theintercept--2020-02-04--On the Ground in Iowa

On the Ground in Iowa

Wait !
Before you go on about your day , ask yourself : How likely is it that the story @ @ @ @ @ been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn ’ t done it @ @ @ @ @ of media would look like without The Intercept .
Who would hold party elites accountable @ @ @ @ @ to have ?
How many covert wars , miscarriages of justice , and dystopian technologies @ @ @ @ @ reporters weren ’ t on the beat ?
The kind of reporting we do is @ @ @ @ @ it is not easy , cheap , or profitable .
The Intercept is an independent @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have ads , so we depend on our members — 35,000 and @ @ @ @ @ hold the powerful to account .
Joining is simple and doesn ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ can become a sustaining member for as little as $ 3 or $ 5 a @ @ @ @ @ all it takes to support the journalism you rely on .

Subscribe to the Intercepted podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, Radio Public, and other platforms. New to podcasting? Click here.
While the Iowa Democratic Party has thoroughly fumbled reporting official results of Monday’s caucuses, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s campaign has released figures showing a significant lead. This week on Intercepted: The Intercept’s Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief Ryan Grim reports from the ground in Iowa and traces the rise of today’s progressive moment to Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign. Producers Jack D’Isidoro and Elise Swain speak with caucus-goers in Ottumwa, where meatpacking union workers in the state’s first satellite caucus emphatically supported Sanders. During a caucus at Drake University, Grim speaks with California Rep. Ro Khanna and Tommy Vietor of “Pod Save America” about Sanders and electability. At the Sanders campaign caucus party in Des Moines, Sanders gives a speech before election results are known, and Matt Christman of the podcast “Chapo Trap House” weighs in on this political moment.
Jeremy Scahill: This is Intercepted.
[Music interlude.]
Ryan Grim: I’m Ryan Grim filling in for Jeremy Scahill and this is episode 115 of Intercepted.
Announcer: The next president of the United States of America, Senator Bernie Sanders.
[Crowd cheers.]
RG: To really understand what happened Monday night, let’s roll the tape back 30 or 40 years.
[Music interlude.]
Newscaster: President Carter told by his pollster Pat Caddell that it is all over, reportedly is preparing to concede defeat to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election.
RG: The Democratic Party underwent an ideological transformation in the 1980s. Battered by the Reagan revolution, a new cadre of operatives rose calling themselves New Democrats arguing that the party needed to distance itself from what they called special interest groups. And by special interest groups, they met civil rights activists, environmentalists, feminists, gay rights activists, labor unions. What they needed instead was to move to the center and match Republicans dollar for dollar in corporate PAC fundraising and big money.
Bill Clinton: We know big government does not have all the answers. We know and we have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. The era of big government is over.
RG: The same year Reagan was inaugurated Bernie Sanders ran and won his race for mayor of Burlington. In ’84 and again in 1988, the pushback against the New Democrats took the form of the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson.
Jesse Jackson: I ask for your vote on the first ballot as a vote for a new direction for this party and this nation, a vote of conviction, a vote of conscience.
RG: One of the only white elected officials to endorse and campaign for Jackson was Bernie Sanders. Here he is talking about it 1988 as Jackson surged to the top of the pack:
Bernie Sanders: Win, lose or draw, his candidacy will be remembered as the most significant presidential campaign in at least 50 years in this nation in attempting to bring working people and poor people and elderly people and people of all colors together to begin to stand up and fight for their rights and to fight for their dignity. Sometimes we lose the knowledge that history is being made when it’s being made in front of us. That is in fact what is happening right now.
RG: Sanders was an independent and he struggled with whether to participate in the Democratic primary at all.
BS: I am the only non-Democrat, non-Republican, independent progressive mayor in the United States of America. OK, it is awkward. I freely admit, it is awkward for me to walk into a Democratic Party caucus, believe me, it is awkward. I am not a Democrat. Period.
RG: Bernie argued that while some racist whites might indeed refuse to vote for Jackson, he had the possibility to expand the Democratic electorate.
BS: So while in fact, he may end up losing some conservative white votes, some racist white votes, I think there is a real chance that he could do what Mondale couldn’t do in a million years. That is to bring millions and millions of poor people and working people into the political arena who in the past never participated. That’s the interesting question.
RG: That was not only Jackson’s strategy, it was his counter argument to the New Democrats. We don’t need corporate money, he argued. We need people.
JJ: Reagan won the last time. Not by genius. Reagan won when we were asleep. He won by the margin of despair. He won by the margins of the fracture of our coalition. He won by the margin of racial division. He won by default.
RG: The Reverend then turned biblical and told the story of David and Goliath.
JJ: Our problem today is David, we need to organize Pennsylvania and win because we are going to stop the rocks that’s been lying around and pick them up. In 1980, Reagan won Massachusetts by 2,500 votes. There were over a hundred thousand students unregistered, over 50,000 blacks, over 50,000 Hispanics. He won by 2,500. Ted Kennedy’s state. Rocks just laying around.
RG: Jackson fell just short and Sanders went back to Vermont where he launched a bid for the House of Representatives. He lost a close race but came back again in 1990 and this time flipped a Republican seat. He headed to Washington, where he’d soon co-found the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
BS: There are some of us in Congress who do not believe that the American people want to see fewer and fewer, wealthier and wealthier people dominate our political and economic lives. And we are saying that some of us have not forgotten the pain that is being experienced by working people and middle income people and poor people all over this country. Some of us are not bought and sold by corporate interests and big money interests. Some of us were elected to stand up and fight for those people who don’t have the power.
RG: Twenty years later, Jackson’s strategy has become Bernie’s. Here’s how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, his highest profile surrogate put it at a Sanders rally in Nevada:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The swing voter that we are most concerned with are the non-voters to voters. That swing voter is gonna win us this election and the general election.
BS: And what Alexandria said a few minutes ago is absolutely correct. There are a whole lot of folks out there who have given up. You know them, some of you are in this room, given up on the political process. My vote doesn’t mean anything. Politics is bullshit. They’re all liars. Why do I want to vote?
What we need to do is participate in this campaign in a way that we have never done before. We believe in bringing non-traditional voters into the political process, young people, working people.
On caucus night, turn on the TV early and if the moderator tells you there’s a large voter turnout, we win. If they tell you if they tell you there’s a low voter turnout, we lose. It’s as simple as all that.
RG: And so we start our day at a union hall at Ottumwa, Iowa, population 25,000 on the banks of the Des Moines River, about an hour and a half from Des Moines, the city. There’s a special satellite caucus being held for meatpackers here. It’s a largely Ethiopian workforce and it’s happening at the UFCW’s local headquarters. The satellite caucuses arrange for workers or others who can’t make it to the regularly scheduled caucuses this evening and you had to register ahead of time to participate. Very few campaigns organized for these caucuses but the Sanders campaign did. Here are producers Jack D’Isidoro and Elise Swain from the scene.
Elise Swain: All right, so Jack, what are we doing right now?
Jack D’Isidoro: We’re outside the UFCW union hall in Ottumwa which voted 60 percent for Trump in 2016. Prior to that, voted Democratic in every election since 1976. So we’re gonna go inside and see what’s going on.
Frank Flanders: I’m Frank Flanders. I’m the chair of the precinct caucus. We’re going to break off into preference groups, and then they’ll fill out a presidential preference card. We will count those and determine what candidates have the 15 percent viability threshold.
JD: So about half of the people who are at the caucus today who attended and participated were African immigrants. And I spoke to one man Tarik Nedari, who is a Moroccan immigrant, just became a citizen. This is the first time he’s participating in a democratic process.
Tarik Nedari: Born in Africa, Morocco, north of Africa. I moved here to the United States in 2015. I become a U.S. citizen like last year. I’m, like, making it official right now.
JD: Yeah, you voted for Bernie.
TN: Yes, sir.
Chris Laursen: My name is Chris Laursen. I’m the president of United Auto Workers Local 74. We organized the John Deere workers here in Ottumwa. We primarily make hay equipment, for cutting it and harvesting it. You know Ottumwa has always been a manufacturing community. I think it’s one of the 31 counties that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then turned towards Trump in 2016. And, you know, it’s just people that are sick of the government we have and a populist message sells. Some of them are full of crap like our current president, but you got somebody with the integrity and honesty that’s been doing the same thing for you know, four decades in Bernie Sanders and that’s what resonates with people. That’s why this isn’t just a presidential campaign. It’s a movement.
Phillip Cross: Phillip Cross.
ES: So was your mind made up as you were coming into the caucus today?
PC: Pretty much, Local 230 pretty much decided that it was Bernie Sanders. So therefore.
ES: So what do you like about Bernie Sanders?
PC: I like a lot of his goals. You know, he believes in equal pay for whether you’re male or female. He believes that everybody deserves to be taken care of if they’re sick, being pretty much what everybody else really dreams about.
