is that I wanted to call some institutions villains, but I had a lot of trouble figuring out a chain of causality. I’ll give you an example. I am still caught in this question: Is Fox News the problem, or is Fox News a symptom of a problem? It is hard for me to tell.
Fox News obviously is driving the Republican Party. But when I look at moments when I think Fox News wanted to drive things in a different direction, things get messy. One example is when Fox News decided they were going to take Trump on in the first Republican primary debate. So, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace and Bret Baier really laid into him about things he said before about how Canadian health care is great and all the terrible things he said about women. So, Trump gets into a fight with Fox news and wins. Fox basically submits to him a year later: Megyn Kelly is gone, and now you’ve got Tucker Carlson channeling Trump at the 8 pm hour.
The same holds with politicians. There’ve been a number of Republicans who have tried to challenge Trump — Justin Amash, Mark Sanford, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake — and they just get destroyed as did the 16 Republicans that Trump ran against. So, on the one hand, clearly Donald Trump is an individual — is an agent who made decisions that really changed the structure of American politics. But clearly it wasn’t just him. He had figured out what was true about the audience.
So, I’ve had trouble assigning the causality or even figuring out where it begins. All of these things seem to be in a dynamic relationship with each other. So it is hard to figure out whether if you replaced a given player or institution you would really get a different result.
You can listen to the full episode by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.


vox--2020-02-06--With impeachment, America’s epistemic crisis has arrived

This piece was originally published in November 2019 .
Since then , the Democratic House impeached the president and the Republican Senate voted to acquit him , in a “ trial ” with no witnesses or new evidence .
Public opinion remains divided along the exact same lines it was divided before the whole thing started .
Back in 2017 , I wrote a piece speculating that the Mueller hearings might bring America ’ s epistemic crisis to a head .
That crisis involves Americans ’ growing inability , not just to cooperate , but even to learn and know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared understanding of reality .
We have sorted ourselves into polarized factions living in different worlds , not just of values , but of facts .
Communication between them is increasingly difficult .
I wondered what might happen if Mueller offered clear , incontrovertible evidence of Trump ’ s guilt .
Would Republicans be able to prevent supporters from ever finding out ?
What if the truth was revealed but it had no power , no effect at all , because half the country had been walled off from it ?
What if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can overcome our polarization ?
As it happened , the hearings didn ’ t play out that way .
Mueller ’ s report and testimony were oddly oblique and muted , with notable omissions .
It proved relatively easy for the president and his supplicant media to dismiss the whole thing as a dud .
Now we may experience the stress test that Mueller never produced : whether the right can shield itself from plain facts in plain sight .
Unlike Mueller ’ s report , the story behind the impeachment case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid for Ukraine , but Trump withheld it as part of a sustained campaign to pressure Ukraine into launching an investigation of his political rival Joe Biden ’ s family .
There ’ s a record of him doing it .
There are multiple credible witnesses to the phone call and larger campaign .
Several Trump allies and administration officials have admitted to it on camera .
Trump himself admitted to it on the White House lawn .
It ’ s just very , very obvious that he did it .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think there ’ s anything wrong with it .
And it ’ s very obvious there is something wrong with it .
Holding US foreign policy hostage to personal political favors is straightforward abuse of power , precisely the sort of thing the Founders had in mind when they wrote impeachment into the Constitution .
It ’ s a clearly impeachable pattern of action , documented and attested to by multiple witnesses , confessed to multiple times , in violation of longstanding political precedent and a moral consensus that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Mueller , that is a much more difficult test of the right ’ s ability to obscure , distract , and polarize .
Right now , the right ’ s messaging machine is sputtering a bit , cycling through defenses — it didn ’ t happen , Trump ’ s not competent enough to do it , it was a failed quid pro quo so it doesn ’ t count , he did it but it ’ s not impeachable — that contradict one another from day to day .
Can the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alternate reality and throw up enough fog to keep the general public at bay for long enough to get through the next election ?
It seems challenging , given the facts on record , but this is just the sort of challenge the machine was built for .
Let ’ s quickly review how we got here .
Earlier in 2017 , I told the story of Donald Trump and the rise of tribal epistemology .
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that has to do with knowing and coming to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what counts as evidence , how we accumulate knowledge , and the like .
It ’ s where you find schools of thought like skepticism ( we can ’ t truly know anything ) and realism ( the universe contains observer-independent facts we can come to know ) .
Tribal epistemology , as I see it , is when tribalism comes to systematically subordinate epistemological principles .
Perhaps the easiest way to explain is by way of analogy with tribal morality , which people are more familiar with .
Tribal morality is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral principles .
Moral principles are generally , by their nature , cosmopolitan .
They are meant to apply across tribal lines , to be “ transpartisan.
” Take , for instance , the principle “ it is wrong to torture.
” Interpreted as a principle , it is meant to apply to everyone .
