Chaos Isn’t a Ladder, It’s a Caucus in Iowa

Avatar

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire.

Related Post Roulette

174 Responses

  1. Avatar Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    Reportedly there was a typo in the design doc for the app: The developers thought that they were supposed to deliver an app to facilitate a caucup.Report

  2. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    The statement said the snafu, which left cable anchors with hours to fill and nothing to say

    OH THE HUMANITY! Won’t you please think of the journalists and anchors who have nothing to say!?Report

  3. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m not sure why the primary voting can’t be a rolling, or a random, schedule? This year it’s IA, then NH, then… Next year it’s FL, then WI, then…

    Pretty sure my son could hack up a program that randomly orders the states in about an hour, and he’s still playing with Lego Boost.Report

    • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      Iowa has a state law binding the state political parties that says they must schedule their caucuses earlier than any other state. I’m looking forward to Iowa v. Democratic National Committee after the DNC announces that if Iowa goes first, their delegates won’t be seated by the national convention.Report

      • Avatar LTL FTC in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        That’s what I was thinking too – what’s the plan for doing this?

        The fact that Iowa has a Byzantine caucus system and insufficient cumulative melanin for modern media optics is not news and hasn’t been for a long time.

        The difference here is that the complaint is about competence and can’t completely be chalked up to special pleading from losers. More likely, there will be some “reforms” that solve this years’ problems, but come January 2024, we’ll be back among the cornfields.Report

        • Avatar LTL FTC in reply to LTL FTC
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s also worth noting that NH and IA are routinely have some of the closest margins in general election presidential races. If the dems move to a regional system or simply switch to a safe state, all that campaigning and organization goes away and two purple states go red.Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to LTL FTC
          Ignored
          says:

          Eh, the *best* thing about Iowa going first is the Caucus system.

          There’s something exactly right about the first time people officially state their preferences that it be done live, in person, and as a rolling ranked choice process.

          Ironically, technology should make it even more interesting by capturing not just the results, but the very first outline of preferences, and then tracking the (anonymous) movement of votes from group to group x1700 caucuses. Simple Web interfaces could easily capture all this data and make the Caucus system even more interesting in post-analysis.

          The fact that their tech for reporting broke doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done or that caucusing should be abolished.Report

          • Avatar LTL FTC in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            It’s a unique spectacle, that’s for sure. But for a person like me who knows not to have any political opinions under a real name because doing so is equivalent to painting a huge target on your back, the secret ballot has its appeal.Report

            • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to LTL FTC
              Ignored
              says:

              Sure, I suppose in this era of phones/social media that’s a new(er) dimension to consider. But, I do think its fair to recognize that this is an internal meeting to express preferences for a party you’ve already declared for. How one votes in the general? That’s secret.

              But, one way to address those concerns might be a virtual caucus with a phone app…Report

              • Avatar LTL FTC in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s even worse within the party than cross-party these days. Imagine doing something like that in a lefty stronghold instead of a place where you’re more likely to know your neighbor. I’m a lifelong Democrat, probably to the left of the median national Democrat in many issues, and there is no way I’d state a preference in front of my neighborhood’s “activists.”

                I see the community board meetings in my neighborhood and see the chaos, rage, and entitlement.

                If there was a California caucus, would I be surprised if someone tried to prevent the tabulation of results at some SF precinct because the preferences of trans women of color weren’t “centered” because candidate that the loudest among their number preferred lost? Heck no. Or that some dumb procedural decision with no effect on the outcome is “white supremacy” if the wrong candidate wins? You can’t tell me it isn’t extremely easy to picture.

                I’ve seen people picket outside someone’s employer for having the wrong opinion on a zoning question at a community board meeting, for chrissakes. When the personal is political, you can win the politics by destroying the person.

                Re-read Freddie DeBoer’s “Planet of Cops” essay and tell me again that a secret ballot isn’t necessary within a party. This one specifically.Report

              • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to LTL FTC
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re already seeing this in IA, where people are complaining about disabled people being excluded from the caucuses.Report

              • Avatar LTL FTC in reply to Slade the Leveller
                Ignored
                says:

                To be fair, accessibility of polling places is a nationwide issue.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        Oh funReport

  4. Avatar Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    This is how you get Biden.Report

  5. Avatar InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    Allegedly the tech company who built the app is run by…. veterans from the tech arm of HRC’s 2016 campaign…

    http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-04/clinton-campaign-vets-behind-2020-iowa-caucus-app-snafuReport