FF: Welcome to the satellite caucus. At this point, we will do the preference group alignment and allocation of delegates and what I’m going to ask you —
We had on the first alignment, 14 people stand for Bernie Sanders, one stand for Elizabeth Warren, and none for any other candidates. That locked in the 14 standing for Bernie and then the one standing for Elizabeth did not wish to realign. So, that gave 14 eligible out of the 15 for Bernie. So she did not have viability. And according to the formula that the state party uses that means that there were four delegates awarded to Bernie Sanders and none to the other candidates as a result of this satellite caucus.
JD: We’re on our way back to Des Moines where we’re going to Drake University. There’s going to be another caucus.
RG: Our next stop is Drake University for another satellite caucus later in the afternoon.
JD: We’re going to Drake?
RG: Want to?
JD: Let’s go to Drake.
RG: Let’s do it.
ES: Let’s go to Drake.
Brad Hopkins: I hereby call this caucus to order.
RG: This is Drake University which is having a satellite caucus in its field house for workers and others who just can’t make it to the regularly scheduled one.
JD: We’re in like a field house, astroturf, bleachers, there are hurdles, equally spaced apart on each hurdle there’s a little piece of paper taped onto it with the candidate’s name and everyone is lining up behind it. It looks like Warren is viable, maybe Pete, definitely Bernie.
[Nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen —]
BH: So, we do have to officially begin the first alignment period. I know many of you have already found your way to your preferred location, but we will have a five minute alignment period. If you happen to be —
RG: So we have three Yang supporters here. So, after the first round, who do you think you’ll realign to?
Sarah: Well, someone just brought up a good point that maybe, maybe some people will come over here if there’s unviables. But if not, I’m going to Warren.
Tom: For me, I’m not too sure yet, but I’m kind of leaning towards Bernie after this.
Kaylor: Well, initially, I was going to realign to Klobuchar but given that there’s one person there, that might not happen now. So I might go to Biden or Pete, Biden or Pete.
[Line captains, count up —]
RG: Buttigieg has eight. So, if they can pick up the Biden guy, if they can talk the Yang person who likes Biden into doing Pete instead, and also offer pie and cookies to the Klobuchar guy which he said he’s bribable with pie, then that would give them 11 and that would hit them, that would hit the threshold. But he’s a Biden guy. He’s not a Buttigieg guy, so they’d have to work him pretty hard.
[Chants of Bernie beats Trump! Bernie beats Trump! Bernie beats Trump! Bernie beats Trump!]
RG: It’s extremely important for the Sanders people to be able to draw people on the second round, not just to increase their own numbers, but to keep the other candidates from becoming viable. If they can win a bunch of the realignments on the second round, then Pete can’t reach the threshold of viability.
BH: Two groups that are viable after the first alignment: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
[Crowd cheers.]
[Chants of come on over! Come on over! Come on over]!
Tom Gilsenan: So, Klobuchar was my first choice so I started thinking OK, who would be my second choices? And here we are.
Caucus-goer: — Has a track record of standing behind bold progressive policies even when they weren’t popular, or politically expedient. You can trust that what we say we’re going to follow through with. I mean every candidate —
Caucus-goer: Would you like to come with us?
Caucus-goer: I’d like to come with Warren.
Caucus-goer: Yeah, let’s go.
RG: Warren got the remaining Yang gang supporter.
JD: So right there, Yang’s remaining supporters just got eaten up by the other, other campaigns and literally just getting in their faces and pitching them why they should join or change sides. So, now they’re realigning.
BH: That is the end of the realignment period. Please get into lines of 10 again, so that we can recount you.
RG: Bernie picked up some Pete fans, and so that’s what’s so important about keeping people under viability is that you’re then they have to go somewhere. And when they see the momentum, like if you look in this room, you could just visualize it. You can see it like there’s a little bit of energy over there and then over here you’ve got double it. And so if you’re not sure about who you’re gonna vote for, and you like them both you’re like, you know what, let’s ride with Bernie.
BH: As I stated, this caucus is electing seven delegates. Bernie Sanders is awarded five delegates and Elizabeth Warren is awarded two delegates.
RG: Five delegates for Sanders, two for Warren, so he nets three. That’s actually less than he pulled out of the meatpacker caucus earlier today where there were only 14 people.
JD: Can you say who we’re with real quick?
RG: Ro Khanna, one of the first members of Congress, the first to endorse Bernie Sanders or co-chair of his campaign. What I’m curious about is privately don’t tell us who, but like, what are you hearing from your colleagues? You know, in the beginning, people are like, oh, that’s cute that Bernie Sanders is running again. Of course, it’s his right. You know, he can have one last little hurrah and he’ll be done by this summer. You jumped in, you’re like, no, I’m all in here. What are people saying to you now? What are your colleagues and friends saying to you now?
Rep. Ro Khanna: More people come up to me on the floor and otherwise and say, wow, he’s running a great campaign. Wow, he may take this. I think they’re taking him a lot more seriously. In the beginning, there was sort of Bernie’s gonna do his thing. No one thought he was going to be the nominee. People thought it was more a campaign that wasn’t gonna actually end up even in the top three. So, he’s just defied the odds. And now people are realizing that he has a very, very good shot at the nomination. My argument to them is look at who people want. Look at who the young folks want. Look who’s getting the crowds. Ultimately, it’s a democracy.
RG: Are people starting to believe that he can be Trump? Or are they still like, well, it looks like he can win the nomination but then we’re screwed.
Rep. RK: See, I think that the people who are looking at —
RG: And when I say people, I mean members of Congress, apologies to regular people.
Rep. RK: The ones who are doing all the punditry, oh, what do we need to do in this district and that district? They’re still in the mindset of can he win? The ones who are just looking at the basic facts that everyone else is seeing, 3,000 people showing up at his rallies, a huge army of volunteers online, someone who’s really mobilizing people across this country. There, they get that Bernie can win. I mean, ultimately, politics is about movements and inspiring people and Bernie Sanders has done that.
Tommy Vietor: I’m Tommy Vietor. I’m a neolib shill. What I’m hoping for is you know, a little less than what’s possible, you know, that’s sort of my life’s ambition. Please don’t use that. [Laughing.]
I like Bernie Sanders a lot. And like, my great regret from 2016 was I allowed myself to freak out about electability analysis that was, I probably should have known was bullshit and speculative to begin with. And so when you just step back and like, look at all the things he’s done even since 2016, like I care a lot about foreign policy, I find those, that set of issues interesting. I think the things he’s done in Yemen, how vocal he was against war in Iran, like, that’s what I want to hear out of my candidates. So that makes me excited about Bernie. So, we’ll see. I mean, I also really like Elizabeth Warren. I like really like Joe Biden, so I just have been trying to watch and see what’s going to happen. I’m petrified about the general election, no matter who wins, but it’s our job just to work hard.
[Music interlude.]
JD: All right now we’re at the third caucus location. So this is the real deal. This is, it’s almost seven o’clock.
RG: This is King Elementary School, somewhere in Des Moines kind of working class neighborhood. And this is the, these are the actual caucuses. The other ones count but those are for people who can’t make it to the seven o’clock evening ones, there will be more than 1,000 of these around the state. And at each one of them, you have the same viability threshold. So just because you’re non-viable in one precinct doesn’t mean you’re non-viable in the other. This one actually has two precincts kind of next to each other. In the same gymnasium, there’ll be two going on, which will be extra confusing because you can’t, you know, you can’t move from one precinct to another.
JD: Oh, so side by side, there’ll be two of the same thing happening?
RG: Right. So you could have like, some non-viable Buttigieg people looking longingly over at the other precinct, knowing that they could add to their brethren — should we go this way — add to their brethren’s numbers, but you can’t go from one precinct to another. So, they would just have to sit there and suffer.
JD: So, we’re like in the lobby of an elementary school. This is a very kind of familiar experience for a lot of Americans when they vote, right?
RG: Right, yeah.
JD: It’s like the local school.
RG: What’s your name?
Mirrea Lopez: Mirrea Lopez.
RG: Who are you gonna go in and caucus for?
ML: Bernie.
RG: How come?
ML: Because I like his ideas. I feel like he’s heading in the direction that I personally believe he should head in like a candidate, he has ideals that I do.
Bobby Young: I’m Pastor Bobby Young.
RG: Who are you gonna caucus for when you go in there?
BY: Whoever basically has visited me in my neighborhood.
RG: Who’s that been?
BY: Well, let’s see, Bernie visited me and that’s about it really. So you know, you don’t come to my neighborhood and ask for my vote, I generally don’t vote for you. But what I like about Bernie over the years, he got the same message. He’s just like a record. He don’t change.
RG: You think Bernie can beat Trump?
BY: I believe he can. I really believe he can. You know, don’t count us old guys out. We still got a little fire in the furnace.
RG: How do you think he’s gonna do in your neighborhood?
BY: I think he would do well because he visits the neighborhood and that’s more than I can say about most of the candidates.
Gerald Hill: My name is Gerald Hill.
RG: How long have you lived in Iowa or Des Moines?
GH: In Des Moines, since 1988.
RG: Have you caucused every time?
GH: Yes.
RG: You know who you’re going to caucus for this time or are you going to make up your mind when you go in there?
GH: I’m going to make up my mind when I get in there. There’s two that I’m trying to decide between. It would be Steyer and then Biden.
RG: What do you like about Steyer?
GH: He was right there from the very beginning, investing of his own self and making a statement against what everybody else saw, but nobody said anything about. So I feel like I owe that to him for coming out at the very beginning before even announcing his campaign. He was invested in —