Anyone , from any group or nation , who tortures anyone else , from any group or nation , is doing something wrong .
But under tribal morality , principles are subsumed under tribal membership .
It becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to torture us.
” It is okay for us to torture them , because our tribe is Good and thus whatever actions we take to prosecute the interests of the tribe are Good .
They , however , are Bad , so they are subject to the rules .
( Readers of a certain age may recall the US having just this debate in the mid-2000s . )
Tribal epistemology happens when tribal interests subsume transpartisan epistemological principles , like standards of evidence , internal coherence , and defeasibility .
“ Good for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what is true ; “ part of our tribe ” becomes the primary determinant of who to trust .
A circular logic , which has become quite familiar in the impeachment affair , emerges : Anyone who says anything contrary to the tribe marks themselves as an enemy of the tribe ( cough *deep state* cough ) ; enemies of the tribe can not be trusted , so their testimony or evidence can be ignored .
Thus , by definition , nothing that questions the tribal narrative can be trusted .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a parallel set of institutions meant to encourage tribal epistemology .
They mimic the form of mainstream media , think tanks , and the academy , but without the restraint of transpartisan principles .
They are designed to advance the interests of the right , to tell stories and produce facts that support the tribe .
That is the ultimate goal ; the rhetoric and formalisms of critical thinking are retrofit around it .
Talk radio and the birth of Fox News in the 1990s were turning points .
They eventually expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information universe .
It was capable of cranking out stories and facts ( or “ facts ” ) in support of the conservative cause 24 hours a day , steadily shaping the worldview of their white suburban audience around a forever war with The Libs , who are always just on the verge of destroying America .
As I covered in more detail in this post ( and this one ) , over time this led to a steady deterioration in fealty to norms , epistemological and otherwise , to the point that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now awash in a fantasia of conspiracy theories and just-so stories .
As journalist Alex Pareene wrote in a scathing 2017 piece , the propaganda machine that the right built to keep its base outraged grew out of control and swallowed the GOP .
“ They ’ re screwed , ” Pareene wrote of conservatives , “ because they and their predecessors engineered a perpetual misinformation machine , and then a bunch of people addicted to their product took over the government.
” Now everyone with any power on the right is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the president himself , who spends a considerable portion of his time watching and tweeting about Fox News .
There are no more moderates or responsible Republicans behind the curtain , keeping an eye on the difference between tribal tall tales and reality .
Fox natives are running the show , including the federal government .
And Trump , the ultimate tribalist , has made it clear that he doesn ’ t want to hear any of these half-ass stories about how he did something wrong but it ’ s not that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to him loyalty means insisting that he did nothing wrong at all .
Following Trump down that path requires ignoring or wishing away mountains of evidence and decades of precedent , opting instead to believe him when he says , “ What you ’ re seeing and what you ’ re reading is not what ’ s happening.
” This is tribal epistemology in its rawest form : It ’ s us or them , our story or theirs .
If you are one of us , you believe our story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ consensus As a recent Crooked Media/Change Research poll showed , voter opinions on impeachment are as inflamed and polarized as they are on everything else .
Some 91 percent of those polled have strong feelings on impeachment : 94 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents oppose it ; 94 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents support it .
Meanwhile , “ 50 % of independents and 57 % of swing voters support removing Trump from office.
” This is the story of American politics : a narrowly divided nation , with raw numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the left coalition but intensity and outsized political power on the side of the right coalition .
Put in more practical terms , the right still has the votes and the cohesion to prevent a Senate impeachment conviction .
On the downslope of a fading , unpopular coalition is not a great place for Republicans to be .
It doesn ’ t augur well for their post-2020 health as a party .
But it is enough to get them through the next election , which is about as far ahead as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do is to keep that close partisan split frozen in place .
Above all , they need to ensure that nothing breaks through to the masses in the mushy middle , who are mostly disengaged from politics .
They need to make sure no clear consensus forms , nothing that might find its way into pop culture , the way the entire nation eventually focused its attention on Nixon ’ s impeachment .
It ’ s a kind of magic trick they ’ re going to try to pull off in full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cognitive biases of voters and reporters They are working with a few key tools and advantages .
The first is a strong tendency , especially among low-information , relatively disengaged voters ( and political reporters ) , to view consensus as a signal of legitimacy .
It ’ s an easy and appealing heuristic : If something is a good idea , it would have at least a few people from both sides supporting it .
That ’ s why “ bipartisan ” has been such a magic word in US politics this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bipartisanship has faded .
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell has been very canny in recognizing this tendency and working it ruthlessly to his advantage .
He realized before Obama ever set foot in office that if he could keep Republicans unified in opposition , refusing any cooperation on anything , he could make Obama appear “ polarizing.
” His great insight , as ruthlessly effective as it was morally bankrupt , was that he could unilaterally deny Obama the ability to be a uniter , a leader , or a deal maker .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could make politics into an endless , frustrating , fruitless shitshow , diminishing both parties in voters ’ eyes .
