vox--2020-02-04--Trump’s State of the Union address: How to watch online and what to expect

President Trump will deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday , February 4 , at 9 pm ET in the Capitol .
The speech comes just one day after the Iowa caucuses and in the midst of the president ’ s impeachment trial , promising to make it an especially fraught event .
Trump will likely use this occasion to focus on his reelection campaign , emphasizing his achievements — like low unemployment rates and a pair of new trade deals — rather than his grievances .
Senior officials in his administration say he plans to avoid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected to end in acquittal .
Delivering a State of the Union amid impeachment drama is not without precedent : In 1999 , President Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union address within hours of his lawyers defending him at his impeachment trial .
Clinton didn ’ t talk about the trial hanging over his head ; instead , he rhapsodized about the booming economy and budget surplus .
If Trump can do the same , resisting the temptation to lash out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other impeachment-effort leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SOTU speech to appeal to millions of Americans watching from home as they prepare to cast their ballots in the primaries .
But Democrats have already got their response lined up .
Gretchen Whitmer , the first-term governor of Michigan , and Veronica Escobar , a freshman Congress member representing El Paso , Texas , will deliver a rebuttal .
Whitmer will speak in English , followed by Escobar in Spanish .
Expect them to lambast Trump ’ s policies on immigration , among other issues .
It ’ s the last SOTU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s got a lot to talk about .
Because SOTU falls the night after the Iowa caucuses , Trump will go into this address with a slightly clearer sense of which Democratic candidates he ’ ll need to focus on beating in order to win a second term ( and may even have a few choice words for the frontrunners ) .
He will almost certainly boast about the health of the US economy under his leadership .
At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos , he credited himself with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the world has never seen before.
” ( In truth , the economy grew at a 2.3 percent rate in 2019 , the slowest rate since 2016 . )
And he ’ ll want to talk about the United States Mexico Canada Agreement , the new trade deal he just signed as a replacement for NAFTA .
Getting that done was one of the promises of his 2016 presidential campaign , and he ’ ll probably point to it as a major achievement as he heads into the 2020 election .
Likewise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade deal he signed with China in January , which he ’ s said will bring the US and China closer together in many ways .
Trump will also likely mention the Wuhan coronavirus , which has spread from China to nearly 20 countries , including the US .
The World Health Organization has declared the coronavirus a global health emergency , and it has sparked fears of a potential global pandemic .
Some senators voiced a wish to reschedule SOTU this year so it wouldn ’ t butt up against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be awkward to have the State of the Union in the midst of such a trial , ” said Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) .
But it ’ s happening anyway .
With so many issues coalescing around the president at once , and coming a day after the Iowa caucuses and in the wake of the impeachment drama , this year ’ s SOTU is bound to be more interesting , and potentially raucous , than normal .
On TV or livestream : ABC , CBS , C-SPAN , NBC @ @ @ @ @

President Trump will deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 4, at 9 pm ET in the Capitol. The speech comes just one day after the Iowa caucuses and in the midst of the president’s impeachment trial, promising to make it an especially fraught event.
Trump will likely use this occasion to focus on his reelection campaign, emphasizing his achievements — like low unemployment rates and a pair of new trade deals — rather than his grievances. Senior officials in his administration say he plans to avoid the topic of his impeachment trial, which is expected to end in acquittal.
Delivering a State of the Union amid impeachment drama is not without precedent: In 1999, President Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union address within hours of his lawyers defending him at his impeachment trial. Clinton didn’t talk about the trial hanging over his head; instead, he rhapsodized about the booming economy and budget surplus.
If Trump can do the same, resisting the temptation to lash out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other impeachment-effort leaders in attendance, he can leverage the SOTU speech to appeal to millions of Americans watching from home as they prepare to cast their ballots in the primaries.
But Democrats have already got their response lined up. Gretchen Whitmer, the first-term governor of Michigan, and Veronica Escobar, a freshman Congress member representing El Paso, Texas, will deliver a rebuttal. Whitmer will speak in English, followed by Escobar in Spanish. Expect them to lambast Trump’s policies on immigration, among other issues.
It’s the last SOTU address of Trump’s term. He’s got a lot to talk about.
Because SOTU falls the night after the Iowa caucuses, Trump was expected to go into this address with a slightly clearer sense of which Democratic candidates he’ll need to focus on beating in order to win a second term (and maybe have a few choice words for the frontrunners). Early on Tuesday, however, there were no official Iowa results to be had.
He will almost certainly boast about the health of the US economy under his leadership. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, he credited himself with “an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen before.” (In truth, the economy grew at a 2.3 percent rate in 2019, the slowest rate since 2016.)
And he’ll want to talk about the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, the new trade deal he just signed as a replacement for NAFTA. Getting that done was one of the promises of his 2016 presidential campaign, and he’ll probably point to it as a major achievement as he heads into the 2020 election.
Likewise, odds are he’ll hype the trade deal he signed with China in January, which he’s said will bring the US and China closer together in many ways.
Trump will also likely mention the Wuhan coronavirus, which has spread from China to nearly 20 countries, including the US. The World Health Organization has declared the coronavirus a global health emergency, and it has sparked fears of a potential global pandemic.
Some senators voiced a wish to reschedule SOTU this year so it wouldn’t butt up against the impeachment proceedings. “I think it would be awkward to have the State of the Union in the midst of such a trial,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).
But it’s happening anyway. With so many issues coalescing around the president at once, and coming a day after the Iowa caucuses and in the wake of the impeachment drama, this year’s SOTU is bound to be more interesting, and potentially raucous, than normal.
When to watch: 9 pm Eastern time
Where: The Capitol, Washington, DC
On TV or livestream: ABC, CBS, C-SPAN, NBC, and other major outlets