RG: Impeaching or climate change, which was the more important?
GH: It was more impeaching.
RG: What do you think about Bernie, Warren, some of the others?
GH: Not Warren. Bernie, yeah. I mean, here’s the truth, whoever gets the nomination, gets my vote.
Announcer: If somebody gets into precinct 36 and they realize they’re supposed to be in precinct 37, well, let them go over there and vice versa. But please make sure you’re in the right line.
JD: So, now we’re in the gym where the caucus is actually happening.
ES: This is it?
JD: This is it.
RG: So, here’s something interesting and don’t hold me precisely to these numbers but you can look them up for yourself. If you look at the 2008 primary, though, you know, the last time there was a competitive one, you know, Obama basically versus Clinton and Edwards, there were about 340, 350,000 caucus-goers. If you look at 2016, you’re talking about 280,000 or so. So, that means there are about 16,000 missing caucus goers out there who looked at the choice of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in 2016 and decided not to come out for them. And so that’s something that all of the campaigns have noticed and are looking at like, who, if those people come back out, who are they for? And there was a lot of speculation that those kinds of people actually come out for Biden which is why some people in the Bernie campaign are saying yes, we want to expand the electorate, but we want to expand a certain portion of the electorate which is the ones they’re going to come out and vote for Bernie Sanders, not the ones that had a chance to vote for Sanders in 2016 and took a pass. And so you are going to be seeing on Monday evening, I think some people who just didn’t like Hillary and didn’t like Bernie in 2016, didn’t come out and now they’re probably for somebody like Biden.
JD: Well, also part of it was this is before Trump. So like, that’s a huge motivator.
RG: Yes and there’s definitely that.
Jason Zilk: I hereby call this caucus to order. My name is Jason Zilk. I’m the temporary chair for this precinct.
RG: Here’s the important context: in 2016, this working class district went five to three for Hillary Clinton. So here we are now four years later and it looks like Bernie will get at least five, maybe six delegates out of here, which is remarkable because there’s so many more candidates participating this time that he has dramatically increased his support here. So, neither Warren nor Buttigieg are viable as of now, and so they are looking to team up.
But now, but then, they’re gonna have to argue well, do we team up for Pete or do we team up for Warren? And it looks like Warren is in the driver’s seat because she has more delegates, you know, more people here. So it’s, people will come to them. If they’re still not viable. Then they said they would go to Bernie.
[People chanting Biden and Bernie over each other.]
JZ: Is there anyone in the room that has not found their caucus group?
[Twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one — Is Bernie’s group satisfied with the count that we just did, sixty-nine?]
JD: So that was the Bernie people caucusing being counted. Biden and Bernie are the only ones that are viable?
RG: Currently, only Biden and Bernie. So, now Warren folks have to persuade some Pete folks to come join them.
[Crowd cheering Warren.]
RG: A little bit over 50 percent for Bernie Sanders, 25 percent for Joe Biden, 15 percent for Elizabeth Warren and nobody else scores any points.
JD: So basically a bunch of these just happened across the state and now we just wait.
RG: It’s a varied state. You’re going to have places where Bernie’s not viable in rich districts. You’re going to have places like this where Buttigieg isn’t viable. You’re going to have places where Bernie runs it up 95%. You’re going to have — it’s like, because it’s so broken down along the various lines, it really depends on you. You have to wait for all the precincts. I don’t think you can look early and start making forecasts.
[Music interlude.]
RG: All right, now we’re at the Holiday Inn next to the airport. Outside is the “Not me, us” bus and so you know it’s the Bernie Sanders election night watch party. Everything seems to be in a holding pattern because the Iowa Democratic Party against everybody’s advice decided to buy some app that all the precinct chairs would use to upload their results, which people argued would be easy to hack, and would also be more than likely to crash because that’s what apps do.
And so the party is not releasing returns which every minute that goes by is just increasing the skepticism of the party because everyone is expecting that Bernie Sanders is going to win this caucus and now all of a sudden the party has technical difficulties. Now, I believe they are legitimate technical difficulties because they were stupid enough to go out and get an app and when local Democratic party gets an app, it’s not gonna work. That’s how these things work. But it certainly isn’t doing anything to produce confidence in the party.
Ari Rabin-Havt: A lot of you have asked about it, because you know, we had an app for our own precinct captains. So we will have numbers within 10 minutes or so.
Reporter: Does the party know you’re doing this?
AR-H: No, but we’ve decided in the nature of transparency. We’ve had a candidate declare whatever, but we decided in the interest of transparency for this since we have these numbers, these are the numbers we have. We will release the results that we have. So, 10 minutes.
Matt Christman: Hi, my name is Matt Christman. I’m co-host of Chapo Trap House Podcast. The Iowa Democratic Party was basically ready, willing to set themselves on fire tonight. They were willing to destroy the credibility of their institution, the credibility of the Iowa caucus which they guard jealously like Smaug and his fucking gold hoard. And they were willing to burn it up rather than to give Bernie a fucking victory. And it’s like, OK, fine, but I don’t think it’s — It’s a rearguard action is what we’re seeing. And that is the thing that makes me feel good is it’s nauseating to watch these worms do this. But it’s also like this is all they can do, literally burn down their own house. They have no even offensive agenda. They can really just do these, delaying actions. And it really does feel more and more like they’re trying to just to delay the inevitable.
RG: Which is similar to 2016 and Trump.
MC: Exactly.
RG: So, what about Bloomberg?
MC: [Laughs.] I mean, Bloomberg is getting these hilariously big numbers in, you know, national polls now because you’re literally talking to people who have thought about this election maybe three times. And then when they’re getting that phone call, they’re literally watching Mike Bloomberg on television when they’re answering the questions. That is literally just like, those are the late breaking, non-ideological voters who go with who looks like who’s going to be the nominee and that would be Bernie.
RG: And so we were talking earlier to the Pod Save bros at the Drake University thing. The Pod Save bros, they’re ready for Bernie.
MC: Oh, no, no, those guys are, they are, they’re cheerleaders to the Democratic Party. You know, they might have preferences, but at the end of the day, that’s their job. So they don’t have an institutional investment at this point in the actual facade. So yeah. Most likely scenarios, Bernie wins, gets coronated, you know, and is the first ballot winner due to the votes in all of these primaries and caucuses. Second highest scenario is a brokered convention. I don’t see, I don’t see any of these other people getting enough delegates to win on a first ballot.
RG: Certainly not Elizabeth Warren, not Pete Buttigieg, not Joe Biden and not Bloomberg and there’s nobody else.
MC: Bloomberg, Bloomberg is not, the states the Bloomberg is on the ballots in, Bernie’s already gonna be a winner by then. It just, his rationale right there he’s a placeholder for people who haven’t really thought about it. And they’re going to be confronted with an electorate that is, or a race that’s much more solidified with a real front runner and those are the kind of people who, they like to wait and then they’re like, “Who’s gonna win? Who do I feel comfortable can beat the guy I hate? It’s this guy. Everyone else seems to like him. Good enough for me,” and that’s gonna happen, I think.
RG: Yeah.
MC: Inshallah.
Announcer: The next president of the United States of America, Senator Bernie Sanders.
[Crowd cheers.]
BS: And when those results are announced, I have a good feeling we’re going to be doing very, very well. Brothers and sisters, yes, together we will defeat Donald Trump. But we’re going to do more than that. Our message to Wall Street and the insurance companies and the drug companies and the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex, our message to them is: Change is coming.
[Crowd chanting “Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!”]
BS: Together with the strongest grassroots movement this country has ever seen. And now, it is on to New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, California, and onwards to victory. Thank you all very much!
RG: I mean, here’s the thing, in order to win the Democratic nomination, you have to have some substantial support from voters of color. And there are only two candidates left in the race who have that — and that’s Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. Joe Biden just finished fourth. He’s fading hard. Michael Bloomberg is not going to be able to come in and seriously produce that kind of support. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have it. Pete Buttigieg doesn’t have it. The establishment is going to throw up everything they can think up against the wall. But as we saw in 2016 with Trump you know nothing’s stuck. They’re not well-organized enough to, you know, combat somebody who has actual momentum. You almost have to feel bad for the establishment in this pivotal battle for control of the party, the soldier that they could marshal onto the field was Joe Biden. Like what a decrepit state of affairs for what passes for an establishment.
[Music interlude.]
RG: And that does it for this week’s show. You can follow us on Twitter @Intercepted as well as on Instagram @interceptedpodcast. If you like what we do, you can support our show by going to theintercept.com/join to become a sustaining member. Intercepted is a production of First Look Media and The Intercept. Our lead producer is Jack D’Isidoro, our producer is Laura Flynn. Elise Swain is our associate producer and graphic designer. Betsy Reed is editor in chief of The Intercept. Rick Kwan mixed the show. Transcription for this program is done by Nuria Marquez Martinez. Our music, as always, was composed by DJ Spooky. Jeremy Scahill will be back next week, don’t worry. I’m Ryan Grim. Thanks for listening.


theintercept--2020-02-04--Sanders Campaign’s Internal Caucus Numbers Show Them Winning Iowa, With Biden a Distant Fourth

Democratic Party unable to collect and release results after the Iowa caucuses on Monday , the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders took it on itself to release numbers it collected from nearly 40 percent of precincts , tabulated by its campaign organizers .
The Sanders campaign reports it received 29.7 percent of the vote , closely followed by former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 24.6 percent .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren came in at 21.2 percent , and former Vice President Joe Biden in fourth at 12.4 percent .
Sanders put those numbers out shortly after Buttigieg finished his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The party said it would release official results Tuesday .
Jeff Weaver , Sanders ’ s campaign adviser , explained the decision to release the numbers in a statement .
“ We recognize that this does not replace the full data from the Iowa Democratic Party , but we believe firmly that our supporters worked too hard for too long to have that work delayed , ” he said .
The Sanders campaign ’ s decision to release its internal results came after hours of frustration with the Iowa Democratic Party , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of precinct results .
The Iowa Democratic Party had kept the identity of the firm that created its app under wraps , claiming that divulging details would make the app vulnerable to hacking .
As HuffPost first reported , the app was built by Shadow , a tech company owned by ACRONYM , a Democratic digital nonprofit that was launched in the wake of the 2016 election , pitching itself as a progressive answer to Republican dominance of the digital field .
The company put out a statement early Tuesday morning saying it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state or national party , or to any campaigns , but only “ invested ” in Shadow , despite a proud boast from ACRONYM ’ s founder from last year : The possible win represents a turnaround for a campaign that was left for dead in the fall , as Sanders foundered in the polls and lay in a Las Vegas hospital , recovering from a heart attack , while Warren was riding high .
But the lack of official results from the Iowa Democratic Party threatens to overshadow any momentum or decline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the caucus , the Sanders campaign ’ s strategy hinged on high voter turnout , and in particular , converting nonvoters into voters and expanding the electorate .
( At a rally in Queens , New York this fall , Sanders said , “ On caucus night , turn on the TV early , and if the moderator tells you there ’ s a large voter turn out , we win .
If they tell you there ’ s a low voter turnout , we lose .
It ’ s really as simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first test for that strategy , and the state was expected to see record turnout .
But while no official numbers have yet been reported , party officials in Iowa said that turnout was lower than it was in 2016 .
Sanders ’ internal figures — again , which they said reported nearly 40 percent of precincts — showed 87,396 voters for the first count of voters and 79,162 for the final count .
Buttigieg ’ s presumed rise in the Iowa caucus — and Biden ’ s fall — follow weeks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Sanders surged , Buttigieg dropped in a number of polls , falling eight points since December in an Emerson ’ s Iowa poll , and losing two points in their national poll .
He stayed level at seven percent in a Fox poll , but fell behind not only Sanders , Warren , and Biden , but also former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg .
While each of the candidates gave a speech as caucus results were delayed on Monday night , Buttigieg stood out for touting his own victory — even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to come in .
“ By all indications , we are going on to New Hampshire victorious , ” Buttigieg declared .
And Biden — whose drop from presumed nominee over the past year to a reported 12.4 percent by the Sanders campaign — had recently suffered a series of bad press days over his record of wanting to cut Social Security benefits in order to balance the budget .
Despite enjoying front-runner status for nearly a year , Biden ’ s campaign sputtered in recent months , losing two points in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls since December , and recently losing traction among older voters .
Warren ’ s relatively high showing came after a few weeks of bad press following a public dispute with Sanders , after CNN reported that Sanders had confided with Warren during a private dinner in 2018 that he did not believe that a woman could defeat President Donald Trump .
Over the following days , the campaigns exchanged jabs at one another , and the candidates themselves sparred at a Democratic debate , fueling near-constant media coverage , though surrogates from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afterward , Warren ’ s approval ratings in Iowa sank from a high of 28 percent last October to hovering around 15.5 percent going into the caucus .
In Iowa , the Warren campaign touted her core message on economic populist ideas , including her signature wealth tax , as well as policies tailored for the struggles of small farmers .
Warren promised an antitrust campaign focused on breaking up the increasing consolidation with agribusiness industry , as well as the right for small farmers to repair their own equipment .
Warren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Des Moines Register endorsement , which praised her as “ a thinker , a policy wonk and a hard worker.
” Early reports poured in on Twitter from individual satellite caucuses , many of which are focused around particular constituencies like union members and Muslim Americans .
Sanders appeared to do well among these groups , including at the Muslim Community Organization in Des Moines , where Sanders won 99 percent of caucusgoers , turning out 115 people to one or two people for other candidates .
At a Latino caucus site , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one report .
At the first satellite caucus , at a union hall in Ottumwa , Sanders won the backing of 14 out of 15 caucus-goers , many of them of Ethiopian origin or descent .

With the Iowa Democratic Party unable to collect and release results after the Iowa caucuses on Monday, the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders took it upon itself to release the numbers it collected from nearly 40 percent of precincts, tabulated by its campaign organizers.
The Sanders campaign reported that it received 29.7 percent of the vote, closely followed by former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 24.6 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren came in at 21.2 percent, and former Vice President Joe Biden was fourth at 12.4 percent. Sanders put those numbers out shortly after Buttigieg finished a seemingly triumphant speech in Iowa. The party said it would release the official results on Tuesday.
Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s campaign adviser, explained the decision to release the numbers in a statement. “We recognize that this does not replace the full data from the Iowa Democratic Party, but we believe firmly that our supporters worked too hard for too long to have that work delayed,” he said.
Buttigieg’s campaign also claimed a lead based on internal numbers, telling CNBC that “data provided by 77% of the campaign’s precinct captains showed Buttigieg in the lead. The campaign aide said that internal projections prior to the caucus suggested that the race would be a tie, but that the internal numbers so far showed Buttigieg performing 8 percentage points better than expected, enough to win first place.”
The Sanders campaign’s decision to release its internal results came after hours of frustration with the Iowa Democratic Party, whose app contributed to delays in the reporting of precinct results. The Iowa Democratic Party had kept the identity of the firm that created its app under wraps, claiming that divulging details would make the app vulnerable to hacking. As HuffPost first reported, the app was built by Shadow, a tech company owned by Acronym, a Democratic digital nonprofit launched in the wake of the 2016 election, which pitched itself as a progressive answer to Republican dominance of the digital field. The company put out a statement early Tuesday morning saying that it didn’t provide technology to the state or national party, or to any campaigns, but only “invested” in Shadow, despite a proud boast from Acronym’s founder last year:
I’m so excited to announce @anotheracronym has acquired Groundbase, the best CRM + SMS tool on the political market, along with their incredible team led by @gjniemira + are launching Shadow, a new tech company to build smarter infrastructure for campaigns https://t.co/rGQQCORzvt — Tara McGowan (@taraemcg) January 17, 2019
The possible win represents a turnaround for a campaign that was left for dead in the fall, as Sanders foundered in the polls and lay in a Las Vegas hospital, recovering from a heart attack, while Warren was riding high. But the lack of official results from the Iowa Democratic Party threatens to overshadow any momentum or decline for any individual candidate.
Heading into the caucus, the Sanders campaign’s strategy hinged on high voter turnout and, in particular, converting nonvoters into voters and expanding the electorate. (At a rally in Queens, New York, this fall, Sanders said, “On caucus night, turn on the TV early, and if the moderator tells you there’s a large voter turnout, we win. If they tell you there’s a low voter turnout, we lose. It’s really as simple as that.”) Iowa is the first test for that strategy; the state was expected to see record turnout. But while no official numbers have yet been reported, party officials in Iowa said that turnout was lower than it was in 2016. Sanders’s internal figures — again, which they said reported nearly 40 percent of precincts — showed 87,396 voters for the first count of voters and 79,162 for the final count.
Buttigieg’s presumed rise in the Iowa caucus — and Biden’s fall — follow weeks of volatility in polling. Last week, as Sanders surged, Buttigieg dropped in a number of polls, falling 8 points since December in an Emerson’s Iowa poll and losing 2 points in its national poll. He stayed level at 7 percent in a Fox poll, but fell behind not only Sanders, Warren, and Biden, but also former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. While each of the candidates gave a speech Monday night as caucus results were delayed, Buttigieg stood out for touting his own victory — even as zero percent of precinct results had yet to come in. “By all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious,” Buttigieg declared.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, accompanied by his wife, Jill Biden, addresses supporters on Feb. 3, 2020, in Des Moines, Iowa. Photo: John Locher/AP
And Biden — whose drop from presumed nominee over the past year to a reported 12.4 percent by the Sanders campaign — had recently suffered a series of bad press days over his record of wanting to cut Social Security benefits in order to balance the budget. Despite enjoying frontrunner status for nearly a year, Biden’s campaign sputtered in recent months, losing 2 points in both Emerson’s national and Iowa polls since December, and recently losing traction among older voters.
Warren’s relatively high showing came after a few weeks of bad press following a public dispute with Sanders, after CNN reported that Sanders had confided to Warren during a private dinner in 2018 that he did not believe a woman could defeat President Donald Trump. Over the following days, the campaigns exchanged jabs at one another, and the candidates themselves sparred at a Democratic debate, fueling near-constant media coverage, though surrogates from both campaigns later downplayed its significance. Afterward, Warren’s approval ratings in Iowa sank from a high of 28 percent last October to hovering around 15.5 percent going into the caucus.
In Iowa, the Warren campaign touted her core message on economic populist ideas, including her signature wealth tax, as well as policies tailored for the struggles of small farmers. Warren promised an antitrust campaign focused on breaking up the increasing consolidation with agribusiness industry, as well as the right for small farmers to repair their own equipment. Warren’s focus on inequality earned her the Des Moines Register endorsement, which praised her as “a thinker, a policy wonk and a hard worker.”
Early reports poured in on Twitter from individual satellite caucuses, many of which are focused around particular constituencies like union members and Muslim Americans. Sanders appeared to do well among these groups, including at the Muslim Community Organization in Des Moines, where Sanders won 99 percent of caucus-goers, turning out 115 people to one or two people for other candidates. At a Latino caucus site, Sanders won 94 percent, according to one report. At the first satellite caucus, at a union hall in Ottumwa, Sanders won the backing of 14 out of 15 caucus-goers, many of them of Ethiopian origin or descent.
Update: February 4, 2020, 8:48 a.m.
This piece has been updated with the Buttigieg campaign’s statement to CNBC about its own internal numbers.


theintercept--2020-02-04--New Details Show How Deeply Iowa Caucus App Developer Was Embedded in Democratic Establishment

Tara McGowan is denying that her high-profile liberal firm ACRONYM played a role in the Monday evening caucus debacle , claiming that her firm was merely an investor in the company Shadow Inc. , which developed the app at the center of the controversy .
But internal company documents , a source close to the firms , and public records show a close and intertwined relationship between Acronym and Shadow .
In addition , ahead of the caucuses , questions swirled inside Shadow over the company ’ s ability to deliver a quality product , and there was concern from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders of Shadow and Acronym — both of which were launched as a new Democratic bulwark against President Donald Trump — have been far from neutral in the Democratic primary .
Throughout the caucus yesterday , Democratic officials reported widespread problems downloading the app and inconsistencies uploading caucus results , leading to the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s decision to take the unusual step of delaying the release of the results .
This is the first year the app was used , and ahead of the caucuses , the Iowa Democratic Party asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept secret .
The New York Times reported that “ its creators had repeatedly questioned the need to keep it secret.
” Kyle Tharp , a spokesperson for Acronym , released a statement on Monday night downplaying his company ’ s affiliation with Shadow .
“ ACRONYM is an investor in several for-profit companies across the progressive media and technology sectors , ” Tharp said .
“ One of those independent , for-profit companies is Shadow , Inc , which also has other private investors.
” David Plouffe , a former campaign manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bid who joined Acronym ’ s board , also distanced himself from the company during an MSNBC panel last night .
“ I have no knowledge of Shadow , ” said Plouffe .
“ It was news to me.
” But previous statements and internal Acronym documents suggest that the two companies , which share office space in Denver , Colorado , are deeply intertwined .
Last year , McGowan , a co-founder of Acronym , wrote on Twitter that she was “ so excited to announce @ anotheracronym has acquired Groundbase , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredible team led by [ Gerard Niemira ] + are launching Shadow , a new tech company to build smarter infrastructure for campaigns.
” McGowan also noted that “ With Shadow , we ’ re building a new model incentivized by adoption over growth.
” The acquisition was announced in mid-January of last year .
In an interview on a related podcast last month , McGowan described Niemira as “ the CEO of Shadow , which is the technology company that Acronym is the sole investor in now.
” What ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close relationship with Shadow .
An internal organizational chart shows digital strategy firm Lockwood Strategy , FWIW Media , and Shadow as part of a unified structure , with Acronym staff involved in the trio ’ s operations .
In an all-staff email sent last Friday , an official with Lockwood Strategy reminded team members about “ COOL THINGS HAPPENING AROUND ACRONYM.
” The list included bullets points such as , “ The Iowa caucus is on Monday , and the Shadow team is hard at work , ” and “ Shadow is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shadow Messaging for some Iowa caucus clients.
” ( VAN refers to the widely used Democratic voter file technology firm . )
Acronym staffers also attended the Shadow staff retreat .
A person with knowledge of the company ’ s culture , who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal , shared communications showing that top officials at the company regularly expressed hostility to Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s supporters .
McGowan is married to Michael Halle , a senior strategist with the Buttigieg campaign .
There is no evidence any preference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coding issue that is stalling the Iowa results .
Acronym launched with a promise to compete with the Trump campaign ’ s strong emphasis on digital media , launching Democratic messages through paid advertisements on Facebook and other platforms .
But the source said the company in many ways was woefully unprepared for the many challenges it had taken on , including the Iowa caucus app .
A precinct captain for Sanders , who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press , confirmed that the rollout was rushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the app until like a month ago .
And we didn ’ t have access to the app until like three days ago , ” the source said .
“ This app has never been used in any real election or tested at a statewide scale and it ’ s only been contemplated for use for two months now , ” David Jefferson , who also serves on the board of Verified Voting , a nonpartisan election integrity organization , told the New York Times .
Federal campaign finance records show that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party retained Shadow to develop its caucus app .
Shadow has also been retained for digital services by Buttigieg ’ s campaign , which paid the company $ 42,500 for software-related services last July , and by Joe Biden ’ s campaign , which paid Shadow $ 1,225 for text messaging services , last July as well .
Shadow was launched by former staffers to Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign , including Niemira , Krista Davis , Ahna Rao , and James Hickey , according to professional biographies listed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a request for comment .
Acronym , which includes a hybrid model of a 501 ( c ) 4 entity that does not disclose donors and a Super PAC that does , has been a favorite for deep-pocketed Democratic donors .
Donald Sussman , the founder of Paloma Partners , and Michael Moritz , a partner at Sequoia Capital , each donated $ 1 million to Acronym last year .
Filmmaker Steven Spielberg gave $ 500,000 .
Investor Seth Klarman , once a major donor to Republican causes , gave $ 1.5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deleted portions of its website showcasing its involvement in Shadow .
“ ACRONYM is thrilled to announce the launch of Shadow , a new technology company that will exist under the ACRONYM umbrella and build accessible technological infrastructure and tools to enable campaigns to better harness , integrate and manage data across the platforms and technologies they all use , ” wrote Niemira in a now-deleted blog post .
This morning , William McCurdy II , the chair of the Nevada Democratic Party , released a statement announcing that the party will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February caucus .
“ NV Dems can confidently say that what happened in the Iowa caucus last night will not happen in Nevada on February 22nd .
We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus , ” said McCurdy .
“ We had already developed a series of backups and redundant reporting systems , and are currently evaluating the best path forward .
”

Democratic operative Tara McGowan is denying that her high-profile liberal firm ACRONYM played a role in the Monday evening caucus debacle, claiming that her firm was merely an investor in the company Shadow Inc., which developed the app at the center of the controversy. But internal company documents, a source close to the firms, and public records show a close and intertwined relationship between Acronym and Shadow.
In addition, ahead of the caucuses, questions swirled inside Shadow over the company’s ability to deliver a quality product, and there was concern from at least one staff member that senior leaders of Shadow and Acronym — both of which were launched as a new Democratic bulwark against President Donald Trump — have been far from neutral in the Democratic primary.
Throughout the caucus yesterday, Democratic officials reported widespread problems downloading the app and inconsistencies uploading caucus results, leading to the Iowa Democratic Party’s decision to take the unusual step of delaying the release of the results. This is the first year the app was used, and ahead of the caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party asked that the app’s name be kept secret. The New York Times reported that “its creators had repeatedly questioned the need to keep it secret.”
Kyle Tharp, a spokesperson for Acronym, released a statement on Monday night downplaying his company’s affiliation with Shadow.
“ACRONYM is an investor in several for-profit companies across the progressive media and technology sectors,” Tharp said. “One of those independent, for-profit companies is Shadow, Inc, which also has other private investors.”
David Plouffe, a former campaign manager to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential bid who joined Acronym’s board, also distanced himself from the company during an MSNBC panel last night. “I have no knowledge of Shadow,” said Plouffe. “It was news to me.”
But previous statements and internal Acronym documents suggest that the two companies, which share office space in Denver, Colorado, are deeply intertwined.
Last year, McGowan, a co-founder of Acronym, wrote on Twitter that she was “so excited to announce @anotheracronym has acquired Groundbase,” a firm that included “their incredible team led by [Gerard Niemira] + are launching Shadow, a new tech company to build smarter infrastructure for campaigns.” McGowan also noted that “With Shadow, we’re building a new model incentivized by adoption over growth.” The acquisition was announced in mid-January of last year.
In an interview on a related podcast last month, McGowan described Niemira as “the CEO of Shadow, which is the technology company that Acronym is the sole investor in now.”
What’s more, internal documents from Acronym show a close relationship with Shadow. An internal organizational chart shows digital strategy firm Lockwood Strategy, FWIW Media, and Shadow as part of a unified structure, with Acronym staff involved in the trio’s operations.
In an all-staff email sent last Friday, an official with Lockwood Strategy reminded team members about “COOL THINGS HAPPENING AROUND ACRONYM.” The list included bullets points such as, “The Iowa caucus is on Monday, and the Shadow team is hard at work,” and “Shadow is working on scaling up VAN integration with Shadow Messaging for some Iowa caucus clients.” (VAN refers to the widely used Democratic voter file technology firm.) Acronym staffers also attended the Shadow staff retreat.
A person with knowledge of the company’s culture, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, shared communications showing that top officials at the company regularly expressed hostility to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s supporters. McGowan is married to Michael Halle, a senior strategist with the Buttigieg campaign. There is no evidence any preference of candidates had any effect on the coding issue that is stalling the Iowa results.
The Iowa Democratic Party and the Nevada Democratic Party retained Shadow to develop its caucus app. Shadow has also been retained for digital services by Buttigieg’s and Biden’s campaigns.
Acronym launched with a promise to compete with the Trump campaign’s strong emphasis on digital media, launching Democratic messages through paid advertisements on Facebook and other platforms. But the source said the company in many ways was woefully unprepared for the many challenges it had taken on, including the Iowa caucus app.
A precinct captain for Sanders, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press, confirmed that the rollout was rushed. “We didn’t know about the app until like a month ago. And we didn’t have access to the app until like three days ago,” the source said.
“This app has never been used in any real election or tested at a statewide scale and it’s only been contemplated for use for two months now,” David Jefferson, who also serves on the board of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan election integrity organization, told the New York Times.
Federal campaign finance records show that the Iowa Democratic Party and the Nevada Democratic Party retained Shadow to develop its caucus app. Shadow has also been retained for digital services by Buttigieg’s campaign, which paid the company $42,500 for software-related services last July, and by Joe Biden’s campaign, which paid Shadow $1,225 for text messaging services, last July as well.
Shadow was launched by former staffers to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, including Niemira, Krista Davis, Ahna Rao, and James Hickey, according to professional biographies listed on LinkedIn. Shadow did not respond to a request for comment.
Acronym, which includes a hybrid model of a 501(c)4 entity that does not disclose donors and a Super PAC that does, has been a favorite for deep-pocketed Democratic donors. Donald Sussman, the founder of Paloma Partners, and Michael Moritz, a partner at Sequoia Capital, each donated $1 million to Acronym last year. Filmmaker Steven Spielberg gave $500,000. Investor Seth Klarman, once a major donor to Republican causes, gave $1.5 million to Acronym.
Acronym appears to have deleted portions of its website showcasing its involvement in Shadow. “ACRONYM is thrilled to announce the launch of Shadow, a new technology company that will exist under the ACRONYM umbrella and build accessible technological infrastructure and tools to enable campaigns to better harness, integrate and manage data across the platforms and technologies they all use,” wrote Niemira in a now-deleted blog post.
This morning, William McCurdy II, the chair of the Nevada Democratic Party, released a statement announcing that the party will not be using the Shadow app for its February caucus.
“NV Dems can confidently say that what happened in the Iowa caucus last night will not happen in Nevada on February 22nd. We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus,” said McCurdy. “We had already developed a series of backups and redundant reporting systems, and are currently evaluating the best path forward.”


theintercept--2020-02-04--Fear Is the Democracy Killer, Not Hackers

some synapses snapped deep in the American psyche , when it became perfectly normal to accuse someone who disagrees with you online of being a robot .
The breathless , perpetually freaked out coverage of Russian social media spamming before the 2016 election birthed its own cottage industry ; technology reporters , cable pundits , and bored Twitter users into battlefield correspondents overnight , deep in tweet-pocked trenches of “ information warfare , ” “ misinformation ops , ” and other themes at home in a late-career Tom Clancy novel .
A buggy smartphone app , reportedly rushed into use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party for delaying the transmission of caucus results , expected Monday night , well into Tuesday afternoon .
Whatever the screw-ups at the Iowa Caucus may turn out to be — malicious or merely stupid — that botched tallying process , and the loud reaction it has provoked , is indicative of a danger nearly as grave as whatever “ cybersecurity experts ” say concerns them : When you ’ re told over and over that we ’ re at Cyber War , everything is going to feel like an attack .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election , particularly an app rushed together on a shoestring budget , is of course a bad idea .
It ’ s a bad idea because literally anything on a smartphone can be tampered with given sufficient motivation , time , and resources .
Any credible expert in the field of voting and electoral integrity will tell you that hardware and software should be kept to an absolute lo-fi minimum , for the simple reason that there ’ s almost always a way to hack a computer , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tree pulp and ink .
But adding computer code to a caucus also allows for an outcome much likelier than a digital intrusion : hysteria , confusion , and civic nihilism .
The American public has become so keyed up on reports of “ Democracy is being hacked ” that it feels similar to what 20 years of war on terror has done to our brains : Every popped balloon , stalled car , and curbside pressure cooker evokes fears of creeping jihad .
Now every crummy app failure is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Something changed, some synapses snapped deep in the American psyche, when it became perfectly normal to accuse someone who disagrees with you online of being a robot. The breathless, perpetually freaked out coverage of Russian social media spamming before the 2016 election birthed its own cottage industry; technology reporters, cable pundits, and bored Twitter users into battlefield correspondents overnight, deep in tweet-pocked trenches of “information warfare,” “misinformation ops,” and other themes at home in a late-career Tom Clancy novel. A buggy smartphone app, reportedly rushed into use, has been blamed by the Iowa Democratic Party for delaying the transmission of caucus results, expected Monday night, well into Tuesday afternoon. Whatever the screw-ups at the Iowa Caucus may turn out to be — malicious or merely stupid — that botched tallying process, and the loud reaction it has provoked, is indicative of a danger nearly as grave as whatever “cybersecurity experts” say concerns them: When you’re told over and over that we’re at Cyber War, everything is going to feel like an attack.
Using an app in any part of an election, particularly an app rushed together on a shoestring budget, is of course a bad idea. It’s a bad idea because literally anything on a smartphone can be tampered with given sufficient motivation, time, and resources. Any credible expert in the field of voting and electoral integrity will tell you that hardware and software should be kept to an absolute lo-fi minimum, for the simple reason that there’s almost always a way to hack a computer, but it’s quite harder to hack a thin sheet of tree pulp and ink.
But adding computer code to a caucus also allows for an outcome much likelier than a digital intrusion: hysteria, confusion, and civic nihilism. The American public has become so keyed up on reports of “Democracy is being hacked” that it feels similar to what 20 years of war on terror has done to our brains: Every popped balloon, stalled car, and curbside pressure cooker evokes fears of creeping jihad. Now every crummy app failure is going to give us pangs of techno-conspiracy too.
We risk the worst of all outcomes, a profound loss of faith in the electoral process.
Which isn’t to say this is mere paranoia. We know from federal prosecutors that Russian military intelligence did in fact breach VR Systems, a Florida-based e-voting vendor, before the 2016 election. Voting machines and the firms that sell them are a mess of incompetence and vulnerabilities, all exacerbated by our national thirst for instant results at any cost. So it’s still possible that there was some malign conspiracy behind the bungled caucus. But by turning from the simplest explanation for Iowa’s botched caucus — incompetent chummy democratic contractors cranking out a bad product to make a quick buck — and instead embracing a subplot from a William Gibson book, we risk the worst of all outcomes: a profound loss of faith in the electoral process and a defeated outlook in which we are always under attack. The Cyber Bad Guys are always peering from behind a corner, and your vote is just waiting to be hacked away. As a democracy it seems clear we can weather a barrage of low-resolution JPEGs being spewed out of St. Petersburg, but not so clear that we can survive a national assumption of conspiracy and chaos every time we hit a bump. Our default national attitude of assuming the cyber-worst at every cyber-turn won’t lead to stronger electoral systems that resist meddling, but a cynical electorate who can’t see the point in trying anymore.
In the end that may be the actual victory achieved by Russia: not altered results, not stolen votes, but an American voting public too anxious to think straight, driven mad by sprawling Twitter threads and screenshot theories. Iowa’s caucus is only the first failure in what will be a long, messy slog before November. If we continue to assume the worst (or listen to those who speculate on what could be the worst), it’s hard to imagine a greater gift for enemies of the American vote, at home or abroad.


theintercept--2020-02-04--Federal Judge Reverses Conviction of Border Volunteers, Challenging Government’s “Gruesome Logic”

The defendants in the case — Natalie Hoffman , Oona Holcomb , Madeline Huse , and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick — were fined and given probation in March of last year for entering the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge in the summer of 2017 without a permit , driving on a restricted access road and leaving food , water , and other humanitarian aid supplies for migrants passing through in the summer heat .
They were the first among a group of volunteers with the faith-based humanitarian group , No More Deaths , to go to trial for their aid work in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ District Judge Rosemary Márquez , marked the latest rebuke of the Trump administration ’ s crackdown on humanitarian aid providers in southern Arizona , and the second time in matter of months that a religious freedom defense has prevailed in a federal case involving the provision of aid to migrants in the borderlands .
The remains of roughly 3,000 migrants have been recovered in Pima County alone since 2000 .
Experts are confident that the true death toll is much higher .
Situated at the heart of the Sonoran Desert , the Cabeza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spaces in the region .
As Márquez made clear in her decision , the No More Deaths volunteers admitted to the factual claims in the case : that they left aid supplies in “ an area of desert wilderness where people frequently die of dehydration and exposure.
” But in appealing their convictions , Márquez went on to write , the defendants had successfully argued that their actions — imbued “ with the avowed goal of mitigating death and suffering ” — were protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act , or RFRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercising their “ sincere religious beliefs , ” Márquez wrote , while the government failed to demonstrate that its application of the refuge rules was carried out in the “ least restrictive ” manner available .
Katherine Franke , a law professor at Columbia , where she is faculty director of the Law , Rights , and Religion Project , called the reversal “ fantastic.
” Last year , Franke and her colleagues published a report illustrating how the federal government has routinely sided with right-wing or conservative causes in religious freedom cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No More Deaths cases closely , filing motions in support of RFRA defenses .
“ The lower court ’ s opinion was so horrible just as a matter of legal reasoning , that it was really nice to see the judge apply a thorough and careful analysis of the religious liberty claim , ” Franke told The Intercept .
While she anticipates a government appeal , Franke said Monday ’ s reversal provides a solid foundation for applying RFRA in similar legal contexts .
“ The government isn ’ t going to roll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or two , ” she explained .
“ But what we ’ ve got now is a developing record of careful analysis from federal courts on how RFRA ought to apply in contexts like this.
” Márquez ’ s decision comes just four months after U.S. District Judge Raner Collins reached a similar decision in the case of Scott Warren , another No More Deaths volunteer hit with federal misdemeanor charges for leaving humanitarian supplies on Cabeza Prieta , who also successfully deployed a RFRA defense against the government ’ s charges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the U.S. attorney ’ s office in Arizona brought felony charges against Warren for providing food , water , and a place to sleep to two young migrants in 2018 .
He faced up to 20 years in prison .
The first felony trial ended in hung jury .
The second led to an acquittal in November .
All told , Trump administration prosecutors , working alongside U.S. Border Patrol as well as Fish and Wildlife officials , have brought charges against nine No More Deaths volunteers in the past two and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversal offers the latest evidence that the lengthy prosecutorial campaign has not only failed , it has now resulted in two novel cases in which RFRA has been used to successfully defend the provision of humanitarian aid on the border .
Not only that , Márquez included in her decision a critique of the government ’ s reasoning — one that Franke described as a “ stinging defeat.
” Federal prosecutors had argued that the government had a compelling interest in “ enforcing the border and controlling immigration , ” Márquez wrote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with immigration offenses , the government “ nonetheless ” argued that their actions “ furthered and encouraged illegal smuggling activity ” on the wildlife refuge .
“ The government seems to rely on a deterrence theory , reasoning that preventing clean water and food from being placed on the refuge would increase the risk of death or extreme illness for those seeking to cross unlawfully , which in turn would discourage or deter people from attempting to enter without authorization , ” the judge wrote .
“ In other words , the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death .
”