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      In the DNC’s defense, this is more likely to be evidence of staggering arrogance coupled with off-the-scale incompetence than it is likely to be malice.Report

      • Avatar InMD in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I strongly doubt malice. Just really staggering incompetence.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s interesting to notice how often off-the-scale incompetence can be traced back to people on Hillary Clinton’s team, isn’t it?Report

      • Avatar Pinky in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I hope so. Andrew’s passing comment about conspiracies is something I hadn’t thought about. But that’s the era we live in, right? We spread them because we think they make us sound clever, as if fooling yourself has more dignity than being fooled by someone else. We collect and trade them like baseball cards. We don’t even stop to think if we believe them, much less if they’re right.Report

        • Avatar InMD in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          I think that’s absolutely what’s coming next, the conspiracy theories that is. We’re just waiting to see what the DNC claims the results were so that they can take the appropriate shape.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          The conspiracy theory is comforting, because it implies grown-ups in charge that are competent enough to make the things that they want to have happen, happen.

          If only we could influence these grown-ups! Perhaps even join their circle!Report

  6. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    Ugh, well if it knocks Iowa off its perch it might be worth it. What a fish up.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to North
      Ignored
      says:

      Every candidate: “I spent three months humiliating myself to fluff a handful of middle-aged white people for this?”Report

    • Avatar InMD in reply to North
      Ignored
      says:

      Could be wrong but my gut is telling me this is going to be on a long list of bullet points coming out in November describing how Trump got re-elected.

      The sentiments expressed here strike me as entirely too plausible:

      https://www.theweek.com/articles-amp/893559/trump-just-won-iowa-democratic-caucusesReport

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        I think the writer needs to set down their phone and take a walk outside to get some fresh air.Report

        • Avatar InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Hey maybe so. I just know what I thought in 2016 and how wrong I turned out to be. If I were a person of any consequence in the party the last thing I’d want is to be caught complacent. People should already be getting fired and losing contracts.Report

      • Avatar North in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not ready to get that despondent. Primaries aren’t so easy to fish up. I have always hated caucuses and this will further diminish caucus states. As for the overall election- unless there’s an absolute parade of fish ups noone will be thinking about this a week from now let alone in November.Report

        • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to North
          Ignored
          says:

          Primaries aren’t so easy to fish up.

          Primaries have millions of dollars of government money behind them defining processes, acquiring software, testing, implementing audit processes, staffing, etc. Caucuses are done on the (extreme) cheap by the parties. Give me a few million dollars and I’ll provide Iowa with the smoothest running caucus anyone has ever seen.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to Michael Cain
            Ignored
            says:

            I wonder how much our national ethanol subsidies are worth to Iowa? This caucus screw up could easily cost Iowa its prominent place in campaigns, and it’s Iowa’s oversize political importance that makes prominent politicians say they’re all in for ethanol. Heck, I think the whole program started as a bribe to Iowa farmers.

            Legally, I don’t think there’s any way a court would find a proximate cause in the eventual end of ethanol subsidies and the Iowa DNC’s incompetence, but all the agricultural workers will know it. Heck, more than one top Democrat might want to end subsidies just to spite Iowa.

            That’s an easy one to spin, too. “Donald Trump: Protecting corn farmers from from Biden’s wrath!”

            But seriously, there’s a train of consequences that could see a lot of farmers and processors take a pretty big hit from this, and that’s probably not the only federal program that tilts Iowa’s way just because of the early caucus.Report

  7. Avatar Aaron David
    Ignored
    says:

    “Summer Is Coming”

    Report

  8. Avatar Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    Really, though, why do we care? There are still months of primaries to go. We already have a general idea of how things went; does it really matter if we have to wait a day or two to find out that candidate A got one or two fewer delegate and candidate D got one or two more than predicted by the unofficial counts?Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Brandon Berg
      Ignored
      says:

      Because one of the arguments we’re counting on for the upcoming fight against Trump is “Vote for the Democrats: At least they’re competent!”Report

  9. Avatar LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Veterran OTer James Hanley’s hot take is that we need to ditch causes and primaries and go back to National Conventions where party leaders select the Presidential candidate through wheeling and dealing. He believes that this will produce less narcissitic candidates for some reason.Report

    • Avatar Jesse in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      That’s basicallly impossible w/ the Internet and a more connected world. That’s the road to third, fourth, and fifth parties, and somebody becoming President with 29% of the vote and 293 electoral votes.Report