vox--2020-02-04--Why the New Hampshire primary matters more than ever this year

Why the New Hampshire primary matters more than ever this year Share All sharing options for : Why the New Hampshire primary matters more than ever this year CONCORD , New Hampshire — The New Hampshire primary could provide the Democratic race for president some much-needed clarity , after Monday night ’ s Iowa caucuses devolved into chaos .
Iowa was marked by an hours-long delay for three sets of vote totals , leaving voters and campaigns in the dark about results .
Most major candidates gave speeches late Monday night , without knowing if they had won or lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , the Iowa Democratic Party still has not released official results , only saying they ’ re expected “ later today.
” It ’ s likely no such chaos will happen in New Hampshire , which has a traditional , secret-ballot primary — and whose voters use paper ballots .
When voters in this small New England state head to the polls on Tuesday , February 11 ( polls close by 8 pm Eastern ) , they will be fighting for a portion of the state ’ s mere 24 delegates — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates in the Democratic nominating contest .
But if history tells us anything , there ’ s a lot more on the line than delegates .
Because the primary is a far different kind of election than the Iowa caucuses , the outcome here won ’ t necessarily confirm Iowa ’ s results .
“ Iowa can really test how organized you are .
In New Hampshire you ’ ve got to appeal to a whole bunch of independents , ” attorney and longtime politico Bill Shaheen ( husband to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , often referred to as independents , make up 42 percent of the total registered voters in the state — but they hardly vote as a bloc .
Political experts here are watching to see if history repeats itself with another win by Sanders , the independent senator from Vermont .
Sanders won the 2016 primary handily , and is the only one who has polled at more than 20 percent recently .
In the RealClearPolitics polling average of New Hampshire , he ’ s currently 9 points ahead of his closest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg by more than 12 points .
If the Iowa caucuses showed us anything , a lot could change in the next week .
It ’ s worth noting New Hampshire voters make up their minds notoriously late in the process .
“ I have not made up my mind , ” North Conway independent voter Nancy Stewart , 72 , told me in early January .
Stewart was stuck between Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak .
“ I ’ ll make it up probably the day I go in [ the voting booth ] , ” she said .
Many Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents here are experiencing the political indecision wracking the rest of the country — the polls have been shifted over the last couple of months , and just like the party as a whole , many are obsessed with finding the most “ electable ” candidate to beat President Donald Trump .
“ I want that guy out so bad , I can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , that ’ s number one , ” Conway voter Mike Manson , trying to decide among Sen. Amy Klobuchar , Biden , and Buttigieg , told me .
A strong New Hampshire finish can breathe new life into the top three candidates ’ campaigns .
Those who finish lower will find the primary to be another nail in the coffin .
Still , the rules are different this year , and by the time New Hampshire results are reported , thousands will have already started voting in the Super Tuesday states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been historically , it may be standing between the Democratic Party of old and a new , more diverse one .
“ It is a privilege based in no rationality at all that we ’ re not going to give up , ” Dover voter Jeremiah Dickinson to me at a recent Warren town hall .
“ I think the criticisms of it are valid.
” Who could win in New Hampshire in 2020 — and who needs to Political experts are watching to see whether Sanders can reprise his blowout New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vermont has maintained a hold on his neighboring state ; though he ’ s likely nowhere near repeating his 22-point win against Hillary Clinton four years ago , he has broken away as the frontrunner in the RealClearPolitics New Hampshire average , with Biden in second and Buttigieg and Warren essentially tied for third .
New Hampshire is key for all four frontrunners to win — not for the purposes of amassing delegates — but for the much-needed momentum it bestows .
“ Someone who wins is a winner , if you lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said University of New Hampshire pollster Andy Smith .
Candidates want to downplay expectations , then overperform them come election night .
New Hampshire ’ s primary could be make-or-break for Sanders ( who won it in 2016 ) , Warren ( who , like Sanders , hails from a neighboring state ) and Biden ( the national frontrunner ) .
“ Who has the most to lose , it ’ s really Sanders and Warren , but Biden too — he ’ s the former vice president , ” Smith told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underperforms expectations , they may have to drop out .
There ’ s not enough room for all three of them.
” Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar could have the most to gain by overperforming expectations , political experts told me .
“ She has the most to gain by a New Hampshire win , but she ’ s also in the weakest position , ” Smith said .
“ If [ Buttigieg ] performs even as well as expected , that would be a boost for him .
This is the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ format and that he ’ s able to go toe-to-toe with the big guys.
” Why winning New Hampshire is such a boost New Hampshire wields a substantial amount of political power ; no major party nominee in modern history has won without coming first or second in New Hampshire .
Winning here — all else equal — increases a candidate ’ s expected share of the primary vote by 27 percentage points , political scientist William Mayer wrote in 2004 .
This small New England state has a well-documented history of elevating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts here told me it ’ s as likely to have a “ dark horse ” candidate surprise as much as it would be for the top three to finish well in both Iowa and New Hampshire .
The very fact New Hampshire has a traditional secret ballot vote could give it extra importance in 2020 , as new Iowa Democratic Party rules this year may have added to the confusion at the Iowa caucuses Monday night .
For the first time ever , in addition to the number of delegates each candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raw vote total each candidate received .
Multiple sets of numbers could give more candidates the potential to claim victory .
There will be no such wrinkle with New Hampshire ’ s results .
Out of New Hampshire ’ s total 24 Democratic delegates up for grabs , 16 are district-level delegates ( eight per each of the state ’ s two congressional districts ) .
The rest are made up of current and former party officials and prominent activists .
Candidates need to reach a 15 percent threshold in order to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote each candidate wins in each district .
New Hampshire ’ s one-person , one-vote primary — contrasted with Iowa ’ s public caucuses — could serve as a clarifying moment after Iowa .
How to win the primary Face-to-face voter contact with presidential candidates is the classic New Hampshire playbook .