A federal judge in Tucson, Arizona, reversed the conviction of four humanitarian aid volunteers on religious freedom grounds Monday, ruling that the government had embraced a “gruesome logic” that criminalizes “interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death.”
The reversal, written by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez, marked the latest rebuke of the Trump administration’s crackdown on humanitarian aid providers in southern Arizona, and the second time in matter of months that a religious freedom defense has prevailed in a federal case involving the provision of aid to migrants in the borderlands.
The defendants in the case — Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse, and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick — were fined and given probation in March of last year for entering the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge in the summer of 2017 without a permit, driving on a restricted access road and leaving food, water, and other humanitarian aid supplies for migrants passing through in the summer heat. They were the first among a group of volunteers with the faith-based humanitarian group, No More Deaths, to go to trial for their aid work in 2019.
The remains of roughly 3,000 migrants have been recovered in Pima County alone since 2000. Experts are confident that the true death toll is much higher. Situated at the heart of the Sonoran Desert, the Cabeza Prieta refuge is one of the deadliest spaces in the region. As Márquez made clear in her decision, the No More Deaths volunteers admitted to the factual claims in the case: that they left aid supplies in “an area of desert wilderness where people frequently die of dehydration and exposure.” But in appealing their convictions, Márquez went on to write, the defendants had successfully argued that their actions — imbued “with the avowed goal of mitigating death and suffering” — were protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.
The defendants established that they were exercising their “sincere religious beliefs,” Márquez wrote, while the government failed to demonstrate that its application of the refuge rules was carried out in the “least restrictive” manner available.
Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia, where she is faculty director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project, called the reversal “fantastic.” Last year, Franke and her colleagues published a report illustrating how the federal government has routinely sided with right-wing or conservative causes in religious freedom cases. The law professor has followed the No More Deaths cases closely, filing motions in support of RFRA defenses. “The lower court’s opinion was so horrible just as a matter of legal reasoning, that it was really nice to see the judge apply a thorough and careful analysis of the religious liberty claim,” Franke told The Intercept. While she anticipates a government appeal, Franke said Monday’s reversal provides a solid foundation for applying RFRA in similar legal contexts.
“The government isn’t going to roll over just because they lose a case or two,” she explained. “But what we’ve got now is a developing record of careful analysis from federal courts on how RFRA ought to apply in contexts like this.”
Márquez’s decision comes just four months after U.S. District Judge Raner Collins reached a similar decision in the case of Scott Warren, another No More Deaths volunteer hit with federal misdemeanor charges for leaving humanitarian supplies on Cabeza Prieta, who also successfully deployed a RFRA defense against the government’s charges. In addition to the federal misdemeanor case, the U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona brought felony charges against Warren for providing food, water, and a place to sleep to two young migrants in 2018. He faced up to 20 years in prison. The first felony trial ended in hung jury. The second led to an acquittal in November. All told, Trump administration prosecutors, working alongside U.S. Border Patrol as well as Fish and Wildlife officials, have brought charges against nine No More Deaths volunteers in the past two and a half years.
Monday’s reversal offers the latest evidence that the lengthy prosecutorial campaign has not only failed, it has now resulted in two novel cases in which RFRA has been used to successfully defend the provision of humanitarian aid on the border. Not only that, Márquez included in her decision a critique of the government’s reasoning — one that Franke described as a “stinging defeat.”
Federal prosecutors had argued that the government had a compelling interest in “enforcing the border and controlling immigration,” Márquez wrote, and while the defendants were not charged with immigration offenses, the government “nonetheless” argued that their actions “furthered and encouraged illegal smuggling activity” on the wildlife refuge. “The government seems to rely on a deterrence theory, reasoning that preventing clean water and food from being placed on the refuge would increase the risk of death or extreme illness for those seeking to cross unlawfully, which in turn would discourage or deter people from attempting to enter without authorization,” the judge wrote. “In other words, the government claims a compelling interest in preventing defendants from interfering with a border enforcement strategy of deterrence by death.”
“This gruesome logic is profoundly disturbing,” Márquez wrote. “It is also speculative and unsupported by evidence.” In 2017, 32 sets of human remains were recovered on the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge, the judge noted. “The government produced no evidence that these fatalities had any effect in deterring unlawful entry,” she wrote. “Nor has the government produced evidence that increasing the death toll would have such an effect.”
Greg Kuykendall, the lead attorney in Scott Warren’s misdemeanor and felony cases, said the reversal was correct on both legal and moral grounds. “It’s an incredibly thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion,” Kuykendall told The Intercept. In addition to offering a clear historical account of when and how RFRA should be applied, Kuykendall argued that Márquez’s diagnosis of “strategy of deterrence by death” reflected a clear-eyed understanding of what’s at stake in criminalizing humanitarian aid. “That’s exactly what it is,” Kuykendall said. “That’s what the government refuses to actually openly state, but they need dead bodies in order for their deterrence strategies to work.”
“It’s been laid out for judges in the past,” Kuykendall went on to say, “but she has connected the dots and very clearly explains that for the government’s enforcement strategy to work, the more dead bodies the better, and in fact, if you don’t have dead bodies, then it’s not working.”


theintercept--2020-02-04--Sanders Campaign’s Internal Caucus Numbers Show Them Leading Iowa, With Biden a Distant Fourth

Iowa Democratic Party unable to collect and release results after the Iowa caucuses on Monday , the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders took it upon itself to release the numbers it collected from nearly 40 percent of precincts , tabulated by its campaign organizers .
The Sanders campaign reported that it received 29.7 percent of the vote , closely followed by former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 24.6 percent .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren came in at 21.2 percent , and former Vice President Joe Biden was fourth at 12.4 percent .
Sanders put those numbers out shortly after Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The party said it would release the official results on Tuesday .
Jeff Weaver , Sanders ’ s campaign adviser , explained the decision to release the numbers in a statement .
“ We recognize that this does not replace the full data from the Iowa Democratic Party , but we believe firmly that our supporters worked too hard for too long to have that work delayed , ” he said .
Buttigieg ’ s campaign also claimed a lead based on internal numbers , telling CNBC that “ data provided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precinct captains showed Buttigieg in the lead .
The campaign aide said that internal projections prior to the caucus suggested that the race would be a tie , but that the internal numbers so far showed Buttigieg performing 8 percentage points better than expected , enough to win first place.
” The Sanders campaign ’ s decision to release its internal results came after hours of frustration with the Iowa Democratic Party , whose app contributed to delays in the reporting of precinct results .
The Iowa Democratic Party had kept the identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under wraps , claiming that divulging details would make the app vulnerable to hacking .
As HuffPost first reported , the app was built by Shadow , a tech company owned by Acronym , a Democratic digital nonprofit launched in the wake of the 2016 election , which pitched itself as a progressive answer to Republican dominance of the digital field .
The company put out a statement early Tuesday morning saying that it didn ’ t provide technology to the state or national party , or to any campaigns , but only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a proud boast from Acronym ’ s founder last year : The possible win represents a turnaround for a campaign that was left for dead in the fall , as Sanders foundered in the polls and lay in a Las Vegas hospital , recovering from a heart attack , while Warren was riding high .
But the lack of official results from the Iowa Democratic Party threatens to overshadow any momentum or decline for any individual candidate .
Heading into the caucus , the Sanders campaign ’ s strategy hinged on high voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonvoters into voters and expanding the electorate .
( At a rally in Queens , New York , this fall , Sanders said , “ On caucus night , turn on the TV early , and if the moderator tells you there ’ s a large voter turnout , we win .
If they tell you there ’ s a low voter turnout , we lose .
It ’ s really as simple as that.
” ) Iowa is the first test for that strategy ; the state was expected to see record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have yet been reported , party officials in Iowa said that turnout was lower than it was in 2016 .
Sanders ’ s internal figures — again , which they said reported nearly 40 percent of precincts — showed 87,396 voters for the first count of voters and 79,162 for the final count .
Buttigieg ’ s presumed rise in the Iowa caucus — and Biden ’ s fall — follow weeks of volatility in polling .
Last week , as Sanders surged , Buttigieg dropped in a number of polls , falling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Iowa poll and losing 2 points in its national poll .
He stayed level at 7 percent in a Fox poll , but fell behind not only Sanders , Warren , and Biden , but also former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg .
While each of the candidates gave a speech Monday night as caucus results were delayed , Buttigieg stood out for touting his own victory — even as zero percent of precinct results had yet to come in .
“ By all indications , we are going on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Biden — whose drop from presumed nominee over the past year to a reported 12.4 percent by the Sanders campaign — had recently suffered a series of bad press days over his record of wanting to cut Social Security benefits in order to balance the budget .
Despite enjoying frontrunner status for nearly a year , Biden ’ s campaign sputtered in recent months , losing 2 points in both Emerson ’ s national and Iowa polls since December , and recently losing traction among older voters .
Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks of bad press following a public dispute with Sanders , after CNN reported that Sanders had confided to Warren during a private dinner in 2018 that he did not believe a woman could defeat President Donald Trump .
Over the following days , the campaigns exchanged jabs at one another , and the candidates themselves sparred at a Democratic debate , fueling near-constant media coverage , though surrogates from both campaigns later downplayed its significance .
Afterward , Warren ’ s approval ratings in Iowa sank from a high of 28 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going into the caucus .
In Iowa , the Warren campaign touted her core message on economic populist ideas , including her signature wealth tax , as well as policies tailored for the struggles of small farmers .
Warren promised an antitrust campaign focused on breaking up the increasing consolidation with agribusiness industry , as well as the right for small farmers to repair their own equipment .
Warren ’ s focus on inequality earned her the Des Moines Register endorsement , which praised her as “ a thinker , a policy wonk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poured in on Twitter from individual satellite caucuses , many of which are focused around particular constituencies like union members and Muslim Americans .
Sanders appeared to do well among these groups , including at the Muslim Community Organization in Des Moines , where Sanders won 99 percent of caucus-goers , turning out 115 people to one or two people for other candidates .
At a Latino caucus site , Sanders won 94 percent , according to one report .
At the first satellite caucus , at a union hall in Ottumwa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 15 caucus-goers , many of them of Ethiopian origin or descent .
Update : February 4 , 2020 , 8:48 a.m .
This piece has been updated with the Buttigieg campaign ’ s statement to CNBC about its own internal numbers .