This is what Republicans need more than anything on impeachment : for the general public to see it as just another round of partisan squabbling , another illustration of how “ Washington ” is broken .
They need to prevent any hint of bipartisan consensus from emerging .
Tribal epistemology is key to this .
Republicans must render partisan not only judgments of right and wrong but judgments of what is and isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must render facts themselves a matter of controversy that the media reports as a food fight and the public tunes out .
That ’ s the main reason they are focusing their attacks so intently on process complaints .
The investigation itself , the hearings , the whole process must come to be seen as partisan , which will serve as permission for the engaged on the right to attack it , the engaged on the left to embrace it , and the broader public to dismiss it .
Aiding in the effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more notable findings from the aforementioned poll : “ 89 % of Republicans who get most of their impeachment news from Fox oppose the inquiry because they think the allegations aren ’ t true ; 59 % of other Republicans say the same.
” As I have written before about AOC and the Green New Deal , the right has an ability to convey a partisan message to its base that the left utterly lacks .
As a massive post-election study of online media from Harvard showed , media is not symmetrical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Prominent media on the left are well distributed across the center , center-left , and left , ” the researchers found .
“ On the right , prominent media are highly partisan.
” Democrats are still dependent on the mainstream press to convey their messages to the broad public .
Many of their consultants and press officers still view their role as managing relationships with mainstream reporters .
But the mainstream media , catering to low-information voters and reinforcing their worst prejudices in the process , persists in covering politics precisely through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team sport , competing performances to be narrated like an announcer calling a game .
Meanwhile , the right not only commands the highest rated cable news network and an army of supportive online media outlets , it is spending millions on Facebook , Tik-Tok , 4chan , 8chan , and God knows what other online swamps , targeting messages where their audiences are rather than futilely attempting to reach them through the Washington Post .
Impeachment is make or break time for America ’ s epistemic health As Putin and other modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media environment — a chaotic Wild West where traditional gatekeepers are in decline — it is not necessary for a repressive regime to construct its own coherent account of events .
There are no broadly respected , nonpartisan referees left to hold it to account for consistency or accuracy .
All it needs , to get away with whatever it wants , is for the information environment to be so polluted that no one can figure out what ’ s true and what isn ’ t , or what ’ s really going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same : attack independent media outlets as partisan enemies of the regime and , by proxy , enemies of the people .
At the same time , use the media under state control , along with an army of bots , trolls , and shitposters , to inject accusations , lies , and conspiracy theories into the public dialogue .
In an information fog filled with vexed uncertainty , people will either tune out , revert to their tribal affiliations , or both .
They will seek a strong leader who offers simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to blame for the chaos .
Confusion and fear , not deception , are the ultimate goal .
That is precisely the kind of machine the US conservative movement has built : one designed to produce confusion and fear .
Trump is its natural leader , the first Republican president to reflect the party ’ s contemporary core and character , and his impeachment is its ultimate test .
Meanwhile , Democrats are attempting to do something that arguably nothing since the 9/11 attacks has done : unite Americans in a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will to action , in a way that reaches across conventional partisan lines , at least to some extent .
On their side , they have the products of America ’ s tattered remaining institutional processes and norms : clear evidence , painstakingly laid out in a Constitutionally prescribed process , communicated through mainstream news outlets .
The facts are clearer than ever , but those institutions are weaker and social trust , which the right has been concertedly attacking for decades , is at a low ebb .
In opposition is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyalty to a tribal leader , dedicated to guerrilla information warfare unconstrained by conventional norms of accuracy or consistency , and motivated by an almost eschatological will to power .
If the latter triumphs , if it is able to muddy and distract enough to make impeachment just another Mueller , just more partisan white noise , we will cross a kind of rubicon .
It will demonstrate that , to a first approximation , lol nothing matters .
Moral consensus will have become impossible .
Epistemological consensus will have become impossible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence is capable of bridging the partisan gap .
The epistemic crisis , and its attendant political crisis , will be fully upon us .
Ultimately , communication , and with it survival as a polity , depends on a shared body of facts and assumptions about the world .
For decades , the right has been sawing away at the threads that still connect it to mainstream institutions , procedures , and norms of conduct , to the point that it has created a hermetically sealed and impenetrable world of its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norm Ornstein warned in 2012 , the GOP as become “ an insurgent outlier : ideologically extreme ; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime ; scornful of compromise ; un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts , evidence , and science ; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
” The machine was primed and waiting for someone like Trump .
Now , with his erratic and indefensible conduct , he is accelerating the breach , pushing the right into ever-more cult-like behavior , principles laid aside one after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what a tribalist like Trump wants : for communication and compromise across tribal lines to become impossible , so that loyalty becomes the only measure and everything is reduced to pure struggle for dominance .
If he makes it through impeachment unscathed , he and the right will have learned once and for all that facts and evidence have no hold on them .
Both “ sides ” have free rein to choose the facts and evidence that suit them .
Only power matters .
If the right ’ s epistemic break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatens , then no matter what happens in the next election , American democracy is in for a long spell of trouble .

This piece was originally published in November 2019. Since then, the Democratic House impeached the president and the Republican Senate voted to acquit him, in a “trial” with no witnesses or new evidence. Public opinion remains divided along the exact same lines it was divided before the whole thing started.
Back in 2017, I wrote a piece speculating that the Mueller hearings might bring America’s epistemic crisis to a head. That crisis involves Americans’ growing inability, not just to cooperate, but even to learn and know the same things, to have a shared understanding of reality. We have sorted ourselves into polarized factions living in different worlds, not just of values, but of facts. Communication between them is increasingly difficult.
I wondered what might happen if Mueller offered clear, incontrovertible evidence of Trump’s guilt. Would Republicans be able to prevent supporters from ever finding out? What if the truth was revealed but it had no power, no effect at all, because half the country had been walled off from it? What if there is no longer any evidentiary standard that can overcome our polarization?
As it happened, the hearings didn’t play out that way. Mueller’s report and testimony were oddly oblique and muted, with notable omissions. It proved relatively easy for the president and his supplicant media to dismiss the whole thing as a dud.
Now we may experience the stress test that Mueller never produced: whether the right can shield itself from plain facts in plain sight.
Unlike Mueller’s report, the story behind the impeachment case is relatively simple: Congress approved military aid for Ukraine, but Trump withheld it as part of a sustained campaign to pressure Ukraine into launching an investigation of his political rival Joe Biden’s family. There’s a record of him doing it. There are multiple credible witnesses to the phone call and larger campaign. Several Trump allies and administration officials have admitted to it on camera. Trump himself admitted to it on the White House lawn.
REPORTER: What exactly did you hope the Ukrainian president would do about the Bidens?
TRUMP: "I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation" https://t.co/oMb1cjsx4T — Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) November 13, 2019
It’s just very, very obvious that he did it. It’s very obvious he and his associates don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. And it’s very obvious there is something wrong with it. Holding US foreign policy hostage to personal political favors is straightforward abuse of power, precisely the sort of thing the Founders had in mind when they wrote impeachment into the Constitution.
It’s a clearly impeachable pattern of action, documented and attested to by multiple witnesses, confessed to multiple times, in violation of longstanding political precedent and a moral consensus that was, until 2016, universal. Compared to Mueller, that is a much more difficult test of the right’s ability to obscure, distract, and polarize.
Right now, the right’s messaging machine is sputtering a bit, cycling through defenses — it didn’t happen, Trump’s not competent enough to do it, it was a failed quid pro quo so it doesn’t count, he did it but it’s not impeachable — that contradict one another from day to day.
Can the machine successfully hold the right-wing base in an alternate reality and throw up enough fog to keep the general public at bay for long enough to get through the next election? It seems challenging, given the facts on record, but this is just the sort of challenge the machine was built for.
Let’s quickly review how we got here.
The rise of tribal epistemology
Earlier in 2017, I told the story of Donald Trump and the rise of tribal epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that has to do with knowing and coming to know things — what counts as true, what counts as evidence, how we accumulate knowledge, and the like. It’s where you find schools of thought like skepticism (we can’t truly know anything) and realism (the universe contains observer-independent facts we can come to know).
Tribal epistemology, as I see it, is when tribalism comes to systematically subordinate epistemological principles.
Perhaps the easiest way to explain is by way of analogy with tribal morality, which people are more familiar with. Tribal morality is what happens when tribal interests come to subordinate moral principles.
Moral principles are generally, by their nature, cosmopolitan. They are meant to apply across tribal lines, to be “transpartisan.” Take, for instance, the principle “it is wrong to torture.” Interpreted as a principle, it is meant to apply to everyone. Anyone, from any group or nation, who tortures anyone else, from any group or nation, is doing something wrong.
But under tribal morality, principles are subsumed under tribal membership. It becomes, “it is wrong for them to torture us.” It is okay for us to torture them, because our tribe is Good and thus whatever actions we take to prosecute the interests of the tribe are Good. They, however, are Bad, so they are subject to the rules. (Readers of a certain age may recall the US having just this debate in the mid-2000s.)
Tribal epistemology happens when tribal interests subsume transpartisan epistemological principles, like standards of evidence, internal coherence, and defeasibility. “Good for our tribe” becomes the primary determinant of what is true; “part of our tribe” becomes the primary determinant of who to trust.
A circular logic, which has become quite familiar in the impeachment affair, emerges: Anyone who says anything contrary to the tribe marks themselves as an enemy of the tribe (cough *deep state* cough); enemies of the tribe cannot be trusted, so their testimony or evidence can be ignored. Thus, by definition, nothing that questions the tribal narrative can be trusted.
A decades-long effort on the right has resulted in a parallel set of institutions meant to encourage tribal epistemology. They mimic the form of mainstream media, think tanks, and the academy, but without the restraint of transpartisan principles. They are designed to advance the interests of the right, to tell stories and produce facts that support the tribe. That is the ultimate goal; the rhetoric and formalisms of critical thinking are retrofit around it.
Talk radio and the birth of Fox News in the 1990s were turning points. They eventually expanded to create an entire, complete-unto-itself conservative information universe. It was capable of cranking out stories and facts (or “facts”) in support of the conservative cause 24 hours a day, steadily shaping the worldview of their white suburban audience around a forever war with The Libs, who are always just on the verge of destroying America.
As I covered in more detail in this post (and this one), over time this led to a steady deterioration in fealty to norms, epistemological and otherwise, to the point that something like 30 percent of the country is now awash in a fantasia of conspiracy theories and just-so stories.
As journalist Alex Pareene wrote in a scathing 2017 piece, the propaganda machine that the right built to keep its base outraged grew out of control and swallowed the GOP. “They’re screwed,” Pareene wrote of conservatives, “because they and their predecessors engineered a perpetual misinformation machine, and then a bunch of people addicted to their product took over the government.”
Sen. John Kennedy is speaking. He says he is a "proud deplorable" and unlike the "cultured, cosmopolitan, goat's milk latte-drinkin', avocado toast-eating, insiders elite." — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) November 15, 2019
Now everyone with any power on the right is deep in the bubble, right up to the president himself, who spends a considerable portion of his time watching and tweeting about Fox News. There are no more moderates or responsible Republicans behind the curtain, keeping an eye on the difference between tribal tall tales and reality. Fox natives are running the show, including the federal government.
And Trump, the ultimate tribalist, has made it clear that he doesn’t want to hear any of these half-ass stories about how he did something wrong but it’s not that bad. He demands ultimate loyalty, and to him loyalty means insisting that he did nothing wrong at all.
The call to the Ukrainian President was PERFECT. Read the Transcript! There was NOTHING said that was in any way wrong. Republicans, don’t be led into the fools trap of saying it was not perfect, but is not impeachable. No, it is much stronger than that. NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2019
Following Trump down that path requires ignoring or wishing away mountains of evidence and decades of precedent, opting instead to believe him when he says, “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” This is tribal epistemology in its rawest form: It’s us or them, our story or theirs. If you are one of us, you believe our story.
Republicans need to maintain doubt and prevent consensus
As a recent Crooked Media/Change Research poll showed, voter opinions on impeachment are as inflamed and polarized as they are on everything else. Some 91 percent of those polled have strong feelings on impeachment: 94 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents oppose it; 94 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents support it. Meanwhile, “50% of independents and 57% of swing voters support removing Trump from office.”
This is the story of American politics: a narrowly divided nation, with raw numbers on the side of the rising demographics in the left coalition but intensity and outsized political power on the side of the right coalition. Put in more practical terms, the right still has the votes and the cohesion to prevent a Senate impeachment conviction.
On the downslope of a fading, unpopular coalition is not a great place for Republicans to be. It doesn’t augur well for their post-2020 health as a party. But it is enough to get them through the next election, which is about as far ahead as they look these days.
All they need to do is to keep that close partisan split frozen in place. Above all, they need to ensure that nothing breaks through to the masses in the mushy middle, who are mostly disengaged from politics. They need to make sure no clear consensus forms, nothing that might find its way into pop culture, the way the entire nation eventually focused its attention on Nixon’s impeachment.
It’s a kind of magic trick they’re going to try to pull off in full view.
Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he won't read any of the transcripts, and dismissed Sondland's reversal.
"I've written the whole process off ... I think this is a bunch of B.S."
Per @alanhe — Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) November 5, 2019
The right has hacked the cognitive biases of voters and reporters
They are working with a few key tools and advantages. The first is a strong tendency, especially among low-information, relatively disengaged voters (and political reporters), to view consensus as a signal of legitimacy. It’s an easy and appealing heuristic: If something is a good idea, it would have at least a few people from both sides supporting it. That’s why “bipartisan” has been such a magic word in US politics this century, even as the reality of bipartisanship has faded.
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell has been very canny in recognizing this tendency and working it ruthlessly to his advantage. He realized before Obama ever set foot in office that if he could keep Republicans unified in opposition, refusing any cooperation on anything, he could make Obama appear “polarizing.” His great insight, as ruthlessly effective as it was morally bankrupt, was that he could unilaterally deny Obama the ability to be a uniter, a leader, or a deal maker. Through nothing but sheer obstinance, he could make politics into an endless, frustrating, fruitless shitshow, diminishing both parties in voters’ eyes.
This is what Republicans need more than anything on impeachment: for the general public to see it as just another round of partisan squabbling, another illustration of how “Washington” is broken. They need to prevent any hint of bipartisan consensus from emerging.
Fox guest says George Soros controls the State Department, FBI agents, and wants to control Ukraine using the US government pic.twitter.com/U5vTX3db6M — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) November 14, 2019
Tribal epistemology is key to this. Republicans must render partisan not only judgments of right and wrong but judgments of what is and isn’t true or real. They must render facts themselves a matter of controversy that the media reports as a food fight and the public tunes out.
That’s the main reason they are focusing their attacks so intently on process complaints. The investigation itself, the hearings, the whole process must come to be seen as partisan, which will serve as permission for the engaged on the right to attack it, the engaged on the left to embrace it, and the broader public to dismiss it.
Aiding in the effort is the propaganda machine. One of the more notable findings from the aforementioned poll: “89% of Republicans who get most of their impeachment news from Fox oppose the inquiry because they think the allegations aren’t true; 59% of other Republicans say the same.” As I have written before about AOC and the Green New Deal, the right has an ability to convey a partisan message to its base that the left utterly lacks.
As a massive post-election study of online media from Harvard showed, media is not symmetrical any more than broader polarization is. “Prominent media on the left are well distributed across the center, center-left, and left,” the researchers found. “On the right, prominent media are highly partisan.”
Democrats are still dependent on the mainstream press to convey their messages to the broad public. Many of their consultants and press officers still view their role as managing relationships with mainstream reporters. But the mainstream media, catering to low-information voters and reinforcing their worst prejudices in the process, persists in covering politics precisely through the most cynical lens, as a team sport, competing performances to be narrated like an announcer calling a game.
Analysis: The first two witnesses called Wednesday testified to President Trump's scheme, but lacked the pizzazz necessary to capture public attention. https://t.co/1UfkaeZ3I4 — NBC News (@NBCNews) November 14, 2019
Meanwhile, the right not only commands the highest rated cable news network and an army of supportive online media outlets, it is spending millions on Facebook, Tik-Tok, 4chan, 8chan, and God knows what other online swamps, targeting messages where their audiences are rather than futilely attempting to reach them through the Washington Post.
Impeachment is make or break time for America’s epistemic health
As Putin and other modern autocrats have realized, in the modern media environment — a chaotic Wild West where traditional gatekeepers are in decline — it is not necessary for a repressive regime to construct its own coherent account of events. There are no broadly respected, nonpartisan referees left to hold it to account for consistency or accuracy. All it needs, to get away with whatever it wants, is for the information environment to be so polluted that no one can figure out what’s true and what isn’t, or what’s really going on.
The recipe is always the same: attack independent media outlets as partisan enemies of the regime and, by proxy, enemies of the people. At the same time, use the media under state control, along with an army of bots, trolls, and shitposters, to inject accusations, lies, and conspiracy theories into the public dialogue.
In an information fog filled with vexed uncertainty, people will either tune out, revert to their tribal affiliations, or both. They will seek a strong leader who offers simple certainties and a clear account of who is to blame for the chaos. Confusion and fear, not deception, are the ultimate goal.
That is precisely the kind of machine the US conservative movement has built: one designed to produce confusion and fear. Trump is its natural leader, the first Republican president to reflect the party’s contemporary core and character, and his impeachment is its ultimate test.
Meanwhile, Democrats are attempting to do something that arguably nothing since the 9/11 attacks has done: unite Americans in a clear understanding of a threat and a clear will to action, in a way that reaches across conventional partisan lines, at least to some extent.
On their side, they have the products of America’s tattered remaining institutional processes and norms: clear evidence, painstakingly laid out in a Constitutionally prescribed process, communicated through mainstream news outlets. The facts are clearer than ever, but those institutions are weaker and social trust, which the right has been concertedly attacking for decades, is at a low ebb.
In opposition is a large but stable minority united by unquestioned loyalty to a tribal leader, dedicated to guerrilla information warfare unconstrained by conventional norms of accuracy or consistency, and motivated by an almost eschatological will to power.
If the latter triumphs, if it is able to muddy and distract enough to make impeachment just another Mueller, just more partisan white noise, we will cross a kind of rubicon. It will demonstrate that, to a first approximation, lol nothing matters.
Moral consensus will have become impossible. Epistemological consensus will have become impossible. It will show that no amount of evidence is capable of bridging the partisan gap. The epistemic crisis, and its attendant political crisis, will be fully upon us.
Ultimately, communication, and with it survival as a polity, depends on a shared body of facts and assumptions about the world. For decades, the right has been sawing away at the threads that still connect it to mainstream institutions, procedures, and norms of conduct, to the point that it has created a hermetically sealed and impenetrable world of its own.
As congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein warned in 2012, the GOP as become “an insurgent outlier: ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; un-persuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
The machine was primed and waiting for someone like Trump. Now, with his erratic and indefensible conduct, he is accelerating the breach, pushing the right into ever-more cult-like behavior, principles laid aside one after another in service of power.
That is what a tribalist like Trump wants: for communication and compromise across tribal lines to become impossible, so that loyalty becomes the only measure and everything is reduced to pure struggle for dominance. If he makes it through impeachment unscathed, he and the right will have learned once and for all that facts and evidence have no hold on them. Both “sides” have free rein to choose the facts and evidence that suit them. Only power matters.
If the right’s epistemic break becomes final and irreparable, as impeachment threatens, then no matter what happens in the next election, American democracy is in for a long spell of trouble.


vox--2020-02-06--Satellite caucuses could put Bernie Sanders over the top in Iowa

There ’ s now a chance Sen. Bernie Sanders could take the lead in Iowa , and something called satellite caucuses appear to be giving him an edge .
First tested in 2016 , the satellite caucuses were officially rolled out this year ; they were a measure to increase flexibility for Iowans who couldn ’ t be physically present at traditional caucus locations and times .
A couple dozen were held for Iowans who live around the US and the rest of the world , but many more were held right in the state .
Those voters included the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who couldn ’ t caucus right at 7 pm , among others .
And a crucial , unexpected development we ’ re now seeing is that satellite caucuses have more potential to boost Sanders ’ s numbers because they have more state delegate equivalent value .
( “ State delegate equivalents , ” as Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop explained , are the traditional metric the Iowa Democratic Party has reported and tell us “ how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention.
” ) With 97 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a razor-thin margin of 0.1 percent separating the top two candidates in state delegate equivalents , what final results we have seen coming in seem favorable to Sanders .
However , the race is still too close to call .
At a press conference in New Hampshire Thursday , Sanders declared victory in Iowa based on raw vote totals that have him ahead .
Though he downplayed state delegate equivalents in that press conference , his campaign made a concerted push to get people out to the possibly delegate-rich satellite caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegate equivalents at traditional caucus sites , satellite caucus ’ s state-delegate-equivalent value was determined by turnout .
The more turnout there was at satellite caucus sites , the better it is for the winning candidate ( more on that below ) .
Sanders appears to be the big benefactor of that .
His campaign organized about a quarter of the 99 satellite caucuses around the state , and sent volunteers to other ones .
Their goal was to turn out marginalized groups that traditionally don ’ t caucus , thereby proving the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
“ What we knew all along was these satellite caucuses could be ways to bring people who are typically left out of the caucus process and the political process in , ” Sanders ’ s deputy state director for Iowa , Bill Neidhardt , told Vox in an interview Thursday .
Another layer of confusion was added to the Iowa process .
In a Thursday statement , Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez asked the Iowa Democratic party for a “ recanvass ” — essentially a recount — of results .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , but it means there could be yet more delays getting the final numbers .
Sanders ’ s Iowa campaign believed they were organizing satellite caucuses more than any other campaign on the ground , but they didn ’ t realize the satellites would matter this much to their campaign .
Sanders had been winning the raw vote totals in Iowa , both on the first and second round , but the campaign has been trailing Buttigieg in state delegate equivalents .
On Thursday , with 97 percent of precincts reporting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three short of Buttigieg ’ s 550 .
“ If it puts us over the top , that ’ s poetry — it ’ s really amazing , ” Neidhardt said .
“ It ’ s a reflection of what we ’ re trying to do here .
The fact it can win you a caucus is what we were hoping for all along.
” Why satellite caucuses are suddenly so important The big takeaway here is : Satellite caucuses are worth more with higher turnout this year .
When it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa , there is a really important difference between a traditional caucus site and a satellite caucus site .
Traditional caucus sites have a set number of state delegates equivalents assigned to them , based on the number of votes in that precinct in recent elections ( this year , that means it ’ s based on the number of votes for the 2016 Iowa caucus winner , Hillary Clinton , and for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2018 ) .
That means no matter how high turnout is at a certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegate equivalents remains the same .
This does not hold true for satellite caucuses , which were debuting in 2020 .
Rather than having a set number , the state delegate equivalent value of a satellite was basically on a sliding scale — it could increase if turnout was higher at that caucus site .
Here ’ s how MSNBC political correspondent Steve Kornacki calculated the value of satellite caucuses .
“ I think Sanders needs turnout in IA-2 to hit that 2 % level — then it would be worth 11.2 SDE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If he then performed there as he has in IA-4 and IA-3 , he ’ d overtake Buttigieg in the statewide tally.
” According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s Nathaniel Rakich , Sanders has so far gotten 21.855 state delegate equivalents out of the satellite caucus sites .
In comparison , Buttigieg has gotten just 1.196 .
We still are waiting for the last few precincts to come in so we don ’ t yet know whether Sanders or Buttigieg will emerge as the winner .
There is also uncertainty around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the Sanders campaign organizing satellite caucuses appears to have paid unexpected dividends .

There’s now a chance Sen. Bernie Sanders could take the lead in Iowa, and something called satellite caucuses appear to be giving him an edge.
First tested in 2016, the satellite caucuses were officially rolled out this year; they were a measure to increase flexibility for Iowans who couldn’t be physically present at traditional caucus locations and times. A couple dozen were held for Iowans who live around the US and the rest of the world, but many more were held right in the state. Those voters included the elderly in nursing homes and factory workers who couldn’t caucus right at 7 pm, among others.
And a crucial, unexpected development we’re now seeing is that satellite caucuses have more potential to boost Sanders’s numbers because they have more state delegate equivalent value. (“State delegate equivalents,” as Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained, are the traditional metric the Iowa Democratic Party has reported and tell us “how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention.”)
With 97 percent of precincts reporting in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, and a razor-thin margin of 0.1 percent separating the top two candidates in state delegate equivalents, what final results we have seen coming in seem favorable to Sanders. However, the race is still too close to call.
At a press conference in New Hampshire Thursday, Sanders declared victory in Iowa based on raw vote totals that have him ahead. Though he downplayed state delegate equivalents in that press conference, his campaign made a concerted push to get people out to the possibly delegate-rich satellite caucuses.
Unlike the set number of state delegate equivalents at traditional caucus sites, satellite caucus’s state-delegate-equivalent value was determined by turnout. The more turnout there was at satellite caucus sites, the better it is for the winning candidate (more on that below).
Sanders appears to be the big benefactor of that. His campaign organized about a quarter of the 99 satellite caucuses around the state, and sent volunteers to other ones. Their goal was to turn out marginalized groups that traditionally don’t caucus, thereby proving the Vermont senator’s theory of winning elections.
“What we knew all along was these satellite caucuses could be ways to bring people who are typically left out of the caucus process and the political process in,” Sanders’s deputy state director for Iowa, Bill Neidhardt, told Vox in an interview Thursday.
Another layer of confusion was added to the Iowa process. In a Thursday statement, Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez asked the Iowa Democratic party for a “recanvass” — essentially a recount — of results. A recanvass may not change the final result, but it means there could be yet more delays getting the final numbers.
Sanders’s Iowa campaign believed they were organizing satellite caucuses more than any other campaign on the ground, but they didn’t realize the satellites would matter this much to their campaign. Sanders had been winning the raw vote totals in Iowa, both on the first and second round, but the campaign has been trailing Buttigieg in state delegate equivalents. On Thursday, with 97 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders had 547 state delegate equivalents — three short of Buttigieg’s 550.
“If it puts us over the top, that’s poetry — it’s really amazing,” Neidhardt said. “It’s a reflection of what we’re trying to do here. The fact it can win you a caucus is what we were hoping for all along.”
Why satellite caucuses are suddenly so important
The big takeaway here is: Satellite caucuses are worth more with higher turnout this year.
Here’s why.
When it comes to the all-important value of state delegate equivalents in Iowa, there is a really important difference between a traditional caucus site and a satellite caucus site. Traditional caucus sites have a set number of state delegates equivalents assigned to them, based on the number of votes in that precinct in recent elections (this year, that means it’s based on the number of votes for the 2016 Iowa caucus winner, Hillary Clinton, and for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2018).
That means no matter how high turnout is at a certain traditional precinct, the number of state delegate equivalents remains the same.
This does not hold true for satellite caucuses, which were debuting in 2020. Rather than having a set number, the state delegate equivalent value of a satellite was basically on a sliding scale — it could increase if turnout was higher at that caucus site.
Here’s how MSNBC political correspondent Steve Kornacki calculated the value of satellite caucuses.
SDE allocation for satellite caucuses is based on turnout:
1-600 = 1% of a district's SDE total
601-1200 = 2%
1201-1800 = 3%
So far, turnout has been:
IA-2: 941 (11 SDE)
IA-3: 1,545 (18 SDE)
IA-4: 139 (4 SDE)
The lowest possible SDE allocation for IA-1 is 5.6. — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) February 6, 2020
“I think Sanders needs turnout in IA-2 to hit that 2% level — then it would be worth 11.2 SDE,” Kornacki concluded in another tweet. “If he then performed there as he has in IA-4 and IA-3, he’d overtake Buttigieg in the statewide tally.”
According to FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich, Sanders has so far gotten 21.855 state delegate equivalents out of the satellite caucus sites. In comparison, Buttigieg has gotten just 1.196.
We still are waiting for the last few precincts to come in so we don’t yet know whether Sanders or Buttigieg will emerge as the winner. There is also uncertainty around the accuracy of some of the current results. But the Sanders campaign organizing satellite caucuses appears to have paid unexpected dividends.