The state ’ s living rooms , diners and school gyms have traditionally been the test sites of a candidate ’ s authenticity and ability to answer questions .
The idea is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help “ vet ” candidates , but a barrage of questions also better prepares candidates for the job of president .
“ We are so spoiled , we can go up and meet any candidate that ’ s running , ” Merrimack voter Chuck Mower told me .
“ They beg for our attention.
” The Granite State got its influence for upending conventional wisdom around elections ; it first rose to prominence in the 1950s and ’ 60s when not one but two incumbent presidents — Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the race .
In the 1970s , voters in New Hampshire and Iowa decisively replaced party bosses who once got to make back-room decisions about who would be the nominee .
“ It was said back in the days of John F. Kennedy that primaries they were basically like horse races , where party bosses would see how the horses played , ” said University of New Hampshire political science professor and primary expert Dante Scala .
“ That ’ s still true today about New Hampshire , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bosses as the ones watching and scrutinizing the results.
” The state upended conventional wisdom again in the 2016 primary , when its voters chose Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump .
Sanders and Trump both rode a populist wave that disregarded both the establishment picks and the traditional New Hampshire way of campaigning .
Both men prioritized huge crowds over intimate town halls and retail politics , and eschewed diner stops in favor of filling theaters , gymnasiums , and stadiums with thousands of cheering supporters .
New Hampshire had the highest primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 52 percent , compared to 15.7 percent for Iowa , 30 percent for South Carolina , and just 8 percent for the Nevada caucuses , according to data from the US Elections Project .
Given the state ’ s relatively small size , that still left the consequential decision of the primary up to just 542,459 people ; more than the 357,983 Iowa caucus-goers and 159,216 Nevada caucus-goers , but less than half of the 1,118,468 voters who turn out in South Carolina .
The political electorate here is highly engaged ; even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little over 1.3 million people , New Hampshire has a big 424-person state legislature .
Politics is somewhat of a local sport here ; retail politics , one-on-one conversations with voters and no-holds-barred town halls , are the name of the game .
The primary has also allowed New Hampshire ’ s issues to have a spotlight on the national stage ; in 2016 , the state ’ s deadly opioid crisis became a flashpoint in both the Republican and Democratic primaries .
For all the time and money being poured into engaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stubbornly unpredictable .
With over 40 percent of the state ’ s registered voters undeclared to any political party , New Hampshire is a purple swing state that ’ s tricky to poll .
At the same time , New Hampshire and Iowa have also been coming under increasing scrutiny for their outsized role in picking presidents .
Some former presidential candidates criticized the states for being too white and rural , and a recent national poll from Monmouth University showed a majority of voters in favor of getting rid of Iowa and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a single , national primary .
Some think New Hampshire and Iowa should give up being first Some presidential campaigns have been downplaying both Iowa and New Hampshire ’ s importance , and looking toward Super Tuesday on March 3 as their real make-or-break moment .
Biden ’ s campaign and advisers spent part of the fall telling reporters their diverse coalition would carry Biden to Super Tuesday , even if he lost the first two states .
And last week , Warren ’ s campaign manager Roger Lau sent out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign plans to stay in for a while even if there ’ s a disappointing result in Iowa .
“ We expect this to be a long nomination fight and have built our campaign to sustain well past Super Tuesday and stay resilient no matter what breathless media narratives come when voting begins , ” Lau ’ s memo read .
Candidates who do poorly in the first two states but have enough money may stick it out until Super Tuesday .
As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly diverse — in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate identified as something other than white — New Hampshire is in an increasingly awkward position for playing such a large role in the presidential nominating process .
New Hampshire has a vested interest in continuing to be first ; it ’ s a huge boost to the economy and the small state ’ s national profile .
It clings to the “ first ” status , helped by a state law that allows New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to set the date of the primary a week before any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ( a big part of the reason Iowa goes before it is that it ’ s a caucus state ) .
But every year there are challenges to its power — people in the Democratic Party , including some former 2020 candidates like Julián Castro — have openly questioned why two predominantly white states get to hold such power over the presidential nominating process .
“ I actually believe we do need to change the order of the states because I don ’ t believe we ’ re the same country we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s changed a lot in those 50 years , ” Castro said on MSNBC this fall .
“ What I really appreciate about Iowans and the folks in New Hampshire is that they take this process very seriously .
At the same time , demographically it ’ s not reflective of the United States as a whole , certainly not reflective of the Democratic Party , and I believe that other states should have their chance.
” Castro has a point ; the US Census estimates New Hampshire is 90 percent white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By contrast , the United States as a whole is just 60 percent white .
The concerns of black and Latino voters , while represented in other early states Nevada and South Carolina , still don ’ t have as much power as the first two states , simply because of the order of the contests .
Still , all of the top-tier candidates — the ones with the most to gain from winning Iowa and New Hampshire — aren ’ t rocking the boat this year , saying that Nevada and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first two states lack .
“ I think Julián raises an important issue , ” Warren told reporters last week .
“ I am very glad the process we use right now is that we go to four states in four weeks right at the beginning .
It ’ s very different states , very different sets of issues that go on .
There is no process that ’ s perfect and people are going to continue to talk about it , but I am delighted to be here.
” Scala , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see national Democrats more seriously contemplate a calendar change in 2024 if Iowa or New Hampshire select a nominee who ultimately loses to Donald Trump again .
“ When they lose a presidential election , they tend to look to their nomination process for flaws , ” Scala said .
“ The losers do tend to want to tinker with the process in order to try to produce better results the next time around .
”

Share All sharing options for: The New Hampshire primary matters more than ever this year
CONCORD, New Hampshire — The New Hampshire primary on Tuesday could provide the Democratic race for president with some much-needed clarity after the Iowa caucuses devolved into chaos last week.
It’s likely no such chaos will happen in New Hampshire, which has a traditional secret-ballot primary and whose voters use paper ballots.
When voters in this small New England state head to the polls on February 11 (polls close by 8 pm Eastern), they will be fighting for a portion of the state’s mere 24 delegates — less than 1 percent of the pledged delegates in the Democratic nominating contest. But if history tells us anything, there’s a lot more on the line than delegates. Because the primary is a far different kind of election than the Iowa caucuses, the outcome here won’t necessarily confirm Iowa’s results.
“In New Hampshire, you’ve got to appeal to a whole bunch of independents,” attorney and longtime politico Bill Shaheen (husband to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen) told me last fall. Undeclared voters, often referred to as independents, make up 42 percent of the total registered voters in the state — but they hardly vote as a bloc.
Political experts here are watching to see if history repeats itself with another win by Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont. Sanders won the 2016 New Hampshire primary handily and is still considered the favorite to win with a plurality. In the RealClearPolitics polling average of New Hampshire, he’s currently 7.4 points ahead of his closest competitor, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who are tied for third.
If the Iowa caucuses showed us anything, it’s that a lot can change before the actual vote. It’s worth noting that New Hampshire voters make up their minds notoriously late in the process.
“I have not made up my mind,” North Conway independent voter Nancy Stewart, 72, told me in early January. Stewart was stuck between Warren and Klobuchar but was also waiting to see Buttigieg speak. “I’ll make it up probably the day I go in” to vote, she said.
Many Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents here are experiencing the political indecision racking the rest of the country. The polls have been shifting over the past couple of months, and just like the party as a whole, many are obsessed with finding the most “electable” candidate to beat President Donald Trump.
“I want that guy out so bad, I can’t even tell you. Getting Trump out, that’s No. 1,” Conway voter Mike Manson, trying to decide among Klobuchar, Biden, and Buttigieg, told me.
A strong New Hampshire finish can breathe new life into the top three candidates’ campaigns. Those who finish lower will find the primary to be another nail in the coffin.
Still, the rules are different this year, and by the time New Hampshire results are reported, thousands will have already started voting in the Super Tuesday states. As historically important as New Hampshire has been, it may be standing between the Democratic Party of old and a new, more diverse one.
“It is a privilege based in no rationality at all that we’re not going to give up,” Dover voter Jeremiah Dickinson said to me at a recent Warren town hall. “I think the criticisms of it are valid.”
Who could win in New Hampshire in 2020 — and who needs to
Political experts are watching to see whether Sanders can reprise his blowout New Hampshire win of 2016. The senator from Vermont has maintained a hold on his neighboring state; though he’s likely nowhere near repeating his 22-point win against Hillary Clinton four years ago, he has broken away as the frontrunner in the RealClearPolitics New Hampshire average, with Buttigieg in second and Biden, Warren, and Klobuchar all essentially tied for third.
New Hampshire is key for all four frontrunners to win — not for amassing delegates, but for the much-needed momentum it bestows.
“Someone who wins is a winner; if you lose, you’re a loser,” said University of New Hampshire pollster Andy Smith. Candidates want to downplay expectations, then overperform them come election night.
New Hampshire’s primary could be make or break for Sanders (who won it in 2016), Warren (who, like Sanders, hails from a neighboring state), and Biden (the national frontrunner). “Who has the most to lose, it’s really Sanders and Warren, but Biden too — he’s the former vice president,” Smith told me. “If any of those three underperforms expectations, they may have to drop out. There’s not enough room for all three of them.”
Buttigieg and Klobuchar — building on Friday’s strong debate performance — could have the most to gain by overperforming expectations, political experts told me.
“[Klobuchar] has the most to gain by a New Hampshire win, but she’s also in the weakest position,” Smith said. “If [Buttigieg] performs even as well as expected, that would be a boost for him. This is the first time he’s in a general election format and that he’s able to go toe-to-toe with the big guys.”
Why winning New Hampshire is such a boost
New Hampshire wields a substantial amount of political power — this year more than ever following Iowa’s muddled caucus results. Historically, no major-party nominee has won the nomination without coming first or second in New Hampshire. Winning here, all else equal, increases a candidate’s expected share of the primary vote by 27 percentage points, political scientist William Mayer wrote in 2004.
This small New England state has a well-documented history of elevating underdogs and leveling frontrunners, and political experts here told me it’s as likely to have a “dark horse” candidate surprise as it would be for the top three to finish well in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
The very fact that New Hampshire has a traditional secret-ballot vote could give it extra importance in 2020.
Related These New Hampshire primary voters will truly be first in the nation
Out of New Hampshire’s total 24 Democratic delegates up for grabs, 16 are district-level delegates (eight per each of the state’s two congressional districts). The rest are made up of current and former party officials and prominent activists. Candidates need to reach a 15 percent threshold in order to receive delegates, and delegates will be awarded in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote each candidate wins in each district.
New Hampshire’s one-person, one-vote primary — contrasted with Iowa’s public caucuses — could serve as a clarifying moment after Iowa.
How to win the primary
Face-to-face voter contact with presidential candidates is the classic New Hampshire playbook.
The state’s living rooms, diners, and school gyms have traditionally been the test sites of a candidate’s authenticity and ability to answer questions. The idea is that not only do voters in these states help “vet” candidates, but a barrage of questions also better prepares them for the job of president.
“We are so spoiled, we can go up and meet any candidate that’s running,” Merrimack voter Chuck Mower told me. “They beg for our attention.”
The Granite State got its influence for upending conventional wisdom around elections; it first rose to prominence in the 1950s and ’60s when not one but two incumbent presidents — Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson — lost the primary and subsequently bowed out of the race. In the 1970s, voters in New Hampshire and Iowa decisively replaced party bosses who once got to make backroom decisions about who would be the nominee.
“It was said back in the days of John F. Kennedy that primaries ... were basically like horse races, where party bosses would see how the horses played,” said University of New Hampshire political science professor and primary expert Dante Scala. “That’s still true today about New Hampshire — it’s just you all have replaced the party bosses as the ones watching and scrutinizing the results.”
The state upended conventional wisdom again in the 2016 primary when its voters chose Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Both rode a populist wave that disregarded both the establishment picks and the traditional New Hampshire way of campaigning. Both prioritized huge crowds over intimate town halls and retail politics, and eschewed diner stops in favor of filling theaters, gymnasiums, and stadiums with thousands of cheering supporters.
New Hampshire had the highest primary turnout of any state in 2016 with 52 percent, compared to 15.7 percent for Iowa, 30 percent for South Carolina, and just 8 percent for the Nevada caucuses, according to data from the US Elections Project. Given the state’s relatively small size, that still left the consequential decision of the primary up to just 542,459 people; more than the 357,983 Iowa caucus-goers and 159,216 Nevada caucus-goers, but fewer than half of the 1,118,468 voters who turned out in South Carolina.
The political electorate here is highly engaged; even though it’s home to a little over 1.3 million people, New Hampshire has a big 424-person state legislature. Politics is somewhat of a local sport here; retail politics, one-on-one conversations with voters, and no-holds-barred town halls are the name of the game.
The primary has also given New Hampshire’s issues a spotlight on the national stage; in 2016, the state’s deadly opioid crisis became a flashpoint in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.
For all the time and money being poured into engaging voters here, it’s still stubbornly unpredictable. With more than 40 percent of the state’s registered voters undeclared to any political party, New Hampshire is tricky to poll.
At the same time, New Hampshire and Iowa have also been coming under increasing scrutiny for their outsize role in picking presidents. Some former presidential candidates criticized the states as being too white and rural, and a recent national poll from Monmouth University showed a majority of voters in favor of getting rid of Iowa and New Hampshire going first and replacing them with a single, national primary.
Some think New Hampshire and Iowa should give up being first
Some presidential campaigns have been downplaying both states’ importance and looking toward Super Tuesday on March 3 as their real make-or-break moment.
Biden’s campaign and advisers spent part of the fall telling reporters their diverse coalition would carry Biden to Super Tuesday, even if he lost the first two states. And last week, Warren’s campaign manager Roger Lau sent out a memo to supporters telling them the campaign plans to stay in for a while, even anticipating poor early-state performances like Biden had in Iowa.
“We expect this to be a long nomination fight and have built our campaign to sustain well past Super Tuesday and stay resilient no matter what breathless media narratives come when voting begins,” Lau’s memo read.
Candidates who have enough money could stick it out until Super Tuesday.
As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly diverse — in 2018, an estimated 39 percent of the Democratic electorate identified as something other than white — New Hampshire is in an increasingly awkward position for playing such a large role in the presidential nominating process.
New Hampshire has a vested interest in continuing to be first; it’s a huge boost to the economy and the small state’s national profile. It clings to the “first” status, helped by a state law that allows the New Hampshire secretary of state to set the date of the primary a week before any other state that might try to go first (a big part of the reason Iowa goes before it is that it’s a caucus state).
But every year there are challenges to its power. People in the Democratic Party, including some former 2020 candidates like Julián Castro, have openly questioned why two predominantly white states get to hold such power over the presidential nominating process.
“I actually believe we do need to change the order of the states because I don’t believe we’re the same country we were in 1972. ... Our country’s changed a lot in those 50 years,” Castro said on MSNBC this fall. “What I really appreciate about Iowans and the folks in New Hampshire is that they take this process very seriously. At the same time, demographically it’s not reflective of the United States as a whole, certainly not reflective of the Democratic Party, and I believe that other states should have their chance.”
Castro has a point; the US Census estimates New Hampshire is 90 percent white; in Iowa, it’s 85 percent. By contrast, the United States as a whole is just 60 percent white. The concerns of black and Latino voters, while represented in other early states Nevada and South Carolina, still don’t have as much power as the first two states, simply because of the order of the contests.
Still, all of the top-tier candidates — the ones with the most to gain from winning Iowa and New Hampshire — aren’t rocking the boat this year, saying that Nevada and South Carolina round out the diversity the first two states lack.
“I think Julián raises an important issue,” Warren told reporters recently. “I am very glad the process we use right now is that we go to four states in four weeks right at the beginning. It’s very different states, very different sets of issues that go on. There is no process that’s perfect, and people are going to continue to talk about it, but I am delighted to be here.”
Scala, the UNH political expert, said he could see national Democrats more seriously contemplate a calendar change in 2024 if Iowa or New Hampshire selects a nominee who ultimately loses to Trump.
“When they lose a presidential election, they tend to look to their nomination process for flaws,” Scala said. “The losers do tend to want to tinker with the process in order to try to produce better results the next time around.”


vox--2020-02-03--Why the Iowa results are taking so long

Why the Iowa results are taking so long

The Iowa caucuses , the first contest of the 2020 Democratic primary , have been going for hours , and at this point it ’ s clear that results are badly delayed .
As of 11:40 pm , not a single precinct ’ s votes have been publicly reported by the state party ; at this point in 2016 , 90 percent of precincts had reported their totals .
In a statement at 11:30 pm Monday , the Iowa Democratic Party said the delay was due to “ inconsistencies ” between multiple sets of results , saying they were trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report.
” The Iowa caucuses this year are a complicated process involving three different vote counts .
For the first time , the state Democratic Party is supposed to be publicly reporting two different raw vote totals for every candidate ( one with all candidates in the mix , and one after those who did not get at least 15 percent of the vote were eliminated ) , as well as the number of delegates each candidate actually wins in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to be in play : By Monday afternoon , reports were trickling out about problems with the mobile app that precinct chairs were supposed to be using to report their results , although the party said late Monday night that the app was not hacked and did not crash .
The delays forced cable news to fill an ever-expanding amount of airtime , but they could also end up being politically significant — fueling intraparty fights and casting doubt on the viability of the caucuses .
Why the Iowa caucus results are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new app that precinct chairs are supposed to be using to report results .
Bloomberg reported on Monday that they were “ struggling to use the new phone application , ” with four county chairs telling their reporters “ that they were unable to download or log in to the phone app.
” The alternative to the app is actually calling the state party on the phone in order to report results .
However , at least one precinct chair has tweeted that the phone line isn ’ t working well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on hold for an hour : Some precincts appear to have abandoned the app and are just using paper instead , according to Politico reporter Elena Schneider : However , the party denies the app is the problem , saying the issue lies with inconsistencies in the vote counts they are getting rather than precincts ’ ability to report numbers in the first place .
Here ’ s the party ’ s full statement : It seems that something isn ’ t lining up in the reports they ’ re getting from precincts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what exactly has gone wrong .
Meanwhile , candidates have already begun giving generally optimistic speeches to their supporters — even though no one has any idea who won .
Iowa is not a particularly delegate-rich state ; its significance comes from its first-in-the-nation status , which gives it a unique ability to reshape expectations among the media , donors , and political partisans .
Winning Iowa doesn ’ t put you on track , on its own , to amassing an unbeatable number of delegates .
It just feeds a narrative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perception really is reality .
Under those circumstances , the later the results — and the more the conversation focuses on the process — the less time the winner has to capitalize .
This isn ’ t likely to make a massive difference , but political professionals are taking it seriously : The second reason these results could matter is they could undermine the legitimacy of the caucus process .
As early as 8:48 pm Eastern time , the New York Times was already reporting that problems with the app were giving rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risks of introducing apps like this , and new technology more generally , into elections , is that problems occur , as they inevitably do , ” Matt Blaze , a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University , told the Times .
“ People might see this as evidence that the whole system is rigged.
” That only got worse as the night went on .
A viral tweet suggested , without evidence , that the app was being used to somehow rig the process against Bernie Sanders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Democratic Party would alter the results in such a blatant fashion .
But many of Sanders ’ s supporters bear a grudge against the party from the 2016 primary , and in the absence of a clear explanation for what ’ s happening , it ’ s likely conspiracy theories like these will continue to spread .
That ’ s really bad for the public ’ s faith in the fairness of the process .
Bad actors will be all too happy to supercharge this process in order to amplify divides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign manager Brad Pascale , who seized on the delay to suggest that the Democratic Party is rigging things somehow : In an emotional and heated election , against the backdrop of a process that many Sanders fans thought was unfair in 2016 and a president who constantly accuses his opponents of cheating , it ’ s important that the US electoral system seem functional .
The Iowa delay seems to be , so far , a step in the wrong direction .

The Iowa Democratic Party hasn’t announced the results of even a single precinct from Monday night’s Iowa caucuses, leading longtime political observers to declare the event a debacle.
The state party said Tuesday morning it expects results later in the day. In explaining what went wrong, the party cited “coding” problems with a new app used to collect the results and hinted at the complexity of this year’s process.
“It became clear that there were inconsistencies with the reports,” the party said in a statement. “The underlying cause of the inconsistencies was not immediately clear, and required investigation, which took time.”
This year, for the first time, the Iowa Democratic Party had planned to report how many votes each candidate earned statewide and in each precinct, as well as the number of delegates awarded. But it went badly.
Instead of ending in a single victory speech, the night wrapped up with each candidate giving their supporters an upbeat address hinting at a win. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg even explicitly claimed victory.
Here’s what we know about the delay, what’s behind it, and when we might finally find out who won.
The party’s take
The results are delayed due to “inconsistencies” in the reports to the state party that showed up during a “quality check” on Monday night, the state party said in a statement.
Results will be released “as soon as possible” on Tuesday, but are still being tallied.
This year, precinct chairs were using a new app to report their results to state party headquarters — but the app “was reporting out only partial data” due to a “coding issue in the reporting system,” according to the party’s statement.
The party says the app problem has been fixed.
In several statements beginning Monday night, the Iowa Democratic Party emphasized that the app was not hacked and votes have not been tampered with. And there is a paper trail because of the “preference cards” that voters filled out this year.
The view from the ground
Bloomberg reported on Monday that precinct captains were “struggling to use the new phone application,” with four county chairs telling reporters “that they were unable to download or log in to the phone app.”
Some precincts abandoned the app and used paper instead, according to Politico reporter Elena Schneider.
The state party said in its statement that there were backup systems in place and that results were being entered manually, although it was taking longer than expected.
It’s not clear how well the backup systems worked. One precinct chair tweeted Monday night that he’d tried to call in to report results and was on hold for an hour. NBC quoted an anonymous source in the state who called the phone line “a disaster.” And Corasaniti reported that the Polk County executive director’s photographs of paper results were not accepted by the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters.
The candidates declare victory
The Sanders and Buttigieg campaigns released preliminary results that suggested their candidates did well, but official results are still being tabulated.
Buttigieg took an explicit victory lap on Monday night, despite the information vacuum.
Each candidate gave a quasi-victory speech, starting with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, rather than wait around all night.
This year was different
The Iowa caucuses this year are a complicated process involving three different vote counts. For the first time, the state Democratic Party is supposed to be publicly reporting two different raw vote totals for every candidate (one with all candidates in the mix and one after those who did not get at least 15 percent of the vote were eliminated) as well as the number of delegates each candidate actually wins in the final vote total.
Some were worrying about chaos at the caucuses even before voting began, and by Monday afternoon, reports were trickling out about problems with the mobile app that precinct chairs were supposed to be using to report their results.
Why the Iowa delay matters
Iowa is not a particularly delegate-rich state; its significance comes from its first-in-the-nation status, which gives it an ability to reshape expectations among the media, donors, and political partisans. Winning Iowa doesn’t put you on track, on its own, to amassing an unbeatable number of delegates. It just feeds a narrative, and when it comes to Iowa, perception really is reality.
Under those circumstances, the later the results — and the more the conversation focuses on the process — the less time the winner has to capitalize.
This is probably right https://t.co/n7NS7RUwPi — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 4, 2020
But more broadly, the delay also appeared to be undermining the legitimacy of the caucus process — including both high-profile critiques of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status and conspiracy theories that the party was somehow rigging the election.
The Iowa caucuses have long been a target of criticism for being too unrepresentative of the country and too inaccessible. Now critics and skeptics have another charge to add to the pile: the caucuses were a mess.
As early as 8:48 pm Eastern time, the New York Times was already reporting that problems with the app were giving rise to conspiracy theories.
“One of the risks of introducing apps like this, and new technology more generally, into elections, is that problems occur, as they inevitably do,” Matt Blaze, a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University, told the Times. “People might see this as evidence that the whole system is rigged.”
This view got worse as the night went on. A viral tweet suggested, without evidence, that the app was being used to somehow rig the process against Bernie Sanders. Many of Sanders’s supporters bear a grudge against the party from the 2016 primary, and in the absence of a clear explanation for what’s happening, it’s likely conspiracy theories like these will continue to spread.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s campaign manager Brad Pascale, seized on the delay to suggest that the Democratic Party is rigging things somehow:
Quality control = rigged? https://t.co/rJY3gdRccE — Brad Parscale - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@parscale) February 4, 2020
The Trump campaign has good reason to want to see Democrats divided going into the general election, even if there’s no evidence, so far, of any malice rather than technical difficulties.
But in an emotional and heated election, against the backdrop of a process that many Sanders fans thought was unfair in 2016 and a president who constantly accuses his opponents of cheating, it’s important that the US electoral system seems functional. The Iowa delay seems to be, so far, a step in the wrong direction.


vox--2020-02-03--Technical difficulties in Iowa caucuses lead to widespread confusion, delayed results

The Iowa caucuses appeared to melt down on Monday night after multiple reports of technical difficulties related to precincts reporting results in Iowa .
It ’ s so far unclear how the problems started or if the cybersecurity threat is more serious .
So far , details about the issues are sketchy , but it does sound serious enough to alert all of the campaigns .
Iowa Democratic Party communications director Mandy McClure later issued this statement : Monday night was Iowans ’ chance to vote for their preferred presidential candidate in the state ’ s caucus , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of who may ultimately win the Democratic Party nomination .
It would also be our first look at how states are upping their presidential election cybersecurity game since 2016 , when Russia attempted to hack US voting machines — and which it is likely to attempt again this election cycle , and with four more years of experience .
With cybersecurity fears mounting , Iowa ’ s Democratic Party instituted a revolutionary new tool that no computer hacker can possibly defeat : a 2,200-year-old technology called “ paper ” as a backup to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help tally votes .
A few hours before the caucuses began , Bloomberg reported that some precinct chairs were having trouble downloading the app and logging in .
That meant they ’ d have to call in the results instead , possibly delaying the results by several hours .
Late on Monday night , some precinct managers reported waiting on hold for more than an hour while trying to report results .
The notion of some sort of technical failure in the 2020 election is not without precedent .
In the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election , electronic voting machines were seen as a way to improve accuracy and make elections more accessible .
But after years of issues with the machines and fears that they could be hacked — culminating in the 2016 presidential election — many states dialed back their march toward a paperless future , returning to paper voting machines and paper backups .
The Iowa caucues don ’ t rely on voting machines at all ; rather , caucus-goers meet at various precincts across the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucuses , that is ; Republicans have a different system ) literally vote with their feet .
They stand in different sections of the room depending on who their presidential nominee of choice is .
It ’ s not the most scientific process , but , as the first presidential nominating contest in the country , the result gives the winning candidate momentum heading into presidential primary season .
The Iowa caucuses have predicted the correct Democratic nominee in seven out of 10 contested caucuses since it began in 1972 .
It hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Iowa Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee have instituted a few new measures this cycle that they say will increase security following allegations that Russia hacked the 2016 election .
But some experts believe even these measures are not enough to ward off a determined and skilled hacker .
One of the chief concerns is the app that Iowa ’ s caucus volunteers are supposed to be using to calculate and register their precincts ’ votes , which will be installed on their personal smartphones .
As we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the best of circumstances .
If one of the richest men in the world can have his cellphone hacked , how secure is a caucus volunteer ’ s smartphone ?
Linn County Auditor Joel Miller told the Des Moines Register that he ’ s hopeful about the app ’ s security , pointing out that people routinely use smartphones for important transactions .
“ We use smartphone apps for banking every day , ” he said .
“ Hopefully this is as robust and secure as the banking applications.
” That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most robust banking software is easily defeated if the user has poor cyber hygiene .
Party leaders have been sparing with details about the app ’ s security measures , refusing even to reveal which company designed it ( they say this in and of itself is a security measure ) .
The New York Times reported that the app has been tested by security experts and the Homeland Security Department .
In 2016 — a simpler , more innocent time — both parties used a vote-counting app that was designed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use the app or don ’ t have a smartphone can always call in the results through a hotline .
And , as an added measure of security and for the first time in caucus history , the Iowa Democratic Party is instituting a “ paper trail , ” giving caucus-goers a card on which they must write their preferred candidate ’ s name and their signature , to be collected by the caucus precinct .
These will be used in the event of a recount .
Laws requiring some kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , with only 13 not requiring them at all .
Iowa , for the record , is one of 14 states that require paper ballots ( this is a caucus , not an election , so the law does not apply in this case ) .
Russia ’ s most effective tool in influencing the 2016 elections was not hacking voting machines but a widespread disinformation campaign that largely played out on social media .
It will almost certainly continue this strategy in 2020 .
Social media platforms say they are attuned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures they believe will prevent the anticipated misinformation onslaught .
Their ability to identify and remove hoaxes from their platforms , however , remains spotty .
The Iowa caucuses are a quirky process but a symbolically important one , both for who wins them and for their ability to resist interference attempts from bad actors .
A smartphone app hack wouldn ’ t be the end of the world — thanks to the new paper trail , it should be easy enough to get the correct tally anyway .
The biggest damage would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set for the rest of election season , casting that much more doubt on the eventual vote .