      • Avatar North in reply to Jesse
        Ignored
        says:

        Hanley would describe those all as features, not bugs.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jesse
        Ignored
        says:

        I think it’s a non-solution to. People have more free time to participate in politics. Not everybody does obviously. I think the percentage of Americans who never vote is around 60% or something but those that do will not take well to be told not to participate in their party’s candidate selection process for the good of the party and the nation.Report

      • Avatar Pinky in reply to Jesse
        Ignored
        says:

        I would assume that, if there were more significant minor parties, we’d be seeing candidates receive less than 270 EV. The Electoral College might cease to serve a function, but it would be replaced by the House of Representatives with no obligation or inclination to vote for the candidate who receives the most votes in his state. In this scenario, the rise of third parties would actually strengthen the two largest parties.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      He believes that this will produce less narcissitic candidates for some reason.

      No electoral system, actual or possible, could produce less narcissistic candidates than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Can’t be done!Report

    • Avatar JS in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      You know what they should do? Switch to a primary using Ranked Choice Voting.

      It’d be exactly like a caucus, except it’d take about 20 minutes and without the peer pressure from other voters.

      Instead you have to trudge out in crap weather, get jammed into a room with the neighbors you hate, and argue politics for 4 hours.Report

      • Avatar George Turner in reply to JS
        Ignored
        says:

        Well, there is, or was, a clear security advantage in the caucus system.

        Everybody gets together in rooms across the state, they divide themselves up by “tribe”, and then count each other until everyone is satisfied that the headcount, as recorded on a big tote board, is 100% correct. Then that number is transmitted to the state headquarters, and it can be read back and forth so everybody and their mother can verify that all the numbers are correct, and accurately reflect where everyone is standing in that room. Other than slipping in thousands of Russian agents dressed as Iowans, there’s no way to hack it without getting caught.

        The primary, and secret ballots in general, have the problem that nobody gets to see all the votes and tie each vote to a person. It’s all done on trust, trust that people aren’t stuffing the ballot box, trust that people aren’t dumping out valid votes that were cast, trust that those votes were accurately counted by some vote counter somewhere, and trust that the count was accurately transmitted and recorded.

        If I was trying to hack Iowas vote and had millions of dollars in black money to do it, whether through hacks or bribes, I would urge them to use a conventional primary because, as I said, a caucus is an unbreakable system.

        Yet somehow the DNC managed to break it.Report

  10. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    Last night mayor Pete rushed out an announced that he had won it. I think shows his lack of political skills because that surely pissed off the four out of five Iowa Democrats who voted for someone else – and are pretty sure Pete did not in fact win it. Last night’s debacle was instead a prime opportunity for a candidate to come out, share the voter’s frustrations, and then say something that was sage, wry, amusing, and reaffirming. Taking advantage of the confusion to try and steal the football and make a quick break for the exit just doesn’t look good.Report

  11. Avatar Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The sliver lining may be that this demonstrates the weakness of high tech election systems and the resiliency of paper ballots.

    Even if the software wasn’t rigged or hacked, that it could so easily fail makes the case for continued low tech systems.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      After one of W’s elections (I think it was the first) enough Diebold shenanigans were reported that a group called Black Box Voting formed, which tested those machines and found that any ole minimally proficient hacker could gain access to every area of the voting process, from recording votes to precinct totals to state wide tabulations. That was twenty years ago.Report

    • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      The sliver lining may be that this demonstrates the weakness of high tech election systems and the resiliency of paper ballots.

      HA! No, it won’t.

      No matter what anyone does, no matter the actual computer security experts say, we will continue idiotically keep moving forward on stupid technical things for voting.

      My state, after _finally_ having the courts say to it ‘You absolutely cannot use your crappy black box voting system for another election, or we will throw you all in jail’, is moving to a system that prints ballots…except for the utterly idiotic fact we’re talking about doing counts using the unreadable barcodes printed on them.

      I can’t even deal with the complete disconnect from reality. A decade of complaint that we can’t we confirm how we’re voting, and they’re switch to a system with a paper ballot…where we still can’t see how we’re voting, because it’s actually a barcode. Oh, but they’ll print the name on there, so we _think_ we know how ballot will be counted, but they literally will never look at that name, not even during a recount.

      It’s a constant, literal fight that governments have had, for decades, to run elections in literally the shittiest way possible, getting sued repeatedly, and spending way more money than just print and having people mark them. It’s actual complete insanity, it is the stupidest thing I have seen or heard of, literally incomprehensible.