The Iowa caucuses melted down on Monday night after technical difficulties caused significant delays in reporting the results, which have not, as of Tuesday morning, been declared.
A smartphone app, which was reportedly made by a firm called Shadow, appears to be at the center of the confusion. The app was designed to help precinct chairs send the results to the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters, but reports that volunteers were unable to download or properly use the app suggest that this new way of doing things did not go smoothly. A number of volunteers resorted to calling the state party to report results, and many reported being left on hold indefinitely due to busy phone lines.
Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) communications director Mandy McClure issued a statement saying there was a “reporting issue” late Monday night:
We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results. In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate all results match and ensure we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report. This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an instruction. The underlying data and paper trail is found and will simply take time to further report the results.
The IDP issued another statement on Tuesday morning providing more details about what exactly happened. One problem seemed to be that the smartphone app was not reporting complete results:
As precinct caucus results started coming in, the IDP ran them through an accuracy and quality check. It became clear that there were inconsistencies with the reports. The underlying cause of these inconsistencies was not immediately clear, and required investigation which took time. … As part of our investigation, we determined with certainty that the underlying data collected via the app was sound. While the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data. We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in our reporting system. This issue was identified and fixed. The application’s reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data accurately.
The IDP went on to say that “the required paper documentation” confirmed that the “data recorded in the app and used to calculate State Delegate Equivalents is valid and accurate.”
Monday night was Iowa Democrats’ chance to vote for their preferred presidential candidate in the state’s caucus, and the results will give us our first indication of who may ultimately win the party nomination. It would also be our first look at how states are upping their presidential election cybersecurity game since 2016, when Russia attempted to hack US voting machines — and which it is likely to attempt again this election cycle, and with four more years of experience.
With cybersecurity fears mounting, Iowa’s Democratic Party instituted a revolutionary new tool that no computer hacker can possibly defeat: a 2,200-year-old technology called “paper” as a backup to the new smartphone app that was designed to help tally votes. A few hours before the caucuses began, Bloomberg reported that some precinct chairs were having trouble downloading the app and logging in. That meant they’d have to call in the results instead, possibly delaying the results by several hours. Late on Monday night, some precinct managers reported waiting on hold for more than an hour while trying to report results.
While it so far appears that the Iowa caucus results might not be skewed by Monday night’s difficulties, the threat of a damaging technical failure in the 2020 election is not without precedent. In the wake of the problematic punch-card ballots that might have decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, electronic voting machines were seen as a way to improve accuracy and make elections more accessible. But after years of issues with the machines and fears that they could be hacked — culminating in the 2016 presidential election — many states dialed back their march toward a paperless future, returning to paper voting machines and paper backups.
The Iowa caucuses don’t rely on voting machines at all; rather, caucus-goers meet at various precincts across the state and (in the case of Democratic caucuses, that is; Republicans have a different system) literally vote with their feet. They stand in different sections of the room depending on who their presidential nominee of choice is. It’s not the most scientific process, but, as the first presidential nominating contest in the country, the result gives the winning candidate momentum heading into presidential primary season. The Iowa caucuses have predicted the correct Democratic nominee in seven out of 10 contested caucuses since it began in 1972. It hasn’t gotten it wrong since 1992.
The Iowa Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee have instituted a few new measures this cycle that they say will increase security following allegations that Russia hacked the 2016 election. But some experts believe even these measures are not enough to ward off a determined and skilled hacker. It also remains unclear how Monday night’s confusion will impact future primaries. For example, Nevada was reportedly planning to use the smartphone app made by Shadow for its own primaries on February 22 (the state’s Democratic Party has since changed its mind).
One of the chief concerns ahead of Iowa’s caucuses was the fact that volunteers were supposed to be using an app to calculate and register their precincts’ votes — an app installed on their personal smartphones. As we’ve seen, smartphones can get hacked even in the best of circumstances. If one of the richest men in the world can have his cellphone hacked, how secure is a caucus volunteer’s smartphone?
That said, it now appears that the app itself didn’t work the way it was supposed to even in the absence of a hack. Linn County Auditor Joel Miller told the Des Moines Register before caucus night that he was hopeful about the app’s security, pointing out that people routinely use smartphones for important transactions.
“We use smartphone apps for banking every day,” he said. “Hopefully this is as robust and secure as the banking applications.”
But it seems that the smartphone app may have done more harm than good.
Party leaders offered few details about the app’s security measures. The New York Times reported that the app has been tested by security experts and the Homeland Security Department. In 2016 — a simpler, more innocent time — both parties used a vote-counting app that was designed by Microsoft. Volunteers who do not wish to use the app or don’t have a smartphone can always call in the results through a hotline.
And, as an added measure of security and for the first time in caucus history, the Iowa Democratic Party instituted a “paper trail,” giving caucus-goers a card on which they must write their preferred candidate’s name and their signature, to be collected by the caucus precinct. Laws requiring some kind of paper record for votes vary state to state, with only 13 not requiring them at all. Iowa, for the record, is one of 14 states that require paper ballots (this is a caucus, not an election, so the law does not apply in this case). It now appears that the new paper system has served an essential purpose in verifying the results collected on the faulty smartphone app.
Nevertheless, the problems at the Iowa caucus point to challenges ahead in the 2020 election. Russia’s most effective tool in influencing the 2016 elections, after all, was not hacking voting machines or hijacking apps. It was a widespread disinformation campaign that largely played out on social media. Russia will almost certainly continue this strategy in 2020, and social media platforms say they are attuned to the threat and have instituted various measures they believe will prevent the anticipated misinformation onslaught. Their ability to identify and remove hoaxes from their platforms, however, remains spotty.
The Iowa caucuses are a quirky process but a symbolically important one, both for who wins them and for their ability to resist interference attempts from bad actors. The shortcomings of this new smartphone app certainly delayed the final results, but thanks to the new paper trail, it appears that the Iowa Democratic Party says it will ultimately report the correct tally anyway. The most damaging part of this incident could very well be the ominous tone or feeling of uncertainty it will cast over the rest of election season.


vox--2020-02-03--Why some of the Iowa caucuses are being decided by coin toss

A few times on Monday night , at some of the Iowa caucuses , candidates ended up with the same number of votes .
There was a tie when it came time to hand out delegates .
So the Iowa voters resolved it with a time-honored election tradition : the coin toss .
As the Des Moines Register explained in 2016 , there are a few circumstances when a coin toss becomes necessary , but it usually means the caucus has gotten to the point where it ’ s ready to award delegates but two or more candidates have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coin toss determines how the delegates in each location will be divided up .
A lot of coin tosses can be the sign of a close race .
Back in 2016 , Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders almost tied overall in Iowa and 13 caucuses were decided by a coin toss that year .
This time , while official results are still being tabulated , reporters ’ tweets suggest several caucuses have been decided by coin toss so far : A three-way tie was apparently resolved by picking a name out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returns suggest a pretty even four-way race between Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , Pete Buttigieg , and Elizabeth Warren across the state , this isn ’ t necessarily a surprise .
But flipping coins to determine presidential nomination delegates is another process twist in Iowa , where the caucuses are already more complex and confusing than ever before .
In every caucus location across the state , the people present are going through a three-step process , yielding three different sets of results , to figure out how many delegates each candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in if there is a tie at the end of the third step .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop explained : 1 ) The pre-realignment vote total : This is the initial tally of how many people prefer each candidate at each of the more than 1,600 individual caucus sites ( added together for a statewide total ) .
Basically , it ’ s who got the most votes the first time around .
2 ) The final vote total : After the first tally , any supporters of a candidate who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote ( 15 percent in most precincts ) can shift their support to another candidate .
Candidates who are below the viability threshold are eliminated as “ nonviable , ” and a new and final tally is taken .
So this is who got the most votes after a reshuffling .
3 ) State delegate equivalents : The final vote total at each caucus site will then be used to assign each viable candidate a certain number of county delegates .
Then those county delegate numbers will be weighted to estimate their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention ) .
These coin tosses are not going to determine who gets the Democratic nomination ( at least , probably not ) .
About 1 percent of the nearly 4,000 delegates that will be won over the next few months are up for grabs in Iowa .
The state has 41 delegates total , and it seems just a handful will be awarded by this throwback tradition .

A few times on Monday night, at some of the Iowa caucuses, candidates ended up with the same number of votes. There was a tie when it came time to hand out delegates.
So the Iowa voters resolved it with a time-honored election tradition: the coin toss.
As the Des Moines Register explained in 2016, there are a few circumstances when a coin toss becomes necessary, but it usually means the caucus has gotten to the point where it’s ready to award delegates but two or more candidates have the same number of supporters. The winner of the coin toss determines how the delegates in each location will be divided up.
A lot of coin tosses can be the sign of a close race. Back in 2016, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders almost tied overall in Iowa and 13 caucuses were decided by a coin toss that year. This time, while official results are still being tabulated, reporters’ tweets suggest several caucuses have been decided by coin toss so far:
The coin toss pic.twitter.com/qvJ8ZHlsVk — John Pemble (@johnpemble) February 4, 2020
It came down to a coin toss at the precinct at Hills Elementary in rural Johnson County. With only one delegate they needed 50% to win. Warren carried the day. #IACaucus pic.twitter.com/Cgv5kA391C — Charity Nebbe (@CharityNebbe) February 4, 2020
Bernie and Biden tied. So they flipped a coin for a delegate. Bernie team son https://t.co/s9FegCyDXu — Ben Terris (@bterris) February 4, 2020
FOURTH COIN TOSS, because why stop here? This one is in Warren County. This time itwas between Biden & Klobuchar, and Biden got the delegate.
Which means Klobuchar got ZERO despite hitting viability just like Biden.
So Warren & Biden each got one. https://t.co/oNGu3ldsOO — Taniel (@Taniel) February 4, 2020
A three-way tie was apparently resolved by picking a name out of a hat.
FYI 3 way tie at the end btwn Biden, Bernie and Warren. Picked a name out of a hat. Biden won. — Mark Salter (@MarkSalter55) February 4, 2020
Given that early returns suggest a pretty even four-way race between Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren across the state, this isn’t necessarily a surprise. But flipping coins to determine presidential nomination delegates is another process twist in Iowa, where the caucuses are already more complex and confusing than ever before.
In every caucus location across the state, the people present are going through a three-step process, yielding three different sets of results, to figure out how many delegates each candidate has won. The coin tosses come in if there is a tie at the end of the third step. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained:
1) The pre-realignment vote total: This is the initial tally of how many people prefer each candidate at each of the more than 1,600 individual caucus sites (added together for a statewide total). Basically, it’s who got the most votes the first time around. 2) The final vote total: After the first tally, any supporters of a candidate who got less than a certain threshold of the vote (15 percent in most precincts) can shift their support to another candidate. Candidates who are below the viability threshold are eliminated as “nonviable,” and a new and final tally is taken. So this is who got the most votes after a reshuffling. 3) State delegate equivalents: The final vote total at each caucus site will then be used to assign each viable candidate a certain number of county delegates. Then those county delegate numbers will be weighted to estimate their “state delegate equivalents” (how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention).
These coin tosses are not going to determine who gets the Democratic nomination (at least, probably not). About 1 percent of the nearly 4,000 delegates that will be won over the next few months are up for grabs in Iowa. The state has 41 delegates total, and it seems just a handful will be awarded by this throwback tradition.


vox--2020-02-03--“He is not who you are”: Adam Schiff makes last-ditch plea to Senate Republicans

House impeachment manager Adam Schiff is looking for just one Republican .
Schiff on Monday made an emotional plea to Republican senators during the closing arguments of the impeachment trial , calling on them to defy their party and vote to convict President Donald Trump .
“ Every single vote , even a single vote , by a single member , can change the course of history , ” he said .
“ It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority .
Is there one among you who will say , ‘ Enough ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off more than two weeks of the impeachment trial , during which House Democrats have presented an overwhelming slate of evidence establishing that Trump withheld US military aid to Ukraine and a White House meeting to coerce the Ukrainian government into announcing political investigations into the Bidens .
In his closing remarks , Schiff said that the greatest risk of not removing Trump is that he ’ ll keep committing the same offenses .
“ He has betrayed our national security , and he will do so again .
He has compromised our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , ” he said .
“ You will not change him .
You can not constrain him .
He is who he is.
” Trump ’ s defense counsel , meanwhile , has argued that a president ’ s use of a quid pro quo to advance his election prospects is acceptable as long as it can be construed as action taken in the public interest .
Plus , they ’ ve asserted , it simply doesn ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
Senate Republicans , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ united and acquit Trump , though House impeachment managers have tried their best to make that decision a tough one for moderate GOP members .
In addition to criticizing the arguments advanced by Trump ’ s defense , Schiff emphasized that Republican lawmakers could still distance themselves from the president ’ s wrongdoing .
“ Truth matters to you .
Right matters to you .
You are decent .
He is not who you are , ” Schiff said .
These closing arguments were one of the last steps before the Senate votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two articles of impeachment on Wednesday afternoon .
They represented the final opportunity for House impeachment managers to sway any potential Republican converts to their side , though there are only a few who seem like they could even vaguely be contenders at this point .
Among Republicans , Sens .
Mitt Romney and Susan Collins have yet to reveal how they will vote , while Sen. Lisa Murkowski indicated Monday night that she would support acquittal .
As Sen. Rand Paul predicted prior to the trial even starting , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to convict the president .
Senate Democrats , though , could potentially see some defections .
Sens .
Joe Manchin , Kyrsten Sinema , and Doug Jones are the most closely watched swing votes on Democrats ’ side of the aisle .
As Schiff has acknowledged repeatedly throughout the trial , it will take a lot of courage for Republicans to break with Trump , given how loyal the GOP base is to the president .
It ’ s unclear if any of them will find it .

House impeachment manager Adam Schiff is looking for just one Republican.
Schiff on Monday made an emotional plea to Republican senators during the closing arguments of the impeachment trial, calling on them to defy their party and vote to convict President Donald Trump.
“Every single vote, even a single vote, by a single member, can change the course of history,” he said. “It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. Is there one among you who will say, ‘Enough’?”
Schiff’s speech caps off more than two weeks of the impeachment trial, during which House Democrats have presented an overwhelming slate of evidence establishing that Trump withheld US military aid to Ukraine and a White House meeting to coerce the Ukrainian government into announcing political investigations into the Bidens.
In his closing remarks, Schiff said that the greatest risk of not removing Trump is that he’ll keep committing the same offenses. “He has betrayed our national security, and he will do so again. He has compromised our elections, and he will do so again,” he said. “You will not change him. You cannot constrain him. He is who he is.”
Trump’s defense counsel, meanwhile, has argued that a president’s use of a quid pro quo to advance his election prospects is acceptable as long as it can be construed as action taken in the public interest. Plus, they’ve asserted, it simply doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Senate Republicans, by and large, are poised to stay united and acquit Trump, though House impeachment managers have tried their best to make that decision a tough one for moderate GOP members. In addition to criticizing the arguments advanced by Trump’s defense, Schiff emphasized that Republican lawmakers could still distance themselves from the president’s wrongdoing.
“Truth matters to you. Right matters to you. You are decent. He is not who you are,” Schiff said.
These closing arguments were one of the last steps before the Senate votes to convict or acquit the president of two articles of impeachment on Wednesday afternoon. They represented the final opportunity for House impeachment managers to sway any potential Republican converts to their side, though there are only a few who seem like they could even vaguely be contenders at this point.
Among Republicans, Sens. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins have yet to reveal how they will vote, while Sen. Lisa Murkowski indicated Monday night that she would support acquittal. As Sen. Rand Paul predicted prior to the trial even starting, it’s entirely possible that no Republicans will vote to convict the president.
Senate Democrats, though, could potentially see some defections. Sens. Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Doug Jones are the most closely watched swing votes on Democrats’ side of the aisle.
As Schiff has acknowledged repeatedly throughout the trial, it will take a lot of courage for Republicans to break with Trump, given how loyal the GOP base is to the president. It’s unclear if any of them will find it.