      I’m sorry, I’m a little incoherent it, but words cannot express how stupid this two decade long fight has been, and it keeps going on.

      For a while there, I was saying ‘Hey, let’s just have a machine mark human readable paper ballot’. Screw that. They already figured out some way to screw that up, by making the part that does the actual vote unreadable, and I’m not going to sit there and patch every moronic loophole they figure out.

      I want a constitutional amendment that only allows pencil and paper voting. Period. (And, yeah, I know that sucks for disabled people, that you won’t be able to vote without assistance, but but I’m sorry, trying to solve that problem has somehow rendered literally the entire voting system untrustable. And we can’t do that. I will demand that all locations provide someone to help you mark it. We will figure something out. But it can’t be computers no one can inspect…not even disabled people!)

      But back to the topic at hand: What is _actually_ going to happen is more states will start using random apps to do this, and things will get worse and worse. Because, again, what is happening is sort of massive stupidity bubble around electronic voting that no one can do anything about.Report

  12. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Shadow Inc, the company who made the app that ruined everything, has apologized.

    Report

  13. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    With 5/8ths of the numbers in:

    Report

  14. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    I saw this noted on the Twitters. In the 2012 Republican Iowa caucus there were allegations of inappropriate behavior, a fustercluck and it took a couple weeks to get the results out. People said the process was amateurish and made the results in doubt.

    As i clearly remember when Obama beat Romney the universal 100% opinion was that a borked Iowa caucus was entirely the reason for that. And what are the chances my memory is wrong.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      From the Wikipedia:

      The 2012 Iowa caucuses took place on Tuesday, January 3, starting at 7 p.m. CST. Incumbent president Barack Obama only faced minor opposition in the Democratic caucus and received 98% of the vote, but the Republican caucus was heavily contested between several challengers. Initial results reported that Mitt Romney beat out Rick Santorum by just 8 votes, but when the final results came out two weeks later Rick Santorum secured the victory over Romney by a margin of 34 votes with Ron Paul in a strong 3rd. Results were certified by the Caucus, but not by the Republican party, who declared it a split decision due to missing reports from 8 precincts, but who later certified the caucus as a win for Santorum. The caucus winner changed yet again when the Iowa delegate totals were finally determined giving Ron Paul the win along with several other states that same weekend.

      Report

  15. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    CNN reported that Biden’s folks had tried to file an injunction to stop this afternoon’s release of the caucus results, but he later denied it after everybody hammered him.

    As I’ve said, that kind of attitude should be disqualifying in our democracy, because no matter who you think the voters should support, you have to tally the votes promptly and accurately instead of essentially tossing those votes in the trash until you get the result you want. Even if you get bad and tainted results, you put those out there as a starting point for a recount. Of course the Iowa DP didn’t help things with their “partial release”, which could be like releasing just the more urban precincts, or the pro-Bush counties in Florida while holding back the pro-Gore counties.

    And of course Biden’s stance just plays into the age-old idea that if Democrats are slow counting the votes, it’s because they’re still busy stuffing boxes with fake ballots.Report

  16. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I was pointed to this thread that discusses what likely went wrong with the App. (TL;DR: They’re constantly re-inventing the wheel with in-house proprietary software because open-source software can be used by Team Evil and they want to make tools that are only used by Team Good.)

    Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      There needs to be much more money in order to sustain things. The Obama and Clinton campaigns spent tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of dollars on tech but it was building tech which was mostly thrown away.

      … after they smashed it with hammers so the FBI couldn’t access it. ^_^

      It sounds like they have something akin to a pointed-haired boss problem.

      Let me suggest that freeware is the way forward. If they’re worried about the opposing side using their tech, well, with freeware it really wouldn’t matter, and the opposing side can use freeware anyway. If they’re worried about the tech somehow being turned against them, just use whatever freeware the local drug cartels use and trust that the cartels’ IT folks stayed on top of things so they wouldn’t get shot. I
      think a season three episode of Narcos is about this very thing. In fact I don’t see capabilities a political campaign would need that a drug cartel wouldn’t, from organizing, conducting research, planning events, fund raising, or distributing massive amounts of illegal money.

      They should take advantage of El Chapo being in federal custody and save the themselves and their donors some money.Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Well! Looks like they have learnt a lesson from the last half-dozen times they built a Death Laser. (One wishes that the lesson were “stop building Death Lasers” but, y’know, we see now that learning is possible…)Report

  17. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s a paper trail; that means that, screwed up as it was, the final tally will be more reliable than that of any state that uses purely electronic machines in their general elections.Report

  18. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Given the impeachment, I imagine that the best time to have released the numbers would have been in the middle of Romney’s speech (where Romney’s vote would have overshadowed them).

    As it is:

    Report

  19. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    A guy got sent a copy of the app. He wrote a series of tweets about it. Those of you who remember my (brief) foray into game development might see some parallels:

    Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      That was very informative. There are many products like that, where many on the team have just learned a bit about the tools they’re supposed to use, and are basically modifying a tutorial to make it fit what they’re trying to do.

      Who doesn’t do this? Top IT guys for narco-Columbian drug lords. Just sayin’.Report

  20. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Math is hard. Let’s go to the mall!

    Report

    • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I don’t think it’s a rounding error (I mean, it is, but that’s not the problem).

      The question is what you do with Klobuchar’s 30 votes which don’t meet the threshold.

      If you simply eliminate them (do they keep re-aligning until no groups are under the threshold?) then your denominator can’t be 204, but needs to be 171… in which case, the split is correct!

      But, if Klobuchar’s team is entitled to re-allocate in another division, then we don’t even have a valid caucus.

      …or so it seems from the instructions that are visible. Basically, depending on how you treat the non-compliant votes after the second division will make every submission that followed the instructions wrong… which is probably why they are having such a hard time figuring out what to do with all the nuked Klobuchar people (or whomever).Report

      • Avatar Ozzzy! in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        Nah it’s just unallocated delegates to the highest remainder below 0.5.Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Ozzzy!
          Ignored
          says:

          Can there be unallocated delegates? That would make sense too… looks like they just tried to figure out a way to allocate the 7 delegates. Perhaps all this is spelled out in detail below the section shown in the picture.Report

          • Avatar Ozzzy! in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            Short answer seems to be no, there cannot be unallocated delegates. Long answer is that the instructions below in the first image refer to the caucus rule book when there are unallocated delegates after rounding to integers, which in turn goes through the method of highest remainder below 0.5 allocation. Rule book is available online if you are interested, or just read more of the replies below JB’s tweet someone linked a pic there or the relevant page.Report

    • Avatar Road Scholar in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      This is a classic apportionment problem that practical math nerds have been gnawing on for a very long time. There are about a dozen or so distinct methods which divide into two main categories — quota methods and modified divisor methods. This looks like a modified divisor method, specifically Webster’s method (yeah, Daniel Webster), and that’s fine, it’s arguably the best of them.

      The problem, IMO, with the way the Iowa system works is that it’s a multi-level thing. The precincts choose delegates to the county conventions, which select delegates to the district conventions, which select delegates to the state convention, which choose the delegates to the national convention. At each level you have a (AFAICT) a similar apportionment process and errors just accumulate. And by “error” I don’t necessarily mean mistakes, just the way the math works, like how 1.499 gets rounded down and 1.500 gets rounded up. The math is legitimate at each level but the end results don’t necessarily reflect the initial precinct-level votes very accurately. It’s entirely possible for two candidates to have the same number of precinct-level votes but different delegate counts, or even for a candidate to get allocated more delegates than another candidate that got more votes.

      It’s just unnecessarily complicated.Report

  21. Avatar Ozzzy!
    Ignored
    says:

    IDK Jack, but it looks like most of those images are showing the awarding of unallocated delegates. Whatever. Reading instructions is actually pretty hard to get people to do.Report

  22. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Shot: Everything above.

    Chaser:

    Report

  23. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    An alternate theory of what happened:

    Report

  24. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Holy crap. It’s still 2016.

    Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Democratic Party internal politics is so vicious because the stakes are so small.

      No, that’s not right. The Democratic Party is comprised of big and small fiefdoms each pissing on each to retain scraps of self-serving power. {{Closer. It may take a few more snafus to really dial in on this.}}Report

  25. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has penned a long and excellent look at the Iowa caucus and the various campaigns and candidates. It lets you feel like you were one of the foot soldiers in the run up and the chaos.

    I highly recommend it, especially as a way to spend part of your slow Sunday.Report

  1. February 4, 2020

    […] and losing the nomination, is not good, despite the spin and confusion of the disaster the 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses turned into. In the absence of actual results — which we are still waiting on at this writing and frankly […]